Episode 49: Roe Roe Roe – Stare and Stenchy

December 8, 2021

Following our two weeks of preparation and prediction, Professor Amar dissects last week’s oral argument in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health abortion case.

The oral argument is complete in the Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In our previous two episodes, Professor Amar prepared our audience with a remarkable menu of constitutional theory, a recap of the relevant cases and the orientation of the justices.  We now look at the actual argument and find where it cohered with Akhil’s notions.  We critique the arguments, the advocates, and the arbiters, and discuss arguments that might have been made.  Was precedent the theme, and did it have to be?  The voices of the justices, inserted in our podcast, put you right there, with Akhil as your guide.

Show Notes:

Transcript of Oral Argument

The December 1, 2021 oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, US Supreme Court.

Read and/or Download

The Document and the Doctrine - Harvard Law Review

Akhil Reed Amar, “The Document and the Doctrine.” Forward to the Supreme Court 1999 Term issue of the Harvard Law Review; 114 Harv. L. Rev. 26.  This article contains references and discussion of the 7 “naked overruling” in the 20th century, wherein the Supreme Court overruled a prior precedent simply because it was wrong.  See in particular Footnote 28, page 33.

Read and/or Download

‘Casey’s Dictum About Precedent Was Virtually Unprecedented’ - National Review

Legal Commentator Ed Whelan authors “Akhil Amar: ‘Casey’s Dictum About Precedent Was Virtually Unprecedented’” in the December 2, 2021 issue of the National Review.

Read and/or Download