O Bergfeld News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Substantiative due process in the constitution, so they're just as wrong according to your theater. >> no, your honor. we're quite comfortable with washington versus glucksberg and how it analyzes substantiative due process and it looks at history and tradition to discipline -- >> i mean, in o'bergfeld, there was no history of same-sex marriage. >> and i think the court -- the court pointed out, look, when we were facing loving versus -- >> i'm not trying to argue that we should overturn those cases. i just think that you're dissimulating when you say that any ruling here wouldn't have an effe...

Question is never, is it bad to overrule period. you know, surely -- >> i'm asking you to think, in near terms, there were two they mentioned. and they don't want casey -- they don't want roe to be the third. and now in your opinion, you just answered justice barrett, hey, all of these are not rising to that level, okay. are there any that do rise to the level in your opinion? >> i think -- and i'm not sure that i necessarily agree with the watershed characterization, your honor. but what i would say, i can't think of another that hits the radar, but i would emphasize that the problem here is ...

States cannot legislate comprehensively on abortion before, after viability and throughout. it's history and tradition, your honor. and i would also add, your honor, that those decisions, a great many of them draw -- not just draw from text, history, and tradition, but they draw often clear lines, very workable, have not led to the many negative stare decisis factors that we identify here. >> general -- go ahead. go ahead. >> would a decision in your favor call any of the questions -- any of the cases that justice sotomayor is identifying into question? >> no, your honor. i think for a couple ...

0 say. >> really? >> yeah. they used to be more polite. i have to say, the court over the last few years has gotten a bit more sharp in their questioning. and even sometimes to each other, and making digs at each other. that's an unfortunate trend. but i think for the most part, you'll hear a respectful discussion of the issues between the advocates and the court. maybe the most important thing to think about is when the justices are asking a question, they're not necessarily wanting to hear the answer from the advocate. they're making a point to one of the other justices. and so you as the ad...