Recently, a Supreme Court draft opinion (re: Dobbs v. Jackson) was leaked. Such a leak was unprecedented. The draft reveals the majority opinion that Roe was in error. The quality of the 1973 reasoning was faulty. The original ruling was not based on Constitutional law, and the ruling was deeply flawed. If this case is finally ruled upon at the court, and if they decide that Roe v. Wade was wrong, then the whole debate is simply returned to the states, where it rightfully belongs. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we will have states that are heavily pro-Abortion, like New York and California, and other states that are pro-life. There would be degrees in between. Our guest points out that a number of progressive legal experts who hold to abortion rights, nevertheless, believe that Roe was not constitutional law. They point out that Roe's abortion policy was not found in the Constitution. These sort of comments come from scholars such as Kermit Roosevelt, Mark Tushnet, and John Hart Ely. We talk about what it means when there is a precedent set. Are precedents cast in stone, as it were? What if the precedent of Dredd Scott v. Sanford was allowed to stand and not reversed? Or what if the segregation rulings of Plessy v. Ferguson were allowed to stand? Sometimes precedents are based on wrong reasoning and need to be corrected. The Supreme Court has overruled its own precedents more than 200 times. Participants: Thomas Jipping, Dan Elmendorf