
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Fifty years of controversial jurisprudence have followed Roe v. Wade, and now the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that many see as this story’s reckoning: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In our last episode Professor Amar identified “precedent” as the legal coordinates where the abortion road may fork. He now lays out the conflicting theories of precedent which the informed citizen needs to command when following this case. i Listeners to this episode will be armed with the tools to decipher today’s oral argument and tomorrow’s decision/opinion; indeed, in the briefs attached to this week’s “Show Notes,” both sides make arguments that will sound familiar to listeners to this podcast. One can only hope that the Justices are as informed as Amarica’s Constitution’s audience.
By Akhil Reed Amar4.5
376376 ratings
Fifty years of controversial jurisprudence have followed Roe v. Wade, and now the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that many see as this story’s reckoning: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In our last episode Professor Amar identified “precedent” as the legal coordinates where the abortion road may fork. He now lays out the conflicting theories of precedent which the informed citizen needs to command when following this case. i Listeners to this episode will be armed with the tools to decipher today’s oral argument and tomorrow’s decision/opinion; indeed, in the briefs attached to this week’s “Show Notes,” both sides make arguments that will sound familiar to listeners to this podcast. One can only hope that the Justices are as informed as Amarica’s Constitution’s audience.

3,530 Listeners

2,267 Listeners

1,110 Listeners

2,031 Listeners

6,304 Listeners

6,623 Listeners

7,244 Listeners

5,832 Listeners

617 Listeners

3,946 Listeners

3,357 Listeners

818 Listeners

16,525 Listeners

746 Listeners

8,447 Listeners