
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.

3,543 Listeners

2,273 Listeners

1,116 Listeners

2,023 Listeners

6,311 Listeners

6,618 Listeners

7,234 Listeners

5,873 Listeners

578 Listeners

3,955 Listeners

3,367 Listeners

817 Listeners

16,576 Listeners

745 Listeners

8,461 Listeners