
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
375375 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.

3,554 Listeners

669 Listeners

1,102 Listeners

2,011 Listeners

6,308 Listeners

32,346 Listeners

6,609 Listeners

7,210 Listeners

4,656 Listeners

5,816 Listeners

3,914 Listeners

3,344 Listeners

16,145 Listeners

744 Listeners

8,773 Listeners