Talk with the Authors: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

Randy and I will chat about our new books on Friday at 3 ET, and there will be a drawing for a free autographed copy.

On Friday at 3:00 ET, the Federalist Society will host a webinar about our new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. We will talk about the new edition of the paperback, as well as the newly-released hardcover coffee table book. We will also debut our new videos for Dobbs and Bruen. Plus, attendees will be entered into a drawing for a fee, autographed copy of the coffee table book.

We will take questions from readers. We hope you can join!

Comments

[QuantumBoxCat]

Arguing that Roe “relied on an erroneous historical narrative” concedes the point that Roe was based on history. One can certainly argue that the “history” the Court used was inaccurate, or an incorrect interpretation, but the Court’s opinion in the case makes extensive use of history, starting with “Ancient Attitudes” (p. 130).

Additionally, starting in Section VIII of the opinion (p. 152), the Court cites a multitude of prior decisions, which it uses to support a right of personal privacy that encompasses a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. As such, the decision was clearly based on “precedent.” One can certainly argue that those earlier cases were incorrectly decided, or that the Roe Court incorrectly extended their holdings. But to claim the decision was not “based on … precedent” is factually incorrect.

[dwshelf]

Roe was indeed not based on anything in that list, but neither was it based on an erroneous interpretation of history.

Roe was based on the belief that abortion should be legal. No more, no less.

[JasonT20]

Roe was based on the belief that abortion should be legal. No more, no less.

To whatever extent that is true, are laws banning it based on anything more rigorous than a gut belief that it is wrong?

[BadLib]

Plus, attendees will be entered into a drawing for a fee, autographed copy of the coffee table book.

Furthering perceptions that lawyers think primarily about fees and have a hard time with the notion of "free" 🙂

[Doug Heffernan]

That's just market economics. The law of supply and demand. There is high demand for these autographs, and they can only sign so many. The fee is higher if you want them to sign your chest (or other body part) instead of the coffee table book.

[JasonT20]

To expand on my question for dwshelf, I would like to understand what legislators and the Justices in the majority of Dobbs think is the basis for severely restricting or banning abortion. I see quotes from the decision talking about a state interest in "protecting fetal life," but I have not seen any critical examination of what that really means and why it would override a woman's autonomy.