Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
My question is what relevance her renunciation of her former litigation position has to the current debate, given that at least one other entity has litigated a similiar issue through the Supreme Court. (it's not as if she were the only one advancing the position)
If I were arguing the issue today, I would use Casey, not Roe, as the leading precedent.
|
Obviously, it has no relevance. It's symbolic. I was being rhetorical. Personally, based on the limited number of interviews I have seen with her, I am fairly certain I would find 2:00 in her presence to only be about 5 seconds less intolerable than 2:00 minutes in Allred's presence, the latter of which is 2:00 minutes too long.
For the substantive and the symbolic I look forward to Roe going down. With Roberts, Rodgers and a couple more picks for Bush before 2008 (Stevens and Ginsburg) it looks possible. Light at the end of the tunnel. Woo hoo!
