Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?

[Conkle, Daniel O.]

Right.  I--and I think Bobby--were assuming that the "overruling" of Casey by a more conservative Court would mean the Court repudiating Casey's protection of abortion rights, even under the "undue burden" standard.  A more conservative Court presumably would not say that Casey was wrong to retreat from Roe's more categorical approach.  In any event, I suspect that the pro-life focus on Roe is less a matter of close constitutional analysis than a matter of symbolic political rhetoric.  "Roe" is part of the popular political landscape; Casey is not. - Dan Conkle
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward A Hartnett [mailto:hartneed at shu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:53 AM
To: Conkle, Daniel O.
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu; conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu; RJLipkin at aol.com
Subject: RE: Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?


I'm not at all sure that Bobby is right.  Wouldn't NARAL be thrilled to see
Casey overruled but Roe left in place, so that the fuzzy undue burden test
was replaced by Roe's strict scrutiny?

Indeed, isn't restoration of Roe the point of the Freedom of Choice Act, S.
2010?

See
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2020is.txt.pdf

Isn't the pro-life movement exactly right to focus on Roe rather than
Casey?


Ed Hartnett
Seton Hall



|---------+--------------------------------->
|         |           "Conkle, Daniel O."   |
|         |           <conkle at indiana.edu>  |
|         |           Sent by:              |
|         |           conlawprof-bounces at lis|
|         |           ts.ucla.edu           |
|         |                                 |
|         |                                 |
|         |           11/09/2004 10:35 AM   |
|---------+--------------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       <RJLipkin at aol.com>, <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>                                              |
  |       cc:                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  RE: Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?                                                             |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





You're right, of course, but in  popular and political discourse "Roe"
means the constitutional protection of abortion rights.  Most  non-lawyers
have never heard of Casey.

Dan Conkle
**************************************
Daniel O. Conkle
Professor of Law
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana  47405
(812)  855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail conkle at indiana.edu
**************************************
-----Original Message-----
From:  conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]  On Behalf Of RJLipkin at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 09,  2004 8:32 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject:  Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?



        In discussing the  prospect of de-constitutionalizing abortion
rights, why does the discussion  inevitably raise the issue of overruling
Roe?  Why isn't  Casey the case that should be overruled and, of course,
that decision  would eo ipso overrule Roe?

Bobby

Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.