Sounds like there are enough issues in play that nobody is just going to concede that precedent decides the whole thing and it's time to go to SCOTUS.Kolohe wrote: ↑17 May 2019, 15:13I think they would argue that Roe & Casey are flawed and the fetus has some inalienable 14th amendment protections. I sort of agree with twitter that this probably won't fly (I think - I do think Trump being able to replace someone from the RBG wing would make it a very close call).
Otherwise they've tied themselves in knots between precedent and federalism grounds (i.e. trying to prosecute people that go out of state for the procedure).
And the next SCOTUS retirement will almost certainly be Ginsburg or Breyer, just based on age. I doubt either of them is planning to leave the court under Trump, but Scalia wasn't planning to leave under Obama. So on the timing side, either some sort of bad medical luck results in a liberal Justice being replaced by a Trump nominee or else nothing changes. (Either because nobody leaves the Court anytime soon or because a Blue wins in 2020 and replaces Ginsburg or Breyer with another reliable vote to uphold Roe.) Delaying the argument before SCOTUS can only help Alabama and Georgia, not hurt them.