Justice Barrett can tell. Her first question during oral argument in at least two major cases reveals her final line.
She asked the petitioners their first question. Fulton City of Philadelphia A hesitancy not to obey was suggested Smith:
Good morning, Ms. Windham. That was kinda what you said. SmithThis shouldn’t have happened, and your brief argues that Smithshould not be considered. However, it is also true that underestimating can be won. SmithBecause this policy is not generally applicable or neutral. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t even consider whether or not to apply this policy. Smith?
Justice Barrett didn’t answer the question on whether Smith Should be ignored, as the Philadelphia policy is not neutral and does not generally apply.
She asked the first question to each respondent. California v. Texas Traceability is the key focus
Good morning General Hawkins.
Justice Gorsuch asked about individual plaintiffs’ standing. I would like to return. Let’s just say we are in agreement that they feel that mandate has made them suffer a financial loss by making them feel the legal obligation to buy insurance. Is it possible to trace this back to the defendants, even though the plaintiffs have sued? You can understand how the mandate caused it, but is that traceable to HHS, or the IRS? What is the harm inflicted by their actions?
All Justices were silent about the question of traceability at that time. It was then that the Court’s decision came to an abrupt halt. Completely Traceability
Justice Barrett opens the door to her first question.
Justice Barrett will be asking you the following question: Dobbs?
Here is a best-case-scenario question:
General Prelogar. This Court declared in Washington v. GlucksbergThe Due Process Clause protects the fundamental rights and liberties that are rooted deeply in history and tradition of this nation. Can you please explain what the rights to abortion are recognized? RoeAnd CaseyIs it “deeply rooted” in the Nation’s history, tradition and culture?
The break-the glass question is:
We granted certiorari, Mr. Stewart to determine “Whether all previability prohibitions for elective abortions were unconstitutional.” If you agree, then why would we entertain the possibility of overruling? Roe.