Dissecting the Arguments

<p>More than reading the tea leaves of where the nine Justices may come down, in today's episode, Chris cautions that reading into the questions they ask is not always representative of the outcome they ultimately come to decide.  So while the arguments can be instructive in getting a sense of what they seek to understand, it is not always dispositive of their leaning.</p><p>Then, Chris and Vick tick through the Justices' questions and arguments that generally fall into three camps of outcome: kick it to the states and uphold Mississippi; a compromise of allowing Mississippi law to go to 15 weeks but keeping <i>Roe </i>in tact; or allowing the 50 years of precedent to hold firm as many Justices have reiterated over the years since <i>Roe </i>and then <i>Casey </i>were decided.</p><p>Chris explains that while a lot is made of past judicial decisions,  something is <i>stare decisis</i> (the Latin term in the law for standing by things decided) until it isn't.  In other words: precedent is only precedent until they change it.</p><p><strong>And Another Thing:</strong>  A beat on the continual need to keep calm and carry on when it comes to the Omicron variant, and Chris' prescription to not to let panic get ahead of the facts. </p><p><strong>Plus:</strong>  An introduction to the Cuomo family dogs, all three!</p>