🧵🪡
Aarati Subramaniam
#SCOTUS
Okay, John Cornyn, I'll bite (since i saw his follow up tweet where he contextualized this). You are trying to make the point that sometimes overturning precedent is a good thing. But here's the difference: When Brown overturned Plessy, it expanded rights for citizens, where previously they had been denied. When Dobbs overturned Roe, it diminished fifty years of healthcare rights...
Cont'd

(not to mention the many other sectors it will affect like foster care, criminal justice, domestic and other violent crime statistics).

In general, we applaud busting precedent when it means giving disenfranchised people their rights. And if you are so obtuse to not know the difference between the two examples above, or more realistically, you just don't care, then you have no business being in the Senate.
Cont'd

One could argue this is an expansion of rights to a fetus. I've not read Dobbs, but my understanding is that the underpinning rationale is limited to no constitutional right to an abortion, not whether the fetus should have rights to be balanced against the pregnant woman's. Do you know if this is correct?

AS
correct. They did not apply a balancing test, and they legally cannot as personhood has yet to established for fetuses, but I'm sure that's next.