Roe v Wade Explained | Prof. Richard Epstein

Professor Richard Epstein explains how and why Roe v. Wade came to be overturned. He and John Anderson explore the source of the SCOTUS decision leak, legal arguments provided by various justices, the systemic legal differences between the US and Australia.
See their full interview here: • Roe v Wade, SCOTUS and...
Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. Epstein researches and writes in a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.
#roe #america #clip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonconversat...
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ richardaepstein
www.hoover.org/profiles/richa...

[@MichaelE.Douroux]

Power to decide on issues not specifically delineated or carved out for the federal government in the U.S. Constitution such as mutual defense, resides on a state by state basis with the 50 state legislatures who are elected by and directly accountable to the people of each state.
It's called States' Rights.
Not complicated.

[@06colkurtz]

States rights. It’s the united STATES. The STATES are supreme

[@randygault4564]

States don't have rights. The people are supreme.

[@markgrissom]

"How Tyranny came to America" by Joe Sobran explains Roe v Wade the best.

[@robertholmes12]

That is THE question contained within Roe V Wade. Who gets to make the major values judgments when laws are created? In a republic it's the people through their elected officials. In a progressive democracy it's five judges who get to rule 330,000,000 people.

[@Peter2k84]

Mmm, to be frank, regulations for abortion got basically pushed down to state law level.
In a way people got way more voting power for abortion laws that way.
By voting directly for more "local" politicians.
If Americans could get up from a couch and put down Twitter for an hour to vote 🤷‍♂️

[@strategygaming5830]

It is that very reason of it being a republic that roe v wade was overruled. Roe V Wade was never in the power of the Supreme Court to establish that in the first place. In order to create new law the elected representatives should be the ones to enact the law not the justices of which look at enacted laws and make sure they are constitutional.

[@Stuart.McGregor]

The question of “Who gets to decide?” is not the same as “What is legal?”, and altogether different than our so-called “Rights” which are inconsiderate of both.
The issue of Rights seem to be at the core of the US experiment. Their 1st Civil War was about the right to own humans, the 2nd appears to be shaping up around bearing arms and reproduction.
Both issues have already been resolved by most Western civilizations. We don’t need American experiments to resolve these questions but it appears they’re going to run them anyway.

[@ridesharegold6659]

It's not an experiment. It's the process. It's the foundation of the common law system. If the legislature has created a law around the matter it's the court's duty to interpret that law. In the absence of law, it's the court's duty to make one. Our legislature has had 50 years to make such a law. They still haven't.