but I think they are playing it the best way they can.
I felt that Chief Justice Muniz was asking some of the right questions to the State's counsel. However, we've seen justices ask the right questions but still vote in a way and spit out an opinion that is absolute garbage.
I still didn't find the state's arguments all that persuasive. I just think their arguments stand on weak legs. There have been arguments over other issues that are persuasive even if I don't agree with them. I can understand their line of thinking and I can under how and why they arrive at their conclusion, even when I don't agree with the conclusion. The state did not do that for me at all. It doesn't help that I think that the Solicitor General arguing for the state wasn't all that good. It seems like there were times where his brain glitched trying to make his argument make sense.
Justice Grosshans kept going back to standing, which makes me think she's trying to poke a hole in Planned Parenthood's argument on standing. I can see an opinion from her allowing the 15-week ban to stand where she doesn't opine on whether the privacy clause protects abortion but spends most of her words attacking Planned Parenthood's standing. Who knows?
ETA: I forgot to add some language that Chief Justice Muniz said during the hearing. He asked counsel for Planned Parenthood "You’re asking us to essentially take a whole class of human beings and put them outside of the protection of the law?" I'm sure that sounds impartial to somebody out there, but not to me. I think the response from Whitney White, counsel for Planned Parenthood, was good.
He also said "[Roe] may have been an abomination..."
= new reply since forum marked as read