"[T]here has been surprisingly little discussion of the fact that [Ketanji Brown Jackson] would join Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the court’s second working mother."

Writes by lawprof Melissa Murray in "Another Working Mom for the Supreme Court?" (NYT). 

While Democrats have touted [Jackson's] sterling qualifications and the historic nature of her nomination as the first Black woman to the court, few have leaned into her identity as a mother, as the Republicans did with Justice Barrett.

Murray knows there are 2 big differences. One is that Barrett has 7 children — and the youngest was only 8 at the time of confirmation, 2 were adopted (from Haiti), and 1 has Down Syndrome. Jackson, by contrast, has 2 children, ages 21 and 17.  

The other big difference is, as Murray puts it: "Democrats may be less inclined to flag a nominee’s family status as evidence of professional accomplishment or acumen." What I'd say there is that liberals and progressives are more likely to criticize people who call attention to a woman's status as a mother: Why are you talking about the fact that a woman is a parent when you don't talk about men that way?! In fact, I have to wonder about Murray, touting Jackson's momhood. Does she write NYT columns about the dadhood of male nominees?

"Less well-known than jurisprudence is what the law professors Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres have termed 'demosprudence' — the idea that legal change does not flow exclusively from courts and other government actors, but..."

"... may proceed from the mobilization of the people themselves. When Sotomayor switched gears and aimed her rhetoric at the public, she was planting the seeds for demosprudence, alerting the people to the imminent threat to abortion rights in the hopes that, hearing her alarm, we might mobilize. Not with a Jan. 6-style insurrection but with the sort of grass-roots energy that once fueled the civil rights movement and other progressive social causes. This could take many forms, such as enacting the congressional bill that would codify Roe’s protections, turning state legislatures blue so as to stanch the stream of increasingly restrictive abortion laws and building broader support for telemedicine and the distribution of pills that can induce abortion in a private setting. In a morning that offered little cause for optimism for those who favor reproductive freedom, Sotomayor’s subtle message was both pragmatic and — at least potentially — uplifting. The court will not save our rights. But maybe we can save them ourselves. "

From "Sotomayor saw she couldn’t sway her colleagues. So she talked to us instead. The liberal justice signaled that the next round of the abortion fight might be political, not legal" by lawprof Melissa Murray (WaPo).

There's no need to wait until the Court overrules Roe (i.e, Casey). 

Murray notes "the congressional bill" and links to "House passes bill to create statutory right to abortion as a battle over Texas law heats up" (from last September). There will only be bans on abortion if the democratic processes within government provide the relevant statutes — contrary to the delusion of those low-information citizens who think the fetus is about to acquire a constitutional right to life — and these democratic processes can just as well enact a statutory right to have an abortion. 

If we the people really want this right, we can get it. The Democrats have a lot of power now, and there should be pressure on them to use it, and you can see the House has already acted. We're told the President "strongly supports" the legislation. The trick is to get the bill through the Senate.

"More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentous abortion case concerning a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy."

"The briefs come from professors, politicians, states, and interest groups from across the ideological spectrum. We reviewed them all, identified some of the most noteworthy and novel arguments, and summarized them.... Numerous groups attack the viability standard that the court adopted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.... Many amici focus on the principle of stare decisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case....  Twenty-four states... criticize the court’s 'erroneous and constantly changing abortion precedent.'... Twelve governors write... that the court’s abortion precedent represents an 'intrusion into the sovereign sphere of the States.'.... Textualism and originalism Professors Mary Ann Glendon and O. Carter Snead write that the court’s abortion precedent is 'completely untethered' from the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution....  The Thomas More Society argues that the right to reproductive freedom is not supported by history or legal tradition.... A brief from the Susan B. Anthony List and 79 women [argues]... 'there is no longer a need — if there ever was — for this Court to assume that women cannot adequately protect their own interests through state political processes'.... The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists argues that the Mississippi legislature was correct to conclude that abortions performed after 15 weeks pose 'significant physical and psychological risks' to the patient.... Medical ethics The Christian Medical & Dental Associations argue that performing abortions violates a physician’s duty to protect life and avoid doing harm.... The Pacific Justice Institute suggests that abortion violates the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of slavery. 'When aborting her fetus, a mother treats her child as slave property'...."

From "We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to" at SCOTUSblog. The oral argument is today, at 10 Eastern Time. You'll be able to listen to the audio here.

From the summary of amicus briefs supporting abortion rights:

The cruelest anti-Kavanaugh argument yet.

From "How This Brutal Confirmation Process Could Shape Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice" (Time):

Even if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he will carry scars from the brutal process to get him there.... [A]s he limps over the finish line... the question could soon shift from whether he will be confirmed to what kind of justice he will be.

Will Kavanaugh... dig in on the far right, radicalized by the experience? Will he swing the other way towards the middle, determined to improve his reputation among women? Or will he be able to move past it entirely?...

“What [Kavanaugh said at the hearing] was so explicitly partisan, so permanently political, so grudge-bearing, that I don’t see how somebody puts on a new robe, goes to a new court and forgets about that,” says John Q. Barrett, professor at St. John’s University School of Law. “The public will never forget about that. This guy, if he’s going to be confirmed, will now be heckled and protested and a pariah for the rest of his life for a segment of the country.”...

“It will raise questions about whether he could ever view any issue that touched on questions of sexual misconduct fairly, given what has happened,” says Melissa Murray, professor at New York University School of Law.

The linked article doesn't come out and make this argument, but it caused me to see it: Kavanaugh should be rejected because the confirmation experienced has ruined his mind. He's damaged now and can no longer think in the properly judicial way that was once within his capacity. A moderated version of that argument is that people will worry that he's now damaged and skewed and that's reason enough to keep him off the Court, to preserve the belief in the legitimacy of the institution.

I'm not making these arguments. I'm just seeing them and finding them horrendously perverse and cruel. Why not devise a confirmation process that is such an ordeal that it will drive out the very qualities we want in a judge? First, it would be torture, and second, you could never confirm a nominee. It's an inherently self-defeating process.