It’s ‘possible’ Dobbs could possibly be overruled in the future

WASHINGTON — Former Supreme Courtroom Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned it is “possible” the Supreme Courtroom might in the future overrule its 2022 choice in Dobbs v. Jackson Girls’s Well being, which itself overruled Roe v. Wade.

“But who knows?” added Breyer, chatting with moderator Kristen Welker on NBC Information’ “Meet the Press.”

The previous justice additionally spoke in regards to the leak of the bulk’s choice to overturn Roe, which preceded the official ruling by a number of weeks, calling it “unfortunate.”

Breyer additionally sidestepped questions on a number of cases earlier than the courtroom this 12 months involving former President Donald Trump.

Requested about one Trump case coming earlier than the courtroom relating to the previous president’s claim that he should be immune from prison prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Breyer mentioned he would not remark and did not have sufficient data to kind an opinion.

“My goodness, you can make mistakes just by saying what your initial opinion is. And my goodness, how often it really occurs,” Breyer mentioned, including: “I’m not just trying to get out of the question, because I can get out of the question by just saying I’m not going to answer the question.”

Nonetheless, Breyer, who was appointed by President Invoice Clinton and served on the courtroom from 1994 to 2022, is not a stranger to evaluating circumstances in the midst of presidential election years that would have main penalties for the end result of the election.

In 2000, Breyer weighed the Bush v. Gore case and agreed with a 7-2 majority decision that the tactic for recounting ballots in Florida’s presidential election was unconstitutional. However he dissented from a majority opinion that discovered Florida did not have time to conduct a constitutional recount.

“They shouldn’t have taken [the case] up,” Breyer informed Welker. “That’s what I thought about Bush v. Gore.”

He added, “I said, ‘They shouldn’t have taken up the opinion. And now, having taken it up, I think they should decide it the other way.’ That was my view, all right? But it was a view reached after a considerable amount of work.”

Breyer spoke to NBC Information’ “Meet the Press” forward of the discharge of his guide “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” by which he lays out his case towards an originalist interpretation of the Structure.

“It’s very attractive,” Breyer mentioned, describing textualism as “simple.”

“All you have to do is read this. Fabulous. You’ve got the answer. Yeah, just read it, and it’s simple,” he mentioned.

“You say, ‘Sounds good, sounds good.’ But it doesn’t work very well, in my opinion. And that’s why I’ve spent a year and a half trying to explain why,” Breyer added.