Character Sketches

Brent Martin: Hi, Professor Epps. My name is Brent Martin, I'm a lawyer in Texas. And I actually argued [unintelligible case in front of the court. I know you don't need compliments from me, but I was going to call you and Professor Baude and just let you know that all of the coverage that I've read in the last few days, you guys were the most accurate in terms of the legal issues involved, including the ambiguities of what was left to be decided later. And so, I just wanted to compliment you. I really enjoy your podcast, and I'm going to leave that [unintelligible 00:03:59] thought of saying that I hope you're having a great day.
Will: Not completely. Again, people are pretty confident. And these both do have a lot of ambiguities. He says the state can't bar you from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. Now, can the state punish you upon your return? Citing cases like [unintelligible v. Florida that say the state has the ability to punish its citizens for criminal acts committed outside the jurisdiction when they return? He doesn't tell us that. Who has jurisdiction over multijurisdictional questions? He doesn't tell us that. These do also maybe give people false clarity if you aren't thinking very many moves ahead.
Will: I thought it was unfortunately effective. There are good answers to all those points, or at least there are correct answers to all those points, we’ll talk about it in a second, but Bruen’s use of the dismissal of the statute of Northampton is very different from kind of the use of Hale that the majority is making here. And there's a huge difference between the substantive process test versus the ways of interpreting [unintelligible 00:50:49] rights. I think there are answers, but I think all the answers seem technical and like you're cheating, and like [unintelligible .
Dan: Yeah. Not super likely other than in little, trivial [unintelligible things. Okay, it's been a long one. Why don't you close this out?