So many legal issues that the movie just gets dead wrong. First, the woman who is convicted of first degree murder would be in prison awaiting her appeal, not watching the proceedings in person. Second, there would be no "emergency" appeal. As much as we would like to think that courts rush to free a potentially wrongfully convicted person, the process takes years.
Despite then being told that it was a 6-3 vote to overrule Roe (with one of the three now retired) we soon learn that it was a 3-3-3 decision. Three voted to overturn Roe entirely, 3 would have upheld Roe, and 3 would have overturned Roe so long as only "minor" penalties were given. This last position would never happen in the Supreme Court. It would not have been a question before the Court and in any event, once the Constitutional question was decided, it would be pretty clearly up to the states to set a proper penalty (likely excluding the death penalty).
But it gets worse. The Chief, who was one of the harsh 3 votes, is now sitting with a 3-5 (and the new Andy Garcia undecided) DEFICIT for his upholding the first degree murder conviction, but arrogantly asks for a unanimous opinion upholding the conviction. He is simply in no place to do that as there remains 5 votes, even without Garcia to vacate such a harsh conviction.
Further the final "compromise" decision authored by Garcia looks pretty much like Roe itself. Despite all of the commentary that it was a "balanced view" of the question, the take away was that once you overrule Roe, you see these harsh penalties and must reinstate Roe.
I'm a sucker for legal movies, but far too many unlikely scenarios to fully enjoy this.
Despite then being told that it was a 6-3 vote to overrule Roe (with one of the three now retired) we soon learn that it was a 3-3-3 decision. Three voted to overturn Roe entirely, 3 would have upheld Roe, and 3 would have overturned Roe so long as only "minor" penalties were given. This last position would never happen in the Supreme Court. It would not have been a question before the Court and in any event, once the Constitutional question was decided, it would be pretty clearly up to the states to set a proper penalty (likely excluding the death penalty).
But it gets worse. The Chief, who was one of the harsh 3 votes, is now sitting with a 3-5 (and the new Andy Garcia undecided) DEFICIT for his upholding the first degree murder conviction, but arrogantly asks for a unanimous opinion upholding the conviction. He is simply in no place to do that as there remains 5 votes, even without Garcia to vacate such a harsh conviction.
Further the final "compromise" decision authored by Garcia looks pretty much like Roe itself. Despite all of the commentary that it was a "balanced view" of the question, the take away was that once you overrule Roe, you see these harsh penalties and must reinstate Roe.
I'm a sucker for legal movies, but far too many unlikely scenarios to fully enjoy this.