You might be confident that the SCotUS isn’t going to gut portions of the CotUS and strip people of rights that they thought they had for generations . . . a lot of the rest of us are not.
Judges do not make laws.
To change a law you don’t have to change judges first.
If your opponents are, for political convenience and inpotence, relying on some judges interpreting stuff in lieu of laws. It is a viable shortcut to effectively changing a law to change the judges. However that is a strategy easily undermined by actually making a law.
Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden all couldn’t be arsed to actually DO anything about this: stop blaming the other guys that DID something. They were never shy about telling you that they would.
Stop faffing about about how unfair it all is and get to work.
(Or admit you can’t be arsed either way)
Yep. These evangelical assholes have been drooling at the prospect of imposing a theocratic tyranny on the rest of the country. After literal decades of slow, patient progress, it’s foolish to think they would mysteriously abandon their plan when their end goals are finally in sight.
???
…I don’t live in America.
I’m not even American.
If I did live in America, I would be getting off my arse and doing something. But I don’t: so I really don’t get your point.
And I haven’t argued about how “unfair” everything is. I know that judges don’t change the laws and that in America you have the ridiculous scenario where a branch of government where people have lifetime appointments and are essentially accountable to no-one.
But none of this has anything to do with anything I said.
I was referring to your comment about
I was agreeing with you.
Only 14% of American favor a total ban on abortion.
…oh, my bad 
I kinda thought you were? But the way the reply button works makes it look like you were disagreeing! My apologies.
Unfortunately, that 14% controls something like 40% of the Senate, because our electoral system is broken to the point that the UK’s was in 1832.
By a remarkable coincidence, according to surveys reported in this summary, approximately 14% of the Afghan population is sympathetic to the Taliban’s political agenda.
Nevertheless, the Taliban controls the majority of the country and imposes its agenda without meaningful opposition.
The lesson here is left to the reader to divine.
Agreed:
In his opinion, Justice Alito speaks of text based rights, and he speaks specifically of the first eight amendments as though there aren’t other amendments, including two other amendments in the Bill of Rights Amendment, including the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly says just because we’ve enumerated something doesn’t mean that that exhausts what is available for protection here. Like there might be more. And the fact that we didn’t write it down doesn’t disparage the existence of those other rights. So that suggests that there could be implied rights and indeed there have been implied rights. Justice Alito, in this opinion, says that the 14th Amendment says nothing about abortion. It doesn’t say anything about marriage, does nothing about contraception, parental rights, none of that. My colleague at NYU, Peggy Cooper Davis, wrote a marvelous book many years back, Neglected Stories, The Constitution and Family Values, in which she provides primary source material that makes clear that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were consciously trying to repudiate the institution of slavery and also all of the vestiges of that institution, including the fact that enslaved persons lacked family integrity. Their families could be sold from them, their children could be sold from them. They weren’t allowed to marry. They had no bodily autonomy. They could be sexually compromised by an owner or mated with another slave for the purpose of reproducing the slave population. And so the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of liberty, Peggie argues, was meant to address all of those things, those liberties that were absolutely denied to individuals who were enslaved. And so when Justice Alito says the 14th Amendment was about repudiating slavery, he’s right. He just misses what repudiating slavery actually means. So I don’t buy this unenumerated rights versus text based rights fallacy.
I can’t find the article now, but a recent edition of USAToday had a story about how the possibility of Roe being overturned was leading to something like 40% of the electorate (and a higher percentage of younger people) seriously looking into moving into “blue” states because they were unhappy with the prospect of the government removing their right to choose.
Predictable condemnation of the ruling from US western allies …
Possible downside: making the Senate even more likely to be skewed Republican.
I am willing to bet the republicans have thought of this and are super ok with it.
@Spoons, are you familiar with this MP? I’d never heard of him before.
Both of which require a Dem Senate, House, and POTUS - and significant majorities in both houses to deal with squishes. I find it amazing how otherwise intelligent folk (including my youngest son) seem to think we have a parliamentarian government, where Dem control of any branch (or even part of Congress) means things should immediately change massively for the better.
The sad part is, on paper, we have a dem controlled house and senate and POTUS.
Alberta is, after all, Texas with snow.
But you don’t have a Dem controlled Senate. You need 60 to control the Senate.
Yes we do. That is why Charles Schumer (D) is the (current) majority leader.