I am not sure this is the best path politically (continually chip away at it), but it definitely is the best path legally, in order to show that it will not stand for intimidation, and it will yield the most lolz today.
There are a lot of people here - well, one in particular - who would say that unironically. So I don't think you can blame my reading of your comment on autism.
Perhaps if our left wing weren't a bunch of extremists who wanted abortion up to the point of birth (and in some cases after birth) maybe there wouldn't be such a push from the right to ban it.
The nations with the most permissive abortion laws in Europe are comparable to the states with the least permissive abortion laws in the US. In the 90s the EvangeloCons tried pushing for laws requiring women seeking abortions to go through counselling first: very similar to what Germany requires today. This was considered "too conservative".
So in the face of an opponent who will compromise not one iota, why not go all-in for a full ban?
Politically it was probably best to rip the bandaid off. Roe has been poisoning the abortion debate for almost 50 years because the left didn't have to give their political opponents a seat at the table. Now they do, and that means means abortion policy will no longer be poisoned by a lack of legitimacy. Letting Roe limp along for a few more decades would have just kicked the can down the road and prolonged the agony of having abortion policy imposed by judicial fiat. Finally flushing this turd was the best move IMO.
Legally you're correct, and politics shouldn't be a factor in SCOTUS's decision making at all. The reason the Court has the legitimacy problem that Roberts is worried about is because the Warren Court decided to become a 3rd political branch to help the left win battles it couldn't have using legitimate political processes.
Politically it was probably best to rip the bandaid off
Not sure about that. Roe has been undermined by many court cases over the past 15 years, with very little pushback. As long as "Roe" was still there, people could rest content in that thought - even as it practically came to mean less and less.
I don't mean not to overturn Roe. But to uphold every single restriction, and then when it makes no difference, overturn Roe. Of course, that would be politicizing the judiciary, which is why it's bad. I think this is what Roberts wanted to do, to avoid a backlash.
The reason the Court has the legitimacy problem that Roberts is worried about is because the Warren Court decided to become a 3rd political branch to help the left win battles it couldn't have using legitimate political processes.
I'm amazed by the same people who told us that no one can challenge court decisions, because they were setting social policy that these people liked, now tell us that the court is illegitimate because it stopped setting social policy on one issue.
I am not sure this is the best path politically (continually chip away at it), but it definitely is the best path legally, in order to show that it will not stand for intimidation, and it will yield the most lolz today.
Yeah, which you won't. Even then it would matter, because a lot of men support abortion because it allows us to get off the hook.
There are a lot of people here - well, one in particular - who would say that unironically. So I don't think you can blame my reading of your comment on autism.
Where do you think we are?
i thought you were serious cuz of your dumb name
This but unironically
We need to grow this grassroots movement.
Their legions of Stockholm Syndrome'd school products won't let you do that.
Perhaps if our left wing weren't a bunch of extremists who wanted abortion up to the point of birth (and in some cases after birth) maybe there wouldn't be such a push from the right to ban it.
The nations with the most permissive abortion laws in Europe are comparable to the states with the least permissive abortion laws in the US. In the 90s the EvangeloCons tried pushing for laws requiring women seeking abortions to go through counselling first: very similar to what Germany requires today. This was considered "too conservative".
So in the face of an opponent who will compromise not one iota, why not go all-in for a full ban?
Politically it was probably best to rip the bandaid off. Roe has been poisoning the abortion debate for almost 50 years because the left didn't have to give their political opponents a seat at the table. Now they do, and that means means abortion policy will no longer be poisoned by a lack of legitimacy. Letting Roe limp along for a few more decades would have just kicked the can down the road and prolonged the agony of having abortion policy imposed by judicial fiat. Finally flushing this turd was the best move IMO.
Legally you're correct, and politics shouldn't be a factor in SCOTUS's decision making at all. The reason the Court has the legitimacy problem that Roberts is worried about is because the Warren Court decided to become a 3rd political branch to help the left win battles it couldn't have using legitimate political processes.
Not sure about that. Roe has been undermined by many court cases over the past 15 years, with very little pushback. As long as "Roe" was still there, people could rest content in that thought - even as it practically came to mean less and less.
I don't mean not to overturn Roe. But to uphold every single restriction, and then when it makes no difference, overturn Roe. Of course, that would be politicizing the judiciary, which is why it's bad. I think this is what Roberts wanted to do, to avoid a backlash.
I'm amazed by the same people who told us that no one can challenge court decisions, because they were setting social policy that these people liked, now tell us that the court is illegitimate because it stopped setting social policy on one issue.