3 ms·
To further clarify the sibling's point, the reason for this is that the Progressive wing of the Democrats couldn't convince people to approve abortion access th
by ufmace 5y ago
To further clarify the sibling's point, the reason for this is that the Progressive wing of the Democrats couldn't convince people to approve abortion access through democratic means as soon as they would have liked, so they decided to get a rather dubious Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that declared it to be a Constitutional Right. Now they are totally dependent on keeping agreeable Supreme Court justices in order to preserve that interpretation.
It didn't have to be this way. They could have left it to the states or local jurisdictions, and moved to a state with policies they agreed with. They could have (tried to) pass a Constitutional Amendment making it a clear and obvious Constitutional Right instead of a weird interpretation. Instead, they did this.
Living in a Democracy requires us to consider the opinions of our fellow citizens and try our best to accommodate them, rather than steamrolling them.
Consider the position of a Pro-Life activist. They will think that all abortion is murder, that the ruling is a grotesque twisting of the Constitution, and fight every inch of the way on every nominee. Does this sound like the way we were meant to resolve contentious issues? You may disagree with them, but they are also our fellow citizens, and will not be happy about steamrolling their positions.
Consider also the position of a Gun Rights activist. They will be outraged at how the courts have ignored attacks on an actual enumerated Constitutional Right, and fight every nominee on those terms, not particularly caring whether they are also likely to be anti-Abortion.
Maybe it's best if we resist using the Supreme Court to decide everything and try to pass clear Amendments for what's really important and broadly agreed upon. Though this goes back to how dysfunctional and useless Congress has become in their prescribed role.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago> Living in a Democracy requires us to consider the opinions of our fellow citizens and try our best to accommodate them, rather than steamrolling them. The majority of americans believe in abortion by a non trivial margin. The reason it's not guaranteed is precisely because the united states is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, giving significantly more political power to some voters based on where they live.
- naasking 5y agoThe majority of Americans also live in urban areas, but not letting urban concerns steamroll rural concerns is also an important consideration.
- ufmace 5y ago> The majority of americans believe in abortion by a non trivial margin. That great, then you should have no trouble passing an actual Constitutional Amendment recognizing that right in a way that can't be interpreted away. I'll just sit here and wait while you go and do that. > The reason it's not guaranteed is precisely because the united states is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, giving significantly more political power to some voters based on where they live. You omit an awful lot of history in order to sound snarky. In reality, we started with a loose confederation of independent states. Some skillful negotiators tried to convince them all to unite into one nation. Naturally, the more rural states with smaller populations were concerned that their opinions and needs would be steamrolled by the more populous states, so to bring them all aboard, those negotiators biased a few things towards them a little bit. Everyone, including those more urban states, signed onto it, and everyone lived happily ever after*. Now, making those states' concerns appear rather prescient, quite a lot of modern urban progressives seem to want to renege on that promise, primarily because they think they can get away with it, and they hate those people anyways.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago> That great, then you should have no trouble passing an actual Constitutional Amendment recognizing that right in a way that can't be interpreted away. I'll just sit here and wait while you go and do that. Would be easy in a democracy Ergo the solution is rural voters count for much more than urban voters. > Naturally, the more rural states with smaller populations were concerned that their opinions and needs would be steamrolled by the more populous states What happened to respecting the wishes of fellow citizens? Why are these specific citizens more important because they live in a different plot of land? > Now, making those states' concerns appear rather prescient, quite a lot of modern urban progressives seem to want to renege on that promise, primarily because they think they can get away with it, and they hate those people anyways. Maybe its because the concept of losing a national election with millions more votes than the other side is bullshit? There are many divides in beliefs between people in the country. Geographical ones seem like the least interesting.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago> Progressive wing of the Democrats Actually the Supreme Court that decided Roe vs Wade was mostly appointed by republicans.
- ufmace 5y agoWho were almost certainly appointed long before any of those issues were of a concern to anyone. Exactly what are you attempting to prove by that statement?
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoYou blamed it on the progressive wing of the democrats. It was the state of Texas that appealed to the Supreme Court. Not sure who you think the “progressive wing of the democrats” exactly were.