9 ms·

How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? In states where there is a majority for abortion, abortition is legalised by la

by cm2187 4y ago

How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? In states where there is a majority for abortion, abortition is legalised by law, not by court, i.e. the way it should be. It is in states where there is no majority for abortion that it is not. How is it not democratic? For things to be done at the federal level, it needs a broad consensus across the country, not a 51% majority where the 49% is dead against. The EU has similar safeguards where you need effectively 3 keys to enable a law (European parliament, European commission, and the Council), not a simple 51% majority. Nothing prevents you from legislatating at a state level, but if you want to impose your views on other states, it needs to be a broad consensus. What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah.

light_hue_1 4y ago
> What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about state's rights. Just yesterday the Court decided that no, California doesn't have the right to restrict guns. That's the inhabitants of Utah imposing their social view on the acceptability of guns on the residents of California. It's about states rights when it comes to things you don't support, like abortion, and it's about the constitution and the rights it gives everyone, when it comes to things that you support, like the right for every nutjob to kill children with AR-15s. There is no logical reasoning behind these decisions aside from a vindictive, right-wing court, imposing its social will onto the entire country.
- cm2187 4y ago
  Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.
  - inlined 4y ago
    The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
      - inlined 4y ago
        Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
        gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
        Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > California New York* I believe.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Well, really, any state that has a similar law on the books. But yesterday's ruling was specifically about a NY law. CA and many other states will also be impacted.
    - inlined 4y ago
      SB-8 helped create a framework for bypassing constitutional “rights” and I think it’s time that California, with its direct democracy, bans guns altogether.
      - lkjdsklf 4y ago
        The supreme court just said abortion is not constitutionally protected so SB-8 isn't bypassing constitutional rights. You might disagree with the court, but that doesn't matter since any law similar to SB-8 related to guns would be handled by that court. That said, I think CA/NY and others should absolutely do it. They should be super aggressive and start using the tactic created in SB-8 on all kinds of issues if for no other reason than the ridiculousness of relying on civilian enforcement of laws.
        inlined 4y ago
        If guns are banned or SB-8 style tactics are banned we win either way.
        Clubber 4y ago
        >If guns are banned You know they won't just magically disappear right? They will still exist en masse. Guns are mostly banned in Mexico, but the cartels use them to control the government. Careful what you wish for.
        4y ago
- bruceb 4y ago
  These are two different decisions. As has been pointed out by others the NY law was arbitrary. The local law man decided if you were worthy of getting a concealed permit. This would be like if the local law man decided if area women were worthy to be allowed an abortion. The US would be better with fewer guns, but this was a badly written law.
SubiculumCode 4y ago
California needs to separate into more States, or people should move to help turn Red States purple. Edit: Since HN is rate-limiting me. There have been proposals that try to either give a Red State advantage, in particular, the electoral college. However, California could reasonably be split into 7 states (2 Red, 5 Blue) that would still have greater populations than Utah, netting +3 sets of Senators.
- gkop 4y ago
  All the plans I've seen to separate California, would create more red states..
  - mburns 4y ago
    The 'Six Californias'[0] proposal would be a net-positive for Democrats. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
- biztos 4y ago
  Is there any movement trying to achieve this other than the "State of Jefferson"[0] which would create the reddest of all Red States? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
  - blululu 4y ago
    Jefferson would mostly be blue. The emerald triangle is left/libertarian and a lot of boomers there have no access to Fox News and are still salty about the time Regan landed a helicopter on their ranch to shoot up their weed crop. Jefferson only sounds red because only crazy right wingers with hybrid Confederate/Jamaican flags on their trucks support the idea. The reality is they would still need to live and vote with their neighbors who drive Subarus.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      I don't know how true that is. It's hard to say which counties "would be" in that state since it will never exist, and some of the counties which its supporters say would be included have already affirmatively rejected the idea, such as Lake County. But as for the supposed California counties, the Trumpy ones like Shasta went 2:1 for Trump in 2020 while the large "blue" ones like Butte went 50/50. The ludicrously empty ones like Modoc were 3:1 Trump in 2020. Jefferson will never ever happen because there's no mechanism for it to happen, and because it would be by far the poorest state with the absolute worst economy in the nation, so I'm not even sure why we should discuss it. Oh and by the way the Jefferson plan specifically excludes the Emerald Triangle.
mattnewton 4y ago
The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the right to sue them in Texas courts. More generally problematic, your view would let any state persecute a minority of voters in that state and bind the federal government from guaranteeing equal protection to all Americans. We’ve run this experiment and found a long history of enforcing slavery, segregation, and persecution of gay people. Minority rights need special protections from the local majorities in states, and the 14th amendment is in no small part representing the will of the majority recognizing the rights of minorities are vulnerable here. Restricting a women’s ability to get a medical procedure a heavily gerrymandered state legislature finds distasteful is the latest in the long line of states rights consequences here.
- cm2187 4y ago
  Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution, i.e. people voted to protect those rights. No one voted on abortion at the federal level. And abortion is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the baby. Now I find the religious view that a baby exists as soon the sperm touches the egg ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of a viable baby's life implied by calling it just a "medial procedure". The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.
mypalmike 4y ago
He's talking about the US Senate, which legislates national issues. Because each state gets two votes, the more rural, conservative states end up acting as a bloc, giving them (often vastly) disproportional power over the majority.
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  That's the whole point of the compromise. What needs to be fixed is the cap on the House. Remove that and the larger states get more power in the House. For example the Democrats could get a majority to push legislation to protect abortion at the national level. People need to fix the issues in the system rather than relying on the courts to legislate for Congress.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Don't misrepresent the "point of the compromise". The Senate exists because of slavery and for no other reason. The constitution would not have been ratified by the slave states without the disproportionate representation of the Senate, because even in the 18th century the overwhelming majority of voting people would have voted to abolish slavery. Jefferson and the other slavers knew this. The Senate is not some kind of beautiful compromise between the city and the country. It is a capitulation to Jefferson, who was really, really super into slavery.
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      This is patently false. Small, slave free States existed during the authorship of the Constitution. They were afraid of being steamrolled by their larger northern neighbors just as much as the antebellum South. It was the carrot to bring such states into the new Constitutional union. Did the slave States like this compromise, yes. Is that the only reason for it? No. "To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives." - https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_C...
diob 4y ago
Abortion access is not a social view. It's a health necessity, as is contraception. I'd understand if "the left" was trying to take away some other person's right, but this is the opposite. They're trying to preserve rights. A tyranny of the majority in conservative states is now restricting rights, it's going to cause death / suffering.
- soco 4y ago
  You mean that contraception which is in line for the next court decision?
  - diob 4y ago
    Exactly. They won't stop there either.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    It isn't an inference or extrapolation either. From today's decision, citations my own: > For that reason, in future fases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold[1], Lawrence[2], and Obergefell[3]. The decision advocates for re-ruling on each of these cases. If these should be decided against their current status, expect states to outlaw contraception, gay relations, and same-sex marriage. 1. Ruled that contraception bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/griswold_v_connecticut_%281965%29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/griswold_v_connecticut_%2819... 2. Ruled that sodomy bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas 3. Ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
    - wilsonnb3 4y ago
      Isn’t this from Thomas’s concurrence? In other words, Thomas has always been crazy about this sort of thing but no one else on the court agrees. Hence why nobody else signed on to this concurrence.
moomin 4y ago
You’re assuming the legislatures of the states reflects the views of the majority. Which gerrymandering and voting suppression has long since assured it does not.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  And don't forget, that door swings both left and right.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    The Dems held a gerrymandering advantage for one year of the past 50 gaining one 'underserved seat' advantage over republicans. This is no longer the case...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cmiles74 4y ago
I think you may need to take a closer look at these numbers, there is no poll indicating that anywhere near 49% of US citizens are "dead set" against abortion being legal. My understanding is that the number of US citizens who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances is less than 15%.[0] Indeed, looking at this poll more than 75% of the people fell short of believing abortion should be illegal ("legal in only a few circumstances"). With the percentage so low, I find it hard to believe that the people in _any_ US state would like abortion to be banned. Again, it would be interesting if you had any data to back up this statement. [0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identificatio...
johannes1234321 4y ago
> The EU has similar safeguards where you need effectively 3 keys to enable a law (European parliament, European commission, and the Council), not a simple 51% majority. It's even more than that. In the council (where the governments of the member countries are present) you need majority based on number of citizens in the countries and also votes from a number of countries, so that few big countries can't overrule the small ones, but you always need support from small and big countries.
deeviant 4y ago
78% of Texans believe abortions should be allowed to some degree (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-po...) Texas, like most "conservative" states is gerrymandered to all hell. So it's very very simple how conservative minorities are enforcing their social views on the majority.
iostream24 4y ago
That view was NOT reflected by this same Supreme Court the other day when they threw out New York’s concealed carry limiting law. States rights? Ha. Hypocrisy and blatant power grabs by the Federalist Society . Shameful and likely the downfall of America. Such extreme power grabs continue to be railroaded through by an extreme right wing unconcerned with the 300 million living Americans whose rights they are stomping upon. 1) we must eliminate the filibuster. 2) we must eliminate the electoral college 3) we must impeach the seditious conspiracy and cut the head off the snake that spawned it. The federalist society must be investigated for installing Supreme Court judges and we must impeach every last one of these criminals. Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh are also both subject to serious sexual crimes accusations that were steamrolled right over by the Republican juggernaut. We cannot allow this theocracy-in-waiting gain absolute power, and to ignore their machinations to this end is no longer possible.
- elhudy 4y ago
  This is a really poor comparison and shows a major lack of understanding of process. For better or worse, gun rights are specifically guaranteed by the constitution, abortion rights are not.
  - iostream24 4y ago
    What? Read the 9th amendment!
hedora 4y ago
> How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? It only takes the support of 5.1% of US voters to filibuster a bill, 8.1% to appoint/block a supreme court nominee and 12% to defeat a filibuster: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_math_12_of_the_us_population_controls/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_...

by cm2187 4y ago

light_hue_1 4y ago

> What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about state's rights. Just yesterday the Court decided that no, California doesn't have the right to restrict guns. That's the inhabitants of Utah imposing their social view on the acceptability of guns on the residents of California. It's about states rights when it comes to things you don't support, like abortion, and it's about the constitution and the rights it gives everyone, when it comes to things that you support, like the right for every nutjob to kill children with AR-15s. There is no logical reasoning behind these decisions aside from a vindictive, right-wing court, imposing its social will onto the entire country.

cm2187 4y ago
Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.
- inlined 4y ago
  The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
    - inlined 4y ago
      Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
      - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
        Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
guerrilla 4y ago
> California New York* I believe.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Well, really, any state that has a similar law on the books. But yesterday's ruling was specifically about a NY law. CA and many other states will also be impacted.
  - inlined 4y ago
    SB-8 helped create a framework for bypassing constitutional “rights” and I think it’s time that California, with its direct democracy, bans guns altogether.
    - lkjdsklf 4y ago
      The supreme court just said abortion is not constitutionally protected so SB-8 isn't bypassing constitutional rights. You might disagree with the court, but that doesn't matter since any law similar to SB-8 related to guns would be handled by that court. That said, I think CA/NY and others should absolutely do it. They should be super aggressive and start using the tactic created in SB-8 on all kinds of issues if for no other reason than the ridiculousness of relying on civilian enforcement of laws.
      - inlined 4y ago
        If guns are banned or SB-8 style tactics are banned we win either way.
        Clubber 4y ago
        >If guns are banned You know they won't just magically disappear right? They will still exist en masse. Guns are mostly banned in Mexico, but the cartels use them to control the government. Careful what you wish for.
        4y ago
bruceb 4y ago
These are two different decisions. As has been pointed out by others the NY law was arbitrary. The local law man decided if you were worthy of getting a concealed permit. This would be like if the local law man decided if area women were worthy to be allowed an abortion. The US would be better with fewer guns, but this was a badly written law.

SubiculumCode 4y ago

California needs to separate into more States, or people should move to help turn Red States purple. Edit: Since HN is rate-limiting me. There have been proposals that try to either give a Red State advantage, in particular, the electoral college. However, California could reasonably be split into 7 states (2 Red, 5 Blue) that would still have greater populations than Utah, netting +3 sets of Senators.

gkop 4y ago
All the plans I've seen to separate California, would create more red states..
- mburns 4y ago
  The 'Six Californias'[0] proposal would be a net-positive for Democrats. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
biztos 4y ago
Is there any movement trying to achieve this other than the "State of Jefferson"[0] which would create the reddest of all Red States? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
- blululu 4y ago
  Jefferson would mostly be blue. The emerald triangle is left/libertarian and a lot of boomers there have no access to Fox News and are still salty about the time Regan landed a helicopter on their ranch to shoot up their weed crop. Jefferson only sounds red because only crazy right wingers with hybrid Confederate/Jamaican flags on their trucks support the idea. The reality is they would still need to live and vote with their neighbors who drive Subarus.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    I don't know how true that is. It's hard to say which counties "would be" in that state since it will never exist, and some of the counties which its supporters say would be included have already affirmatively rejected the idea, such as Lake County. But as for the supposed California counties, the Trumpy ones like Shasta went 2:1 for Trump in 2020 while the large "blue" ones like Butte went 50/50. The ludicrously empty ones like Modoc were 3:1 Trump in 2020. Jefferson will never ever happen because there's no mechanism for it to happen, and because it would be by far the poorest state with the absolute worst economy in the nation, so I'm not even sure why we should discuss it. Oh and by the way the Jefferson plan specifically excludes the Emerald Triangle.

mattnewton 4y ago

The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the right to sue them in Texas courts. More generally problematic, your view would let any state persecute a minority of voters in that state and bind the federal government from guaranteeing equal protection to all Americans. We’ve run this experiment and found a long history of enforcing slavery, segregation, and persecution of gay people. Minority rights need special protections from the local majorities in states, and the 14th amendment is in no small part representing the will of the majority recognizing the rights of minorities are vulnerable here. Restricting a women’s ability to get a medical procedure a heavily gerrymandered state legislature finds distasteful is the latest in the long line of states rights consequences here.

cm2187 4y ago
Most of the examples you mention are actually protected at the federal level, through the constitution, i.e. people voted to protect those rights. No one voted on abortion at the federal level. And abortion is not just a medical procedure, there is a third party involved: the baby. Now I find the religious view that a baby exists as soon the sperm touches the egg ridiculous. But I find equally ridiculous the dismissal of a viable baby's life implied by calling it just a "medial procedure". The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  Sure, and we need a federal law clarifying this to protect us against selective court interpretations of the 14th amendment, on that much we are in agreement. But that’s not what this decision is about, it is no coincidence that there are trigger laws across the country in anticipation of this, that even attempt to ban abortions in other states (the Texas law). States rights has long been the motte of all kinds of minority social opinions in the Bailey. The broad consensus is being held hostage by a minority in some state legislatures, and in the senate and now Supreme Court. By any measure the functioning of the government is divorced from the will of the majority and this is a symptom of that. To celebrate it as returning powers to a democratic process is a crazy distraction to me in light of that.

mypalmike 4y ago

He's talking about the US Senate, which legislates national issues. Because each state gets two votes, the more rural, conservative states end up acting as a bloc, giving them (often vastly) disproportional power over the majority.

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
That's the whole point of the compromise. What needs to be fixed is the cap on the House. Remove that and the larger states get more power in the House. For example the Democrats could get a majority to push legislation to protect abortion at the national level. People need to fix the issues in the system rather than relying on the courts to legislate for Congress.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Don't misrepresent the "point of the compromise". The Senate exists because of slavery and for no other reason. The constitution would not have been ratified by the slave states without the disproportionate representation of the Senate, because even in the 18th century the overwhelming majority of voting people would have voted to abolish slavery. Jefferson and the other slavers knew this. The Senate is not some kind of beautiful compromise between the city and the country. It is a capitulation to Jefferson, who was really, really super into slavery.
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    This is patently false. Small, slave free States existed during the authorship of the Constitution. They were afraid of being steamrolled by their larger northern neighbors just as much as the antebellum South. It was the carrot to bring such states into the new Constitutional union. Did the slave States like this compromise, yes. Is that the only reason for it? No. "To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives." - https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_C...

diob 4y ago

Abortion access is not a social view. It's a health necessity, as is contraception. I'd understand if "the left" was trying to take away some other person's right, but this is the opposite. They're trying to preserve rights. A tyranny of the majority in conservative states is now restricting rights, it's going to cause death / suffering.

soco 4y ago
You mean that contraception which is in line for the next court decision?
- diob 4y ago
  Exactly. They won't stop there either.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  It isn't an inference or extrapolation either. From today's decision, citations my own: > For that reason, in future fases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold[1], Lawrence[2], and Obergefell[3]. The decision advocates for re-ruling on each of these cases. If these should be decided against their current status, expect states to outlaw contraception, gay relations, and same-sex marriage. 1. Ruled that contraception bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/griswold_v_connecticut_%281965%29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/griswold_v_connecticut_%2819... 2. Ruled that sodomy bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lawrence_v._texas 3. Ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    Isn’t this from Thomas’s concurrence? In other words, Thomas has always been crazy about this sort of thing but no one else on the court agrees. Hence why nobody else signed on to this concurrence.

moomin 4y ago

You’re assuming the legislatures of the states reflects the views of the majority. Which gerrymandering and voting suppression has long since assured it does not.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
And don't forget, that door swings both left and right.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  The Dems held a gerrymandering advantage for one year of the past 50 gaining one 'underserved seat' advantage over republicans. This is no longer the case...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cmiles74 4y ago

I think you may need to take a closer look at these numbers, there is no poll indicating that anywhere near 49% of US citizens are "dead set" against abortion being legal. My understanding is that the number of US citizens who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances is less than 15%.[0] Indeed, looking at this poll more than 75% of the people fell short of believing abortion should be illegal ("legal in only a few circumstances"). With the percentage so low, I find it hard to believe that the people in _any_ US state would like abortion to be banned. Again, it would be interesting if you had any data to back up this statement. [0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identificatio...

johannes1234321 4y ago

> The EU has similar safeguards where you need effectively 3 keys to enable a law (European parliament, European commission, and the Council), not a simple 51% majority. It's even more than that. In the council (where the governments of the member countries are present) you need majority based on number of citizens in the countries and also votes from a number of countries, so that few big countries can't overrule the small ones, but you always need support from small and big countries.

deeviant 4y ago

78% of Texans believe abortions should be allowed to some degree (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-po...) Texas, like most "conservative" states is gerrymandered to all hell. So it's very very simple how conservative minorities are enforcing their social views on the majority.

iostream24 4y ago

That view was NOT reflected by this same Supreme Court the other day when they threw out New York’s concealed carry limiting law. States rights? Ha. Hypocrisy and blatant power grabs by the Federalist Society . Shameful and likely the downfall of America. Such extreme power grabs continue to be railroaded through by an extreme right wing unconcerned with the 300 million living Americans whose rights they are stomping upon. 1) we must eliminate the filibuster. 2) we must eliminate the electoral college 3) we must impeach the seditious conspiracy and cut the head off the snake that spawned it. The federalist society must be investigated for installing Supreme Court judges and we must impeach every last one of these criminals. Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh are also both subject to serious sexual crimes accusations that were steamrolled right over by the Republican juggernaut. We cannot allow this theocracy-in-waiting gain absolute power, and to ignore their machinations to this end is no longer possible.

elhudy 4y ago
This is a really poor comparison and shows a major lack of understanding of process. For better or worse, gun rights are specifically guaranteed by the constitution, abortion rights are not.
- iostream24 4y ago
  What? Read the 9th amendment!

hedora 4y ago

> How are small conservative states enforcing their social views on the majority? It only takes the support of 5.1% of US voters to filibuster a bill, 8.1% to appoint/block a supreme court nominee and 12% to defeat a filibuster: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_math_12_of_the_us_population_controls/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2jnmbe/i_did_the_...