3 ms·
Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.
by TameAntelope 4y ago
Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.
- yieldcrv 4y agoAs I also mentioned in my first reply to you, the topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all. It is accurate that several judges lied to Congress during their nomination process and we do not have remedies or sanctions for that. (That are deemed politically rational)
- TameAntelope 4y agoIt's not a red herring, as it demonstrates that the protection via the Supreme Court was not in any jeopardy of failing to function, as it has successfully protected women's rights for over 50 years.
- inkblotuniverse 4y agoOn extremely shaky ground. Had Roe v Wade not been decided as it was, there would now be legislation.
- yieldcrv 4y agoWhich is something both Justice Alito “the religious right” and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “super left savior” agreed on! Paradoxically, the Roe decision created the division that has far extremes. A false dilemma of which there are many other possibilities. Also something those two justices agreed on. Congress avoided the topic for 50 straight years, masquerading the ruling as good enough, now it continues to lack consensus for anything else, its up to the people to attempt something else. If consensus cannot be reached then consensus cannot be reached, which is something I empathize with, people need to optimize their use more effectively and conform it to the consensus mechanisms of this country. Generate proposals that are more inspired and would have broader consensus, of which I do have a few.