12 ms·

> The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the richest billionare is going

> The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the richest billionare is going to be subject to any serious consequences? It's absurd to even entertain this. You know who has the authority to overturn that decision? Our democratically elected legislature.

zerocrates 4y ago
I wouldn't be so sure a hypothetical federal law enshrining a Roe-ish right to abortion would itself survive the inevitable challenge to its own constitutionality.
- cmurf 4y ago
  I expect this Court would find it a violation of he 10th amendment, leaving the issue to be decided only at the state level.
- parineum 4y ago
  I very much doubt it but even if I thought that would happen, I'd like to make them actually do it.
kibwen 4y ago
Are you referring to the legislature where one house is deliberately unrepresentative of the people, and where the other house has been gerrymandered into unrepresentative oblivion, and whose bills are signed by an executive position who has preposterously lost the popular vote in two out of the last six election cycles?
- parineum 4y ago
  Yeah, the one completely controlled by the party that says it's pro-choice. > executive position who has preposterously lost the popular vote What does the popular vote have to do with the presidency? Neither party strategizes to win the popular vote because the popular vote is meaningless. Therefore, the outcome if the popular vote has no value in determining who would win a popular vote should that be the metric by which the president is elected.