You’re a smart guy. I would suggest you also look at what Congress has prevented from happening. Which is just as important as making something happen. They have a shit job.
Everybody from the top hates you and everyone from the bottom hates you… it makes me wonder about the appeal of being a congressman.
You realize that the Christian Right is absolutely counting on the new-look SCOTUS to overturn RvW, yes? In other words, the Ebullient Right is as certain that RvW will be overturned as the Panicky Left is.
Whatever happens vis a vis Roe–whether it is overturned, or left standing–a substantial portion of the populace is going to be very, and very vocally, unhappy.
1 Like
Sorry, I don’t remember if I mentioned it on this forum, but probably the biggest inevitable cases that the court will hear will be Gerrymandeing cases.
1 Like
I give Congress a low score for a number of reasons and I have a pretty good handle on what they do.
That being said, I’m a stickler for the budget, so I’m pretty biased against them.
Agree there. I think an ego boost is the absolute last thing Congress needs. An ego boost should be reserved for people who do good work
A lot of it is driven by Roe v Wade being the single most important reason republicans wanted to get the SCOTUS seat. 2nd place is probably ‘takin yer gunz’
Given that I’m pretty unopinionated on abortion, this is the one that worries me. The GOP has a bad habit of stacking districts. Hopefully SCOTUS stops it, but I’m pretty doubtful given we’re adding another member of the gerrymandering party to the list
They could make a ruling that pisses everyone off like a “compelling interest” at such and such trimester.
2 Likes
A substantial portion of the population is already vocally unhappy.
I am not worried about people being happy, I am worried about doing the right thing.
Killing human beings, taking away everything they are or will be, while not being a threat to themselves or others is the wrong thing.
Neither, apparently, are you worried about staying on topic. Careful you don’t fall off the soapbox.
The only way Roe v Wade can be overturned is on the particular technicality that the lawyers for Roe were not representing their client’s best interest.
I don’t know how Norman McCorvey being dead affects that at a Federal level. It depends on whether her appeals were exhausted.
They cannot overturn it. They can gut it or they can legilate.
So keep your panties on, you can still kill your kids if you want to.
I won’t.
I’m confident that if we could find further ways to infringe on an explicitly’uninfringable’ 2nd, we would be able to find more ways to do so with the “right” to an abortion. Especially with some friendly justices. State imposed waiting periods, age limits, required imaging, etc.
1 Like
Flip it around, and imagine a state in which the access to arms is as restricted as is the access to abortion services in many states. For example, how about regulations so restrictive you end up with one gun store for an entire state?
I would be really happy with a middle ground like that. Fingers crossed.
Arms are explicitly granted and protected(to whatever degree you wish to interpret), while abortion is not. Not by a country mile.
Fine. In the states to which I’m referring, the ‘degree we wish to interpret’ said protection ends up limiting sales to one store (called The Country Mile, ironically enough).
As a thought experiment, I’d say I agree that would be overstepping (however impossible it would be). But I would also say the existence of this analogy, and others like it, drive the majority of the 2A ‘dont give an inch on anything’ mentality. Shit we can’t even get UBCs.
People see them (2A vs abortion) as separate and not equal under the law because they’re not. The constitutionally VASTLY different, in both legality and administration. But a decent sized chunk of liberals do not agree that they’re all that different.
1 Like
Appreciated.
Pat:
Interesting insight that I had not thought about before…and that I agree with.
There is a “grind” that they go through with things that we will never hear about…and they do certainly prevent a lot of shitty things from seeing the light of day.
With that being said; they can still frustrate the Hell out of me!
3 Likes
Is there a mechanism in the Constitution by which Rights are divided into two classes, one of which is more fundamental/important than the other? Because this is what I hear you suggesting.
Absolutely. The verbiage of the law/amendment in question.
Edit: I’d also say you could probably argue their classes based on the difficulty level of changing it
1 Like
OK, please identify for me the clause in the Constitution that indicates how we go about using “verbiage” to divvy rights into their respective classes.
Oh hell if I know, I’m not a member of the judicial. I could be way off about verbiage as the deciding factor. Normally I’d say you’re looking for things akin to the 1A/2A.
By nature of the verbiage of the 1A for example, it explicitly states a law cannot be made respecting religion (hue). I don’t believe the same is true of things like, say driving a car, or abortion.
I’m no legal scholar after all. That being said, I would never dream of equating the right to free speech with the right to drive, for example. So in my mind, various classes HAVE to exist.
1 Like