This sounds like GPT-3 trained on partisan talking points. If it's not, isn't it weird that you didn't notice that Democrats keep promising to codify Roe but never do? They had 40 years!! If they solved the problem, they wouldn't have that to campaign on and raise money with. Keep people enraged to get their vote. You're spot on about that, but it's how both parties operate. Never solve the problem so it'll be there next cycle.
The Democrats have rarely had a filibuster-proof majority in congress that would allow them to codify Roe. And they have been working under the assumption that it was a settled issue. As I recall, even some of the recently appointed Supreme Court justices were under that impression as well. At least until they were sworn in.
Even when they had a filibuster-proof majority, they didn't have a majority that believed in abortion rights. Some of the democrats in obama's brief filibuster proof session were pro life. Even now, at least 1 democrat senator is pro life.
Yep. Wedge issues. I'm glad the SC is trying to force congress to do its job. If only someone would do something about executive orders, we may make some real progress.
There is a long history and philosophy around the proper roles and relationships of a legislature and court such as SCOTUS. The current Court could claim to make decisions upon a strict originalist philosophy of jurisprudence. Maybe they think they do, and maybe they really do. But...
Take an open-eyed look at history. Look at the process by which the justices are selected. This shows a different ultimate motivator: conservatives have been working for decades to pick justices whose claimed philosophies align with the conservative agenda.
I don't care the motivation. The SC shouldn't be doing congress' job. Congress got burned because they've been complacent.
RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout. Same reason nothing is being done about the failed drug war.
> RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout.
If by 'tenuous footing', you mean that there is not legislation protecting it, I understand what you are saying. However, per stare decisis (respecting judicial precedent), the general idea of Rowe has been settled and stable for a long time. Public opinion has been relatively stable too.
You said "Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo.". Congress is a body, yes, but it is also comprised of parties and coalitions that disagree. Saying a "split-brain" body "chose" to keep the status quo isn't a very useful way of thinking about it. A better explanation (one that conveys more information about what is happening) is that the parties strongly disagree, and the party lines have gotten firmer over time.
In February (this year, 2022), the House passed a law codifying abortion with Democratic support. It failed the Senate 46-48 due to Republican opposition.
That's unfortunate. The Supreme Court can only function well if the justices are predominantly motivated by judicial, not political, principles.
If the court plays lip service to judicial principles while ultimately being driven by politics, it is a puppet and cannot serve as a proper check and balance.
Yawn. This is a cliche and talking point you know, to use your own language.
This statement does not address the issues head on. If you have a theory of jurisprudence, say it. You don't need to water it down with over-generalizations.
My comment was questioning the language of the other comment. It said "Congress got burned because they've been complacent.". This is a bizarre way of thinking about it.
In general, I push back against language and metaphors that don't have much value. We get to choose what metaphors we use. So we should choose good ones. Fixating on, i.e. "A versus B" is a competitive metaphor. But the branches of government are not competing against each other. They are working as part of system to (hopefully) maintain some semblance of a functioning representative democracy.
When one branch exercises a check against another branch, I don't think it is useful or interesting to say that it "won". I don't want us to start treating any of the branches as competitors in some kind of game or sport. I don't have much joy when, e.g. the House votes to impeach a President. It might be wise and justified (or not), but it is hardly a cause for celebration. But at times, it is necessary duty.
More specifically... No, Congress didn't "get burned". First of all, the composition of Congress has changed significantly over the last decades. Second, to my knowledge, the Dobbs ruling was not directed in any way at Congress or its legislation.
Please do not equate the parties. It is incredibly naïve to see two parties that aren't perfect and somehow wave your arms and say they are equivalently bad. They are clearly different both in terms of their policy objectives and their willingness to stay within the realm of truth and science.
Please do equate them. Neither stays at all within the realm of truth and science. I can't believe anyone still genuinely thinks either party does in the year 2022.
You are defining an arbitrary boundary and making a false dichotomy. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Stop putting them in the same category. This is useless and nondescriptive. Here's what I mean by that : if you were to build a machine learning classifier with a decision tree algorithm, what do you think some of the most important differentiators would be?
Tell me which party tends to acknowledge scientific evidence more often.
A fool sets impossible standards and moans that everyone falls short.
Accept reality. Choose from the better options. There is no perfect except in mathematics (and maybe some physics we don't know yet)
Your attempt to compare the Republican and Democratic parties creates a false equivalency. This is demonstrated by the January 6th insurrection fomented by a Republican president and covered up by the Republican establishment, which has no analog in the Democratic space.
Democrats do bad things. The bad things they do aren't as bad as what Republicans do. It's like having both pancreatic cancer and a zit, one's worse than the other.
Roe v Wade becomes codified, abortion becomes legal in all 50 states, immediately there is a lawsuit, they appeal to the supreme court, supreme court chooses to hear the case, supreme court repeals the codified Roe v. Wade.
IANAL but how does codifying Roe v Wade change this?
The decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.
You act like this was completely up to the Democrats. Please point to a time in history when codifying Roe with legislation would have passed the Senate.
