Roe v Wade wasn’t a law. Actions by the Supreme Court which are unfavorable are much more likely given that there are only 9 justices, they are appointed regardless of popularity, and they have lifetime appointments.
The discussion is you comparing the overturn of a law to overturn of Roe v Wade. The weight is completely irrelevant because we’re discussing the difficulty of the action.
Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws.
This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.
<< This isn’t “playing semantics”, it completely invalidates your point. Look at how well overturning obama care went to see how difficult law passing is.
You do have a point. I disagree that it invalidates mine, but it does weaken it based on how it was originally present it. That said, we are absolutely playing semantics, because while Roe vs Wade was not the law, it was a precedent that effectively held back even a consideration of law changes at bay. So it is not irrelevant, but you are correct from a purely technical standpoint.
<< Anyone who knows basic federal government structure in the US knows court rulings are significantly easier to move quickly compared to passing real laws.
