SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!

Its called the 5th amendment

[It’s so Joever]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!

Its called the 5th amendment

That is for criminal cases lol. Besides not everyone will die from nukes.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

House: Safe R -> Tilt R
Senate: Lean R -> Lean D

Oh, who am I kidding?

Both Safe R is the correct answer

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

On this one, the military will back the red state governors

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We're so close. Maybe we can hit 50 pages by the weekend!

Weekend is likely lowballing how quickly that could come if anything!

[7,052,770]

House: Safe R -> Tilt R
Senate: Lean R -> Lean D

Oh, who am I kidding?

Both Safe R is the correct answer

I'll defer to your impeccable track record.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I like how people keep using pill data trying to convince republicans when they’re strategy has been to win with a minority for the last 20 years

They literally do not care what a majority think. A majority doesn’t rule. A half of a half decide the majority cause no one votes so why should they care what people think? They only need that 30% that hates abortion with a burning passion to win

[Mr. Reactionary]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!

Its called the 5th amendment

That is for criminal cases lol. Besides not everyone will die from nukes.

5th amendment due process applies to fed regs that affect property rights too. Not at all limited to criminal. All of those proposed fed regs getting notice and comments is because of 5th amendment due process. A civil committment is 5th amendment due process too.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!

Its called the 5th amendment

That is for criminal cases lol. Besides not everyone will die from nukes.

5th amendment due process applies to fed regs that affect property rights too. Not at all limited to criminal. All of those proposed fed regs getting notice and comments is because of 5th amendment due process. A civil committment is 5th amendment due process too.

The 14th would apply as well

[Badger]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!

Its called the 5th amendment

That is for criminal cases lol. Besides not everyone will die from nukes.

5th amendment due process applies to fed regs that affect property rights too. Not at all limited to criminal. All of those proposed fed regs getting notice and comments is because of 5th amendment due process. A civil committment is 5th amendment due process too.

Still completely irrelevant to beep boop's silly point.

[DrScholl]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

On this one, the military will back the red state governors

It's highly doubtful the military will take action over ignored Supreme Court orders. The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

The messiness is real, of course. This is a recurring pattern: "what happens if one side decides to invalidate the courts?", "what happens if the filibuster is abolished?", etc. Increasingly, it is the status quo party (Democrats) that argue these concerns. After all, "MUH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RIGHT CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?" etc. Elections should have real consequences - and in the absence of being able to realize them electorally due to various machinations, the politicians should face them via more overt means.

Compared to virtually every other legitimate democratic republic/representative democracy in the world, the US is an anachronistic monolith frozen in time, with no real consequences for elections and no ability to change its governing procedures. Maybe this was a beneficial concept in its early days, but the fact that basically every other developed nation has rewritten its governing documents multiple times and can actually respond to a changing world has left the US in the dust.

I'd also argue that the fact that so many Americans from across the aisle have lost confidence in the government to do what's right, act in their best interests or solve any problem is directly a result of this mindset. When it takes 75% of states to ratify even a minor change to the Constitution or 60% of one body of one branch of government to even pass statute, it's no surprise that so many feel that "both parties are the same" or that "government doesn't matter". Of course, this is a wet dream and intended outcome for the right (as they've never relied upon confidence in government in the modern era), so why should anybody else buy into it?

Let elections actually have consequences. Grease the slippery slope. Maybe we'll have a terrible revolution or breakthrough in enlightenment; either way, this nation is doomed if it remains on its current trajectory. Time to let the fault lines crack. Change is growth and vice-versa.

All fair points - I don't disagree. I just don't see why abortion access / shutting down the two clinics still open in faraway states that have no personal impact would cause that level of reaction. It's easy to see how it animates the rights since they have this deranged belief that mass murder is occurring.

The people most animated by the Supreme Court as an issue don't strike me as the people who support reform by any means necessary because a huge contingent are far too comfortable with the status quo. I think it's going to need mass economic stagnation. Especially with the loaded language coming out against 1/6, I don't think there is any appetite for left-wing escalation.

[DaleCooper]

I don't know what issue polling to believe and I don't trust any of it, but I absolutely do not believe that 50% of this country favors a 6 week abortion ban.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Everyone posting issue polling needs to read about acquiescence bias.

[DaleCooper]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

The messiness is real, of course. This is a recurring pattern: "what happens if one side decides to invalidate the courts?", "what happens if the filibuster is abolished?", etc. Increasingly, it is the status quo party (Democrats) that argue these concerns. After all, "MUH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RIGHT CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?" etc. Elections should have real consequences - and in the absence of being able to realize them electorally due to various machinations, the politicians should face them via more overt means.

Compared to virtually every other legitimate democratic republic/representative democracy in the world, the US is an anachronistic monolith frozen in time, with no real consequences for elections and no ability to change its governing procedures. Maybe this was a beneficial concept in its early days, but the fact that basically every other developed nation has rewritten its governing documents multiple times and can actually respond to a changing world has left the US in the dust.

I'd also argue that the fact that so many Americans from across the aisle have lost confidence in the government to do what's right, act in their best interests or solve any problem is directly a result of this mindset. When it takes 75% of states to ratify even a minor change to the Constitution or 60% of one body of one branch of government to even pass statute, it's no surprise that so many feel that "both parties are the same" or that "government doesn't matter". Of course, this is a wet dream and intended outcome for the right (as they've never relied upon confidence in government in the modern era), so why should anybody else buy into it?

Let elections actually have consequences. Grease the slippery slope. Maybe we'll have a terrible revolution or breakthrough in enlightenment; either way, this nation is doomed if it remains on its current trajectory. Time to let the fault lines crack. Change is growth and vice-versa.

All fair points - I don't disagree. I just don't see why abortion access / shutting down the two clinics still open in faraway states that have no personal impact would cause that level of reaction. It's easy to see how it animates the rights since they have this deranged belief that mass murder is occurring.

The people most animated by the Supreme Court as an issue don't strike me as the people who support reform by any means necessary because a huge contingent are far too comfortable with the status quo. I think it's going to need mass economic stagnation. Especially with the loaded language coming out against 1/6, I don't think there is any appetite for left-wing escalation.

I also think it's going to be an economic issue that finally sinks the Supreme Court. Whenever Democrats next find themselves in the majority with the presidency, and there's a serious recession (at least on 2008's scale) then that is when the filibuster will go. Then the Supreme Court will be targeted immediately after it strikes down one of the Democrats' policies, assuming it hasn't overstepped to the point that packing it isn't already issue number 1 on their agenda. Whether this happens sooner rather than later, who knows. What's important to consider is that faith in this country's institutions is plummeting, as Adam said, and I suspect that faith in the Supreme Court is likely going to become as partisan as approval of whoever the current president is. Once the geriatric leadership is gone, you're going to see leaders in both parties that don't even pretend to respect this country's institutions. If Roberts thinks that it's the leak that is threatening his Court's institution then he is way behind the times.

[Progressive Pessimist]

There is a lot of debate of who the ultimate apathetic culprits will be in this ruling: people who didn't vote for Gore, didn't vote for Clinton, McConnell and the Garland appointment larceny, Ginsburg for not retiring, etc. But I think it's going to depend on whether it's a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling in the end. if it's 6-3 there is no guarantee that on Earth 2 Clinton would have even had a Democratic Senate that would have allowed her to appoint any Justices. And if the Garland appointment still happened but Trump still won, Ginsburg still would have died and brought the court back to a 5-4 conservative majority.

My point is that there are so many permutations of how the court would be made up by this point, in different circumstances, that we're just going to be making ourselves insane.

The easiest thing to accept is that we live in the worst reality possible, and our side has worse luck than Arthur Fleck, unceasingly. Just accept that there isn't, and never was any hope. This was always going to happen because our country was constructed poorly and barely updated from an already unsustainable position. And there is almost no changing that either, especially with the future we are guaranteed to have to deal with. By the time we possible do get our way, when an entire generation of ignoramuses dies off, it'll be too late by that point, if we aren't already consumed by a supernova or rising tides. I hope for a quick, short apocalypse. Let's just get it over with and then we all don't even need to worry about anything anymore.

[All Along The Watchtower]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

I am also pro-abortion and pro-right to privacy but fundamentally agree with this post.

A right to privacy in the Constitution naturally implies a right to abortion only if you have accepted the premise that a fetus is not a person with independent human rights.  Just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right to murder another person in the privacy of your own home.

So in order for our interpretation of the Constitution to include a right to abortion, that interpretation must also include a justification for why a fetus is not a human life.  And Blackmun's opinion in Roe complete hand-waves this question.  It literally includes the line, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The opinion does include quite a bit of discussion of how other parts of the constitution by implication define person "only post-natally", if this is the standard for personhood, why does Roe permit unlimited restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

If there is a bright side to this opinion, I really believe it will force pro-abortion advocates to finally construct real arguments that actually engage the arguments of the other side rather than simply lazily resting on stare decisis to justify their positions.  I.e. rather than simply arguing that abortion is a right, we will actually have to make the argument for why abortion should be a right.

Yes, all of the debates about whether the Ninth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or alternatively, the Equal Protection Clause) protect a right to abortion based on a right to privacy that isn’t explicitly in the Constitution but is plausibly implied by certain amendments and clauses, ad nauseam mean absolutely nothing in the face of “abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.” That’s always been the objection. All of the rest is a red herring.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Back in the 1970s, Irving Howe made the argument that American Liberals had come to rely a little too much on winning political victories through the courts rather than through democratic means. He was concerned about this on several distinct grounds, but the two that are perhaps relevant here are the democratic legitimacy (or rather the danger of a perceived lack of) those decisions and the fact that those decisions could theoretically be overturned if the political composition of the judiciary altered radically.

In most 'Western' countries, of course, abortion is a political issue of relatively minor salience, largely because the legal framework determining what restrictions are applied to it are the result of social compromise; of the acceptance that it is a difficult issue on which public opinion tends to cut across most of the usual social cleavages. The exact social compromise varies as did the exact process by which it was reached, but the existence of it is the norm. Such a thing was probably achievable in the United States fifty years ago, but instead you are where you are: probably no issue, not even that of gun control, has done as much to poison American political life over the past half century, and things are likely to get even more toxic now.

[Schiff for Senate]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

I am also pro-abortion and pro-right to privacy but fundamentally agree with this post.

A right to privacy in the Constitution naturally implies a right to abortion only if you have accepted the premise that a fetus is not a person with independent human rights.  Just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right to murder another person in the privacy of your own home.

So in order for our interpretation of the Constitution to include a right to abortion, that interpretation must also include a justification for why a fetus is not a human life.  And Blackmun's opinion in Roe complete hand-waves this question.  It literally includes the line, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The opinion does include quite a bit of discussion of how other parts of the constitution by implication define person "only post-natally", if this is the standard for personhood, why does Roe permit unlimited restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

If there is a bright side to this opinion, I really believe it will force pro-abortion advocates to finally construct real arguments that actually engage the arguments of the other side rather than simply lazily resting on stare decisis to justify their positions.  I.e. rather than simply arguing that abortion is a right, we will actually have to make the argument for why abortion should be a right.

Yes, all of the debates about whether the Ninth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or alternatively, the Equal Protection Clause) protect a right to abortion based on a right to privacy that isn’t explicitly in the Constitution but is plausibly implied by certain amendments and clauses, ad nauseam mean absolutely nothing in the face of “abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.” That’s always been the objection. All of the rest is a red herring.

Back in the 1970s, Irving Howe made the argument that American Liberals had come to rely a little too much on winning political victories through the courts rather than through democratic means. He was concerned about this on several distinct grounds, but the two that are perhaps relevant here are the democratic legitimacy (or rather the danger of a perceived lack of) those decisions and the fact that those decisions could theoretically be overturned if the political composition of the judiciary altered radically.

In most 'Western' countries, of course, abortion is a political issue of relatively minor salience, largely because the legal framework determining what restrictions are applied to it are the result of social compromise; of the acceptance that it is a difficult issue on which public opinion tends to cut across most of the usual social cleavages. The exact social compromise varies as did the exact process by which it was reached, but the existence of it is the norm. Such a thing was probably achievable in the United States fifty years ago, but instead you are where you are: probably no issue, not even that of gun control, has done as much to poison American political life over the past half century, and things are likely to get even more toxic now.

If both these posts had been written just 5 minutes earlier, we would have gotten 30 pages of replies within 24 hours. It's a shame how we just barely missed that target! 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Back in the 1970s, Irving Howe made the argument that American Liberals had come to rely a little too much on winning political victories through the courts rather than through democratic means. He was concerned about this on several distinct grounds, but the two that are perhaps relevant here are the democratic legitimacy (or rather the danger of a perceived lack of) those decisions and the fact that those decisions could theoretically be overturned if the political composition of the judiciary altered radically.

In most 'Western' countries, of course, abortion is a political issue of relatively minor salience, largely because the legal framework determining what restrictions are applied to it are the result of social compromise; of the acceptance that it is a difficult issue on which public opinion tends to cut across most of the usual social cleavages. The exact social compromise varies as did the exact process by which it was reached, but the existence of it is the norm. Such a thing was probably achievable in the United States fifty years ago, but instead you are where you are: probably no issue, not even that of gun control, has done as much to poison American political life over the past half century, and things are likely to get even more toxic now.

Tbf, American politics did have social compromise of a kind, for almost a century really, and it wasn’t exactly good. 1876.txt

But your broader point is taken.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

For people feeling pain, this is what the conservative movement has felt for the last 50 years, as they fought to overturn the ruling. For the many who think abortion is murder, it has certainly been a painful time in their lives. Both sides will struggle through this battle and unity is key. I wish to see Americans from both aisles learn to be civil to each other, not attack fellow citizens over policy. Sadly, the fact that this was even leaked makes me feel that is getting less possible by the day.

[DaleCooper]

For people feeling pain, this is what the conservative movement has felt for the last 50 years, as they fought to overturn the ruling. For the many who think abortion is murder, it has certainly been a painful time in their lives. Both sides will struggle through this battle and unity is key. I wish to see Americans from both aisles learn to be civil to each other, not attack fellow citizens over policy. Sadly, the fact that this was even leaked makes me feel that is getting less possible by the day.

You know what, for a split second I was going to post something snarky in response to this, but I think this is a great post and it's an attitude people should appreciate. Well done.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1521485660649304064

[Tintrlvr]

Back in the 1970s, Irving Howe made the argument that American Liberals had come to rely a little too much on winning political victories through the courts rather than through democratic means. He was concerned about this on several distinct grounds, but the two that are perhaps relevant here are the democratic legitimacy (or rather the danger of a perceived lack of) those decisions and the fact that those decisions could theoretically be overturned if the political composition of the judiciary altered radically.

In most 'Western' countries, of course, abortion is a political issue of relatively minor salience, largely because the legal framework determining what restrictions are applied to it are the result of social compromise; of the acceptance that it is a difficult issue on which public opinion tends to cut across most of the usual social cleavages. The exact social compromise varies as did the exact process by which it was reached, but the existence of it is the norm. Such a thing was probably achievable in the United States fifty years ago, but instead you are where you are: probably no issue, not even that of gun control, has done as much to poison American political life over the past half century, and things are likely to get even more toxic now.

I don't this is *wrong* exactly, but it's a misdiagnosis. The problem is not that liberalism is (or was, especially back then, but to a significant degree even through the very recent past, too, up through Ginsburg's death) too reliant on the Supreme Court; the problem is that the Supreme Court (and the Presidency, but the Presidency is more limited in power) is the only effective way to get things done because of the institutional stultification of Congress inherent in the Constitution. That's not an issue in most other democracies because in most other democracies the legislature has more or less plenary authority (but Congress is highly limited by the 10th amendment in particular), reasonably approximates public opinion (but the Senate is totally unrepresentative to the point of being an anti-democratic institution and the House has (lesser) problems with gerrymandering) and operates on a majority-rules basis (which the filibuster, although the most solveable of these problems, prevents Congress from doing).

[Adam Griffin]

To keep with the emerging theme of others' posts here, I'll also make another argument against the existence of the court in present day: when was the last time any landmark policy (left or right, that was reliant upon one of them alone) got implemented in this country?

It's pretty easy for anybody left-of-center to answer this: 1968. CRA, VRA, FHA, etc: that's the last time any transformative policy actually passed via elected branches of government. Everything else has either been bipartisan in spirit (ACA) or actuality ("welfare reform"), or done by the courts. It's a scapegoat, and it's pretty sad when a regressive institution is still more proactive on social and cultural matters than the combined elected body of the so-called greatest representative democracy on the planet. I posit it's because we're reliant upon some arcane body to either protect these rights or advance them, rather than making the electeds actually act.

Elected government hasn't done a damn thing transformative for society or the economy (without it benefiting the rich) in 60 years. Make them.