A full ban with no exception for non-viable pregnancies that will kill the mother is literally fucking murder.
I do think there’s a number in the Senate somewhere between 52 and 59 where it gets done. I think people here have actually gone slightly too far in the “they’re in on it” stuff. Like, yes, they are, but it means shilling for corporations not supporting the GOP agenda top to bottom. They’re in on protecting this court because it’s good to corporations, not because they are pro life. They’re just happy to swallow that to protect corporate America. If they can do both (ie codify Roe), they will.
The problem is, the filibuster also protects corporate America’s best interests. So they’ll have to do some narrow carve out and create a new bullshit norm.
My mom believes it’s murder, and I don’t think she’s been lying to me about it for the last 25 years. But she’s also voted Dem since 2008 because she also believes that cutting CHIP is abhorrent, not giving poor mothers the support they need is repulsive, not giving everyone healthcare is disgusting, treating immigrants horribly is terrible, and Trump is evil.
Nobody making the policies really believes it’s murder, I’d agree.
As for the voters, it’s a mixed bag, like with most issues. Sure, plenty of them just hate women, want them to be punished, blah blah. But a ton have been exposed to propaganda where they’re told that every abortion involves doctors going up and ripping each limb off the defenseless fetus as it tries to squirm away (clearly showing that it’s fully aware and just wants to survive and meet mommy!), then suck its brain out with a vacuum or something. It creates a visceral reaction in people and they believe it because they’re intellectually incurious and they vote based on that.
Excited for Manchin blocking a nomination until after midterms to let the people decide and then a GOP landslide, a 6-2 court for 2 years and then a 7-2 court in 2025!
There was an interesting discussion on stare decisis on the Ezra Klein podcast. Klein basically asks: if politicians think that a case was wrongly decided, they pledge to appoint judges that agree that the case was wrongly decided, and then they successfully appoint those judges - the idea that the judges have to respect the ‘wrong’ decision is kind of dumb.
The response from the legal expert guest he had on is that the power of the SCOTUS is so unusual and undemocratic, that stare decisis is necessary to maintain legitimacy. Having the interpretation of federal law or the Constitution bounce back and forth is devastating for people’s faith in the judiciary.
