• Merlin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.

    While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.

    Let’s hope I’m right.

    • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      The Supreme Court currently has a majority of batshit insane constitutional originalists.

      They are most definitely capable of doing this.

      They just have to divine some batshit insane constitutionally originalist argument that justifies it.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      I said the same thing about Roe V. Wade. “The SC would never actually over rule it. The women on there wouldn’t stand for it” I said, trying to console my spouse. What a fool I was

      • Merlin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        I empathize. But Roe v Wade was never a super-precedent and while I support abortion, I (and many legal scholars) found flaws in the notion that a fundamental right to privacy is located in the 14th amendment and that that right extends to abortion. This is why I think it was a mistake that Democrats didn’t codify abortion rights when they had the chance in 2008.