How could one know about the history and beliefs of these justices, hear their questioning, see who has pushed them onto the bench, read their speeches, hell seen that their significant other believes in q crazy, and yet somehow think they'll change their mind or find some reasonable compromise.
You are correct in the danger of this blast radius.
This is TERRIFYING to me.
I'm skeptical here that this leak any differences though in that:
How can they make this ruling otherwise?
What changes could they make that don't set a scary and dangerous precedent?
without just flat out telling their truth that this is a religious decision and giving fetus' rights greater than actual living humans.
Their argument rests on their narrow view of "deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions."
If that is the logic, as you say, what is left to protect states from outlawing gay marriage, contraception, anal sex, and SOOOO much more.
What moderation could be added to this draft on this fundamental issue?
It's disgusting to me that they argue they are making some ethical stand to overturn 'egregious' decision equating this to Plessy, using this historical traditions argument.
We all know what the constitution actually did say and even worse the practices of the time.
What does history and traditions even mean too. It's obvious to me and not even slightly veiled. Hint it probably doesn't include indigenous history or the history of any non-white, wealthy, christian males in power, nor any traditions created or changed within the last 50 years.
Because if the standard is the status quo of 200 years ago, they will either let a few extreme states say no to basically every right we have lived for the last 100+ years OR they will just be hypocritically veiling their true reasoning.