I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe. Other than the fact that he got elected.
That's the "very little connection" you're missing.
Charitable descriptions are, at this point, unmerrited.
[1]"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
I think intellectual honesty would lead most people to think that Roe had to go. The only question was: do we fix it with better reasoning (if some Constitutional basis does exist), or throw it out. Casey tried to do the former but didn't quite seem to do it. So now it's gone and left to the states.
I suspect only a few states will go extreme. And they'll have to see the consequences and try to make it work, or answer to the electorate.
Oh, right. There is.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-i-will-be-appointing-pro...
The only way one might reasonably call the imminent opinion "activism" is based on stare decisis. And that's a debatable topic.
So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected."
Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.
...'twas ever thus.
But seriously: nothing in my comment was specific to any particular politician. I am a free speech absolutist because I don't trust you to judge what I'm allowed to hear. For all values of "you".
The correct reaction to "omg, this person whom I hate just won the election!" is not to censor the person in some desperate, misguided attempt to prevent people from liking him. It's to offer a better alternative in the marketplace of ideas. Asserting that you can't do this because "society is broken", or similar excuses, is just a cop-out.
looks around nervously
So instead of letting stupid people vote, you would prefer that their vote is manipulated and therefore cast for them? You would prefer a fascist state?
I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable limiting any kind of speech on the grounds that it may get the wrong person elected.
If someone says something hateful and gets elected, that's just one of the flaws of democracy. But I haven't heard of any better system.
The U.S. has checks and balances to slow down the worst of it. I mean, given how much Trump wanted to do vs how much he actually did, it's pretty clear the system worked.
I'm pro-choice, but I also know that many people aren't, and the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed.
Even perfect systems don't produce perfect outcomes all the time. If you have an idea for improvements to the system, I'm all ears, but limiting speech of political candidates is very likely a regression. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be turned against you.
Anything that's not clear in the Constitution is fair game, then?
SCOTUS is not the only mechanism for preserving rights. We also have state constitutions, elected representatives, etc., and it seems like those are also (mostly) doing their part to protect bodily autonomy.
With a strong enough mandate, there could also be federal laws.
But we are in a country where not everyone agrees and the text is ambiguous, so I don't really know what you expect to happen that would be in line with democratic principles.
* One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination
* One because an existing Republican judge died
* And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.
retired
Actually, this rule, the so-called "Biden Rule" was created by Joe Biden in 1992 in explaining his refusal to "confirm any election-year Bush nominees leaned explicitly on the different standards applicable to divided government" [1]
> Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) [2]
> “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.” [2]
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no...