Why do you think Roe v Wade was over turned. This is my favorite theory yet and just might be true. Will never know of course, but does make sense
The Supreme Court is packed with Catholics. Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and even one coming in with a dissenting vote (Sonia Sotomayor).
Abortion is a wedge issue that drives Republicans to polls. It's as simple as that. The GOP is unconcerned about the consequences of this policy. It's only there to get GOP voters to the polls.
Roe V. Wade being overturned also has nothing to do with the viewpoints of any particular party or individual Supreme Court justice changing. The GOP has been anti-abortion for about as long as I can remember. The difference here is that the GOP got three Supreme Court picks in one 4-year presidential term, swinging the court rapidly toward the right. This is the GOP exercising its newfound power to achieve its long-stated, consistent goal.
There are much more effective ways to boost military enlistment than banning abortion and waiting 18 years.
The concept of “legislating from the bench” should terrify everyone in America as it is a sidestep of the checks and balances among the 3 branches of government.
It is the job of Congress to enshrine the right to an abortion into Federal law.
Roe v. Wade was the abstruse excuse to justify the desired outcome. It was effectively legislating from the bench.
> First, all the republicans claimed they would follow precedent unless there was a really good reason.
I think a prior court precedent being unconstitutional is a really good reason.
> They now claim the limits of our rights were set in 1868.
Where did get this idea? From the actual opinion of Dobbs:
> In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree. To begin, I agree that constitutional rights ap- ply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional. But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments.
What it says is that the Supreme Court is not authorized by the Constitution to grant new rights. This is 100% correct. Legislative processes are the means that should be employed to accomplish this.
It is Congress’s job to legislate, not the Supreme Court’s. Be upset at Congress for never codifying these protections into law even during several years where the Democrats held Congress and the Presidency giving them ample means to do so.