As it does about equal protection. The right to bear arms without restriction is as much an invention of the Supreme Court as the right to an abortion. Neither has any direct basis in the Constitution.

Come on, stop drinking the cool aid. There are strict textualists/Originalists among Conservatives, sure. Gorsuch seems to be shaping up as such. But this isn't a broad feature of every conservative justice. Not in the Supreme Court, nor in the lower Courts.

So how does, say, Citizens United fit into this construction? Or Hobby Lobby, which gave for-profit companies religious rights? Those are some rulings with staggering expansions of rights, with literally zero constitutional basis. You'd have to cherry pick a lot to come to your conclusion.

Cite for me such relevant passages that say money is speech, or that corporations have personhood, and thus, some rights granted to individual people.

And the liberal Justices are dilettantes who are duplicitous? I think you are mistaking a different legal philosophy for bias.

That is the legal framing of their core issue with the ruling, which is that it allows the right to abortion. If Roe had been decided on the basis of the Equal Protection clause, that is what they'd have objected to.

No. The legal justifications come in response to moral objections. And this isn't just for the Conservatives, of course, but I'm just scratching my head at your attempts to say the whole rancor over Roe v. Wade is about the way it was decided, rather than what it decided.

Yeah that's ludicrous, given the past decade. Continue with your fantasy worship of the Conservative justices. Perhaps this explains why you're unable to get why the Democrats are thinking about this differently than you. They aren't drinking the kool-aid, and they have plenty of evidence from cases over the past w decades to show that it would be dangerously stupid for them to.

Sure. Which is why I'd add justices to the Court and then offer the truce of a Constitutional Amendment that puts an 18 year term limit for Justices in a 15 member bench, and cases are decided by a random selection of 5 justices, with a full bench appeal as a final possibility.

If not, sure the Court is degraded as a partisan body that gets new justices added every time control flips, and that will not be all that different from the partisan court preventing democratically elected Democrats from fulfilling their mandate.

That's the problem here. Following the "rules" has no literal upside to the Dems, especially when the other side will break them whenever it is suitable to them.

You mean a dissolution of the USA is preferable to Justices acting as a relief valve for partisan gridlock in Congress? Yeah, I'm not in any way in agreement.

Was Obamacare, or the Voting Rights Act, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act invalidly passed laws? Please explain how so.

Since that isn't my idea at all, I'll let you whack that strawman on your own.

What the actual fuck do you mean about conservatives not being able to argue with the SC? Their entire desire to break all rules to fill as many seats as they can with Conservatives they can trust on their key issues is predicated on their profound dissatisfaction with the Court.

Take all your arguments for not putting up so much effort on control of the Court and make it to a Republican. Explain to me why they shouldn't try to legislatively ban abortions at the federal level, instead of trying to overturn Roe? Why should they invent a ludicrous rule that a President cannot fill an SC seat 10 months from the end of his term? Then break that rule just 4 years later?

If they have no issue with the Court, what's with all this norm breaking?

Hence the proposal to add more justices to the court. That's the very narrow purpose of that plan. It's most certainly not a cure for all that ails America.

Not even then. Some Red states like Alabama have clear majorities opposing abortion, but you won't find it in Texas or Arizona or Georgia.

And if, "some states have a majority view opposed to the national majority" is a reason to call something having "majority democratic" support, then pretty much any position you can think of has "majority democratic" support.

But what about women in Red states? I really don't get why them losing this fundamental right is an acceptable cost for whatever hope you have of Court legitimacy.

Except it is <I>because</I> of Roe and it's precedent that those cases were decided the way they were. Take that away and the situation changes.

Do you mean a person who carried a fetus to 30 weeks and now decided they don't want to deliver it? Or do you mean due to health complications, they seem an abortion?

In a national climate where any kind of abortion is treated like the way it is, such a nuance is lost. But do look at the statistics. There are very few abortions in the 30 week range due to it being a non-medically driven choice. I'd be happy to have regulation preventing that if the wording is narrow and does not enforce women to take medical risk to carry a fetus to term.

It is not. If the fundamental principle of abortion is agreed on, then legitimate restrictions on edge cases have their place. That should always have been the focus of the Conservatives, except they always bundle it up with abortion as a whole, and add in anti-contraception mandates and laws making their entire case completely nonsensical.