• almar_quigley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree both major parties had a hand in this directly or indirectly. But only one has any chance of changing this for the better.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 month ago

        Which one, the one that directly revoked women’s rights or the one that did nothing to prevent it from happening?

        • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          We have 3 Justices on the court because of *the party that did nothing." Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment at this point will “codify” abortion rights in the eyes of the right. We need to get SCOTUS back.

    • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Up until the court decided to start ignoring centuries of legal tradition that is the bedrock of our legal system and threw out stare decisis the decision was actually more secure than a specific law.

      Any law codifying it can be challenged on many grounds, especially the 10th amendment. It could easily have been struck down as unconstitutional because the federal government has no power to pass a law affecting this issue, since the constitution doesn’t grant it.

      Only a constitutional amendment would have been likely to survive a court willing to do what this one has done, and there is zero possibility the Democrats could have passed one.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Several members of Congress thought a law was good enough, Obama thought it was good enough when he promised to sign the freedom of choice act on day one in office. Then 3 months later said it was no longer a legislative priority.

          • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            There is an old saying, ‘see something, say something.’ Democrats saw something and their only thought was turning it into a fundraising opportunity.

            • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m guessing that’s in reference to your reply to someone else about messages going out asking for donations after the supreme court decision? That may be in poor taste, I’ll grant you, bug doesn’t change the fact that it still wasn’t the democrats that made the decision in the first place.

              If Person A punches Person B, and Person C could have stopped it, I would still blame Person A for throwing the punch.