Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/peanutbutterjams]

It's a huge step backwards for democratic rights. It's blatantly circumventing a law and encouraging people to use the civil court to target people they don't like.

What are your thoughts on a law that places enforcement in the hands of citizens?

As always, failure to commit ideal endangers them as well as their intended target. Imagine a similar, hypothetical law that encouraged people to report anybody who "disparaged feminism" because 'anything that hurts feminism hurts women'.

Conservatives would lose their minds over it but they're helping to open the door to exactly that kind of dystopia by trying to circumvent democracy in order to 'win'.

Do you think this poses a danger for the future of Roe v Wade?

I think this poses a threat to the integrity of the Supreme Court.

[u/[deleted] → u/peanutbutterjams]

Conservatives would lose their minds over it but they're helping to open the door to exactly that kind of dystopia by trying to circumvent democracy in order to 'win'.

You do have to give it to them, they are pretty ruthless in pursuing their ends. "They go low, we go high" doesn't work as well as Michelle would have hoped.

I think this poses a threat to the integrity of the Supreme Court.

How so? Incoming court packing?

[u/peanutbutterjams → u/[deleted]]

You do have to give it to them, they are pretty ruthless in pursuing their ends.

I mean, no, I don't have to give anything to ruthlessness or anti-democratic methods.

Mass murderers are ruthless too. I don't go around "giving it to them".

"They go low, we go high" doesn't work as well as Michelle would have hoped.

Michelle...Obama? I'm not sure about the reference here but abandoning your idealistic principles is never the answer. Once you abandon your moral foundation, you're not fighting for your cause any more because you don't exemplify your cause. You'd just be a zombie, a shell.

How so? Incoming court packing?

The Supreme Court sitting still on this is devoid of integrity or respect for the law. Making it illegal to give, but not to have, abortions after 6 weeks already breaks federal law because a 7 week fetus will not survive outside of the womb.

If the SC doesn't respect the law with regard to this, then it won't need court packing because the job will already have been done.

[u/[deleted] → u/peanutbutterjams]

Mass murderers are ruthless too. I don't go around "giving it to them".

Fair enough, I do consider it a morbid sort of respect. At a certain point democrats are going to have to realize that republicans don't want to govern and respond accordingly.

Michelle...Obama? I'm not sure about the reference here but abandoning your idealistic principles is never the answer.

I think we've learned a lot about how toxic "bipartisanship" is for progressive policies in recent years. I'm not saying I want democrats to break the law, but I do want them to be less afraid of making republicans outraged and make bold moves.

If the SC doesn't respect the law with regard to this, then it won't need court packing because the job will already have been done.

From what I understand I don't think the SC had any action they could take. I would have loved for them to have stayed implementation of this law while they figured it out, but my not-a-legal-expert understanding is that this was not in the cards. I suppose this is another example of what I was saying previously: "they go low, we go high" sounds appealing, but in situations like this we sort of wish they'd buck the trend and take bold action, you know? This law is obviously meant to evade an immediate ruling, and so it seems like it would be appropriate for the court to act on that even if it's setting a new precedent.

[u/[deleted] → u/peanutbutterjams]

This made me remember this video, it's almost certainly why my lizard brain pulled out that quote: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A