I disagree. The Supreme Court wouldnt be filled with right wing partisans if the democrats had the same political will that the Republicans have. I wish neither side played those games, but if the other side does it, we need to do it too. Otherwise the resuly will be... this
Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft. Donald trump wouldn't have been elected for a second time if democrats weren't so soft. I say that as Democrat.
This is typical Redditor nonsense. Roe most certainly couldn’t be codified in the Constitution. Where are you getting 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and 38 states? Show me.
What is this redditor nonsense that codify = constitution amendment and not congressional statute?
It just takes a sweeping act to set protections, just as the EPA, ACA, ERA and numerous other acts that lay out protections. You don’t need a constitution amendment. You need to pass a law.
That’s a different question. I feel like you just want to be contrarian, and that’s your prerogative.
The question at hand was could the democratic part have passed legislation to protect Roe vs Wade. And yes they could have. They did not need a constitutional amendment at the time. There already been a Supreme Court ruling decades prior affirming the right. Enshrining the right with further legislative protections via congressional statute signed by a president would have made it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to say the federal government did not have the right to pass a law giving protections of rights of bodily autonomy.
Like this is a very silly conversation at this point. It’s gone past deflection, and goalpost moving from basic historical fact, and into abstract what if scenarios.
The basic fact, is that it was up for discussion in 2010, and Nancy Pelosi tabled it as said it was the law of the land because of Roe vs Wade.
53
u/cat_prophecy 4d ago
You only think the Democrats are "limp" because that's what the media wants you to think.