After RGB

[Polymath257]

In a democracy, it is indifference which facilitates that take-over.

And it is amazing how indifferent people are to the present take-over.

 

[pearl]

So a republican/conservative/originalist would leave the decisions in the hands of the individual states. So each state may have different abortion laws. In some states you could get an abortion in some states you couldn't.

That would have been the position of Justice Anton Scalia regarding the abortion issue. If it were up to him the Court never would have heard Row v Wade, as 'the Constitution does not speak to abortion.' Nor would he have voted to overturn Roe v Wade for the same reason, but give the issue back to the decision to the states.
We are a Republic governed by a Constitution and it now seems we may not hold this Republic. Abortion is only one critical issue to be heard by the Court, others are more consequential for the greater impact on all of citizenry; voting rights, gender equality, same sex marriage, the right for anyone to have health insurance etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., others are more consequential for the greater impact on all of citizenry; voting rights, gender equality, same sex marriage, the right for anyone to have health insurance etc.

Less consequential for whom?

 

[pearl]

Less consequential for whom?

Abortion is but one issue the consequence of which affect one segment of the population, Other issues will affect the lives of a greater number of the population.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the way democracy dies.
When you have a common goal or direction, you keep to the rules, the formal and those of courtesy. When the party goal becomes more important than the common goal, the in-fighting starts. The US is about to lose its common goal and start a civil war. It is already a civil cold war. You already are a failed democracy. Four more years of Trump will make the US a failed state.
I'm looking forward to it because it will make the world safer.

Some rules are mere accepted practice, &
are subject to change when you least want.
The ones that matter are in the Constitution.
It's how our democracy works.
So tough times notwithstanding, I'm optimistic
for the country, no matter who wins in Nov.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, the ABA said as much

I recall his difficulties being about constitutional originalism.
Searching....
A.B.A. PANEL GIVES BORK A TOP RATING BUT VOTE IS SPLIT
Excerpted....
A key committee of the American Bar Association has voted to give Judge Robert H. Bork its highest rating, but the committee was sharply divided, with four members evaluating him as ''not qualified'' for the Supreme Court, sources close to the process said today.

Of the 15 members of the A.B.A.'s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, 10 gave Judge Bork the highest rating, ''well qualified,'' four voted ''not qualified'' and one ''not opposed,'' one source said. The number of dissenters was highly unusual; in the view of Judge Bork's opponents, this could pose a problem for his nomination to the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The panel's vote was taken on Tuesday. Next Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee opens what are expected to be ideologically and politically charged hearings on the nomination. Opponents said the dissent on the A.B.A. committee could provide ammunition against Judge Bork.

President Reagan, in a statement today, said he was ''especially pleased'' by ''this endorsement from the A.B.A.'' Justice Department officials welcomed the vote as a tribute to Judge Bork.

The most surprising aspect of the vote, as Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other opponents stressed, was that the endorsement was not unanimous.
:
It also unanimously gave Judge Bork himself its highest rating in 1981, when he was nominated for the seat he now holds on a Federal appeals court here. The committee's standards for Supreme Court nominees are somewhat more exacting than those for other judicial nominees.

The opponents also stressed that the A.B.A. committee excludes political and ideological criteria from its ratings. Therefore, they asserted, the vote indicated significant disagreement in the legal establishment about Judge Bork's integrity or judicial temperament, which have been considered among his strongest assets.

Although the dissenters' exact reasons could not be determined, sources familiar with the vote suggested that at least one lawyer was troubled by Judge Bork's vehement published attacks on the legitimacy of many major Supreme Court decisions. These sources said the dissenters were also troubled by what they considered evidence that the judge had not always practiced the ''judicial restraint'' that he has so forcefully advocated.

At least one dissenter also appeared troubled by purported contradictions between Judge Bork's account of his actions as Solicitor General in 1973 after he dismissed Archibald Cox as the Watergate special prosecutor and other evidence studied by the committee, the sources said.

The opposition to Judge Bork has been driven primarily by concern among many liberals and moderates that his very conservative political and legal views would produce a sharp shift to the right on the closely divided Court. Opponents have argued that he is so extreme in his conservative views that he is outside the legal mainstream.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Abortion is but one issue the consequence of which affect one segment of the population, Other issues will affect the lives of a greater number of the population.

Two quick points:

1. I'm not a big fan of that brand of social calculus: using your criteria, slavery only affected one segment of the population.
2. The presumption that Roe v Wade is inconsequential to me - a person with four daughters in law and eleven granddaughters - is thoughtless and insulting.

 

[Heyo]

Some rules are mere accepted practice, &
are subject to change when you least want.

When the rule is "do what you want if you have the power", you have an elected dictator, not a democracy. Then it's only one step to get rid of the elections to keep in power indefinitely. (And, as you may know, the elections are under attack - and almost nobody cares.)

 

[Revoltingest]

When the rule is "do what you want if you have the power", you have an elected dictator, not a democracy. Then it's only one step to get rid of the elections to keep in power indefinitely. (And, as you may know, the elections are under attack - and almost nobody cares.)

We're a constitutional republic, so our elected "dictator"
has limits on power. Elections will survive....you have
my money back guarantee on that.

 

[Polymath257]

When the rule is "do what you want if you have the power", you have an elected dictator, not a democracy. Then it's only one step to get rid of the elections to keep in power indefinitely. (And, as you may know, the elections are under attack - and almost nobody cares.)

Dictators often do not get rid of elections. Stalin was elected many times.

Instead, they *control* the elections in such a way that nobody else has a real chance of winning.

Stalin even said that he didn't care who voted as long as he got to count the votes.

 

[pearl]

1. The presumption that Roe v Wade is inconsequential to me - a person with four daughters in law and eleven granddaughters - is thoughtless and insulting.

Abortion is always a choice, there is no mandate that one must have an abortion. Unlike the other issues with no options.