Bottom Line regarding abortion rights:

[MOMFUDSKI]

Where were the dems for 47 years in not codifying Roe into LAW???? So here we are. SHIT

[Rebl2]

1. 👆

[Cattledog]

2. And not prioritizing state level races or SCOTUS nominees.

[RockRaven]

3. You think this SCOTUS would have had any problem declaring such a law unconstitutional?

They'd do it without missing a beat, no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent their explanation for why.

There are only two things that matter to this SCOTUS: what outcome they want, and do they have the votes. Everything else is just bullshit and handwaving.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

4. Well, it could've helped to have done so in the past

Current SCOTUS would look REALLY stupid if they suddenly took up a case against a law passed 20, 30, 40 years ago by Congress.

Corrupt as they are, they actually might not have felt that was appropriate.

I understand the sentiment ... although I'm not sure there's been many times it'd have been practical to DO ... what the OP suggests, due to the filibuster being in place.

[RockRaven]

5. If I understood what I read correctly, some gun laws overturned by the NY gun case are

up to 100 years old. This SCOTUS literally does not care how political, inconsistent, corrupt, ignorant, radical, etc they appear enough to affect their rulings.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

6. True, but those weren't passed by the US Congress tho, just saying (nt)