[sjg007]

If the Supremes overturn Roe vs Wade they will lose all of the legitimacy they’ve spent the last 70 years building.

At that point the Court itself is fubar. It probably already is fubar since Trump anyway. Clarence Thomas and his wife’s Jan 6th involvement is just the cherry on top of a shit show.

In the end they are falliable humans like the rest of us so perhaps we hold too high an opinion.

[rayiner]

The fact that liberals peg their views of the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” on a cluster fuck of an opinion as Roe v. Wade speaks volumes.

Roe is so bad that it has long united libertarian conservatives (who hate it because it makes up a right out of thin air) and social conservatives (who had abortion on the merits).

In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms, which:

1) Generally recognize abortion as an issue for the legislature.

2) Typically draw the line for elective abortions at the end of the first trimester, not viability. The abortion laws in Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain would be unconstitutional under Roe.

[tbrownaw]

> In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms

Isn't our take on freedom of speech rather out of line with international norms? And probably also our take on bearing arms being a right?

I don't think I buy the implied claim that being out of line with norms is necessarily a bad thing.

[maxerickson]

I think I've actually asked you something like this before, but is there a compact way to write a constitutional amendment that creates a right to privacy?

[sjg007]

A racist would make the same argument about Brown vs Board.