• bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    22 days ago

    They don’t entirely, though. In fact, much of what the SCOTUS has struck down has been them saying Congress needs to do their job and write laws to do what they want the laws to do, versus having the SCOTUS legislate from the bench. Don’t get me wrong, this SCOTUS is fucking awful, but there’s some slight truth to some of what they’ve said on some of their rulings. For example, Roe v Wade could’ve easily become a national law, but Congress won’t do it.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      22 days ago

      It’s bad when even RBG was saying roe shouldn’t have been used as law. The dems have had a ton of times to solidify it into law via the proper channels but won’t because it gets votes.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        Have they, though?

        It wasn’t because it gets votes, but because it loses votes. People will strongly object to one thing a hell of a lot faster than they’ll give you credit for doing anything. Look at Biden’s entire administration. We handled post-covid inflation* better than any other developed nation, but he didn’t get credit for the 90% he fixed. He got shit on for the 10% left to go.

        * And I’d argue a good chunk of that inflation was the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the bipartisan bill Trump signed into law while rejecting the oversight the Dems wanted. That was the biggest corporate giveaway in our nation’s history. Literally just giving public money to private corporations. A step far beyond “privatize profits, socialize losses”.

        Dems believed, reasonably, that Roe was settled and wasn’t in imminent danger. Holding a vote on that just pushes people away. Of course, in hindsight, they should have done it anyway. But as you can tell from this past election, and all the states that went red while passing women’s rights legislation, having the issue out there is not getting them votes.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          There is probably 1% of dems who are pro-life. The mass majority is pro-choice. This is like saying people who vote repubs are anti-gun. Dems have had a ton of chances to solidify it into law, which is way harder to remove.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Im reading this one.

                  Democrats’ Views on Legality of Abortion, 1975-2024

                  Which has abortion illegal as 3%.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    21 days ago

                    Democrats’ Self-ID on Abortion, 1995-2024

                    12% pro-life in 2024. 34% in 2012.

                    Going by

                    Democrats’ Views on Legality of Abortion, 1975-2024

                    It’s 61% pro-choice, 31% limited abortion, 3% totally illegal in 2024

                    It’s 40% pro-choice, 41% limited abortion, 13% totally illegal in 2012

                    Compare that to

                    Republicans’ Views on Legality of Abortion, 1975-2024

                    12% pro-choice, 64% limited abortion, 23% totally illegal in 2024

                    9% pro-choice, 61% limited abortion, 28% totally illegal in 2012

                    Unless we’re going to count the GOP both now and then as a pro-choice party, the fact is that the Dems being majority pro-choice is a recent phenomenon.

    • HailSeitan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 days ago

      This only sounds reasonable until you think about it for 2 seconds. Do you really want the Senate and Congress to have to learn about and try to legislate the details of chemistry, medicine, finance, engineering, etc, rather than delegating figuring out the details of tasks like “make the food safe” or “make the water clean” to scientists and other experts at agencies?

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        Notice how I emphasized “some” twice in my comment. It wasn’t a catch-all statement.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 days ago

      Roe v Wade would take a super majority and Dems had that for 4 months in the last 44+ years. Obama used that to get the ACA through. Not easy at all.