(09-19-2021 10:49 PM)scorpius Wrote:  the Supreme Court is the only body which creates the solution, whether it's interpreting an amendment specific to the issue, or short of that, using those not specific to the issue to interpret a solution. Leaving it up to the states MIGHT work over time through oppression if women still eventually effectively have access to abortion (thus retaining the right of choice), just like it ended up working with alcohol. Some counties still ban it, but everyone still has effective choice to obtain it by crossing nearby county lines. Time will tell if abortion works the same way. But if there are pockets where it causes significant oppression like before Roe, the devil will make itself known until there is a solution one way or another……

a life-long Republican justice, Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe, basically arguing the right to privacy under the 14th amendment, which makes perfect sense for a party-of-less-government. Republicans didn't start pushing against this less government approach until they oddly took up the pro-life movement and thus created total hypocrites of themselves. The most rational explanation in my opinion is they got desperate after Nixon turned out to be a crook and had to resign since it happened at roughly the same time period.

We’re talking in circles here, just repeating what’s already been said. I have tried to refrain speaking about the issue of abortion itself here and will not start now.

But three parting points:
1. The idea of the Supreme Court “creat[ing] the solution” to this issue. Wow. They’ve been trying since 1973, and the people overall have never swallowed the medicine. “Time will tell”, in your phrase, if they ever do, but I will candidly predict that they never will. Issues like this, which touch on freedom, sex, life and death, and the definition of the term “human being” are just not amenable to a “solution” from a committee of 9 lawyers, none of whom were elected by the people, deliberating in secret with life-tenure, and making grandiose philosophical pronouncements when the spirit moves them to do so.

Incidentally: for someone who has Dred Scott on the brain, it’s curious that you would be so eager for the judicial branch to try and “solve” this. The Court tried to do that with slavery in 1857 and the result was catastrophic.

2. Harry Blackmun was a life-long Republican, ’tis true. The idea that his thoughts and writings would therefore bind all other Republicans forever and ever is… not convincing to me. By the way, Roe dissenter Byron White was a life-long Democrat. Should his views on the issue similarly bind Democrats?

3. Again with the Nixon angle, LOL. We’ve now had ~47 years since Nixon resigned, and ~41 years since the pro-life movement emerged as a force within national GOP campaigns. My honest question to you: can you cite any published source — from anyone at all — who thinks the former caused the latter? or did you think that up on your own?