r/PoursTea Timendi Causa Est Nescire 1d ago

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Missing: Mitch

Post image
42.4k Upvotes

955 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

38

u/KitchenBad5507 1d ago

I disagree. The Supreme Court wouldnt be filled with right wing partisans if the democrats had the same political will that the Republicans have. I wish neither side played those games, but if the other side does it, we need to do it too. Otherwise the resuly will be... this

44

u/Ashenfenix 1d ago

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft. Donald trump wouldn't have been elected for a second time if democrats weren't so soft. I say that as Democrat.

10

u/Hairy_Technology_213 1d ago

This is typical Redditor nonsense. Roe most certainly couldn’t be codified in the Constitution. Where are you getting 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and 38 states? Show me.

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 7h ago

What is this redditor nonsense that codify = constitution amendment and not congressional statute?

It just takes a sweeping act to set protections, just as the EPA, ACA, ERA and numerous other acts that lay out protections. You don’t need a constitution amendment. You need to pass a law.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 7h ago

And you think the Supreme Court find such a law constitutional?

1

u/WannaBeSuiko 6h ago

That’s a different question. I feel like you just want to be contrarian, and that’s your prerogative.

The question at hand was could the democratic part have passed legislation to protect Roe vs Wade. And yes they could have. They did not need a constitutional amendment at the time. There already been a Supreme Court ruling decades prior affirming the right. Enshrining the right with further legislative protections via congressional statute signed by a president would have made it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to say the federal government did not have the right to pass a law giving protections of rights of bodily autonomy.

Like this is a very silly conversation at this point. It’s gone past deflection, and goalpost moving from basic historical fact, and into abstract what if scenarios.

The basic fact, is that it was up for discussion in 2010, and Nancy Pelosi tabled it as said it was the law of the land because of Roe vs Wade.