[hackyhacky]

Like it or not, ever since SCOTUS seized the unconstitutional power to overturn legislation, they have been a political entity, effectively legislating.

The difference with recent rulings is that they've abandoned any pretense of political independence or legitimacy.

[pyronik19]

If that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want.

To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.

[hackyhacky]

Acknowledging that SCOTUS has always been political is not controversial. But until recently, they "legislated" in a fair way, in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. I am specifically objecting that change away from the appearance of neutrality, starting circa 2000 in Bush v Gore.

[pyronik19]

its fair when you get your way, its unfair when you don't? You think "Roe v Wade" is the appearance of neutrality but Dobbs isn't? What is your standard of fair vs unfair?

[hackyhacky]

Compromise.

Roe was that. Dobbs is not.

[pyronik19]

How is that a compromise... a controversial judgement you like is fair the one you don't isn't? That's not a standard.

[hackyhacky]

Roe was clearly a compromise, which was unsatisfactory to nearly everyone at the time. I don't like Roe, but it's better than what we have now, which is nothing.