[commandlinefan]

> the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad

We anti-big-government crowd types are hopeful that the right to privacy that was invented by the supreme court in 1973 and revoked by the supreme court in 2022 will be added via the correct, non-reversible legislative process it ought to have been back then.

[sandworm101]

A constitutional amendment to enshrine a right to privacy/abortion is about as likely as Texas leaving the union to become part of Canada.

[commandlinefan]

Not sure if you're right or wrong, but either way - far from destroying democracy, that is democracy in action. If the majority wants abortion, we get abortion. If the majority doesn't, we don't.

[trs8080]

But the United States can hardly be called a democracy with gerrymandering, unelected federal judges, unequal representation for populous states in congress, and the electoral college.

The majority does want abortion rights, but those rights aren't coming. That's not democracy in action.

[sandworm101]

It isn't a democracy. It is a republic. It is rule by the people via a very specific system, one that isn't about simple majority rule.

[Fatnino]

Also known as not something that actually works

[mcphage]

> If the majority wants abortion, we get abortion. If the majority doesn't, we don't.

The majority does want abortion, and yet we just lost it.

> far from destroying democracy, that is democracy in action

Do you still believe this, given that your next sentence is patently false?

[fzeroracer]

So you're expecting the government to solve a problem created by the government? That seems rather unwise, especially since in the interim you are losing rights as time goes on.

Especially when people are cheering on the side that's removing said rights because people would ban abortion, same-sex marriage etc no matter the cost.

[commandlinefan]

> the government to solve a problem created by the government

The supreme court is the government too...