[frankfrankfrank]

I agree with you until you parroted the propaganda trope about Roe v Wade. Roe has always been known as “bad law” even though it was never law, only illegitimate judicial dictate. It’s always been known as one of the worst rulings in American history.

It’s unfortunate that you would demonstrate such logically compromise in such a blatant manner, ironically, in a post about “bad law”. Ironically, overturning Roe specifically was good law, in that it followed the law the ruling was a blatant violation of.

[saint_fiasco]

I'm confused. You act hostile yet you seem to agree with the original comment.

The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not. They want legislators to be responsible for that.

You, the judges, and the parent comment are all in agreement here.

[patmcc]

Oh, bullshit. The same judges who "want legislators to be responsible" for deciding abortion laws also explicitly don't want legislators deciding campaign finance and firearm laws.

It's political. It's always been political. It always will be. The judges that want abortions illegal will find legal arguments to make that happen and vice versa.

[OJFord]

I have no idea what Roe v Wade is about (I'm not American or in the US), but I like GP read the parent comment to theirs as meaning 'these jokers overturned it, that is bad, we cannot rely on them'. Re-reading after seeing your own comment, it is ambiguous really, you could read it either way, but you're probably right (having the context of what it's about) and GP just mistook the meaning as I did.

> If anything has proven this [that 'we need to react better to laws as they are being drafted, not wait out their inevitable harm to society'] lately is the Roe v. Wade overturn, we really need to stop relying on courts to "save" us and instead fight for better laws [...]

[smokeypanda]

Your first reading was correct. The ambiguity is whether the comment was referring 'we'(author is part of referenced group), or 'them'(author is describing disgruntled group), possessing the viewpoint that the overturning was bad.

[orangepurple]

It all boils down to people fighting for the right to do whatever they want to an unborn soul including shutting down its life processes at will. They all have different justifications and excuses. It boils down to the local morality hence why judges kicked it back to the local governments.

[guelo]

Souls aren't a real thing.

[orangepurple]

Neither is "abortion"

[MrVandemar]

> The reason Row v Wade was overturned is that the judges don't want to have to decide if abortion is legal or not.

No. The reason Roe v Wade was overturned is because conservative middle-aged/old white-guys with money are not happy about people, and by people I mean women, having reproductive choice.

It's one of the areas that fundamental islam and conservative "Christians" have significant overlap, and that's not a good thing.

[account42]

> white-guys

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

[MrVandemar]

It's not just about the make-up of the supreme court; it's about the people and politics of the people who appointed them.

[l8rlump]

Yeah, we can’t have major world religions agreeing about stuff. Especially stuff you don’t agree with ;)