As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


By anti-progressive, I think you mean openly fascist


Just like the old classic "anti-antifa" merchandise


The "pro-fascist" shirts didn't sell as well


Yeah, Anti-American, not just for progressives. It’s not a message either, it’s the law handed down by judicial activism. All projection once again…


Christian fascists!


don’t see how sending the decision to legislate laws on abortion is fascist


Ah, a fresh downvote farmer. Here to solely post in hot takes that all solely gain negative attention. Be less obvious.


Why does politics even allow accounts below a certain threshold? It is annoying.


No. You don't see. Stop bragging about being uninformed. Fucking read or something. [https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/roe-anti-abortion-enforcement-criminalize/](https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/roe-anti-abortion-enforcement-criminalize/) [https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/04/26/women-fascists-democracy-backslides-abortion-rights](https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/04/26/women-fascists-democracy-backslides-abortion-rights) [https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-dobbs/](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-dobbs/) [https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/american-fascism-rise-anti-abortion-voter-suppression-bills-thrive-n1278948](https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/american-fascism-rise-anti-abortion-voter-suppression-bills-thrive-n1278948) https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-view-warns-that-fascism-is-coming-if-scotus-overturns-roe


that’s really cool bro thanks


More like regressive


The plan laid out in the Powell Memo from 1971 has succeeded.


Thanks; I hadn’t heard of it before. https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/


Thanks for that, reading up on that now


In reality all they're doing is further undermining the legitimacy of the institution and sending the message that: 1. The court makes decisions based on personal bias and political affiliation rather than the rule of law. 2. We will need extreme changes to the court in order to restore its legitimacy and integrity, possibly including but not limited to revisiting the power of judicial review, impeaching rogue justices, installing term limits, and expanding the court. I'm not super optimistic that any of this will happen because it would require a supermajority of progressive democrats, but that's whats needed at this point.


More Americans need to realize that your democracy *has already been fatally wounded.* It's too late for this particular set of political norms. The rot has set in. The game has been rigged. The umpires have no interest in calling each game fairly; they've already picked the winner and started tampering with the strike zone. At this point, trying to play by the rules will only get you further behind.


The court has always basically been that way. FDR blackmailed the court to rubber stamp everything he wanted law be damned. Go back further and its the same. You think Dred Scott and Marbury v Madison werent political decisions? Korematsu is STILL law of the land. The fact is for once in a long time (1920s and early 30s really) the court isnt a liberal rubber stamp and you cant take it. When your side loses you call it illegitimate and want to completely dismantle those institutions until you get what you want, then you claim to be for democracy. In democracy you can lose. As a libertarian we've lost ever since Calvin Coolidge; looks like your turn to hop on the loser train. Y'all acting like little children throwing temper tantrums. Instead of acting like adults where you persuade people and go vote you want to destroy the foundations of this country, and you have the audacity to lecture others? Personally I cant wait for US dissolution. Bring on the free state of New Hampshire unburdened by liberal, progressive and conservative whackos who are all nationalist authoritarians wanting to ram their BS down the whole nations throat without regard to those [local] peoples values. Diversity, except in polity.


>The court has always basically been that way. Uh no, it hasn't. That's not to say personal bias has never been a factor (and maybe there's no way to eliminate that entirely), but it was never so blatantly a factor superseding the rule of law, at least not in contemporary times. If you have to go back to the 1700s or 1800s to make your case, your case doesn't have merit. Legal precedent used to mean something. Now it's gone, because you can't cherry-pick when precedent matters and when it doesn't. >Personally I cant wait for US dissolution. Sounds to me like you're the one that wants to dismantle democracy, not me.


Legal precedent only meant something when it came to liberal jurisprudence. Once you guys overturned constitutional standing to turn the Federal Government into your plaything for all your socialist wishes you sat on "precedent" so it wouldnt ever be overturned. Only your side thinks precedent means anything. It never has in court history. Political bias has always been how the court has operated which makes sense when Presidents and Congress appoint and confirm them. No progressive President would ever appoint a jurist that has an expansive and originalist scope of the 2nd Amendment for instance. If they could Democrats would appoint folks who would shred the 2nd and well the 10th all ready has been shredded by "incorporation". This idea of a "balanced" or "impartial" court is a fantasy and you only push it so nothing ever happens with previous liberal decisions. Yeah, I'm pro-Independence and prefer small nation-states. That must obviously mean Im anti-Democracy....oh wait, but I bet you're for Independence movements all over the world (see: Ukraine leaving USSR), but the tragedy if any US state ever wanted to leave DC. You guys are such hypocrits.


Precedent is an important part of the law, or at least it was. It helped maintain consistency between rulings and limit personal bias from judges. But of course, that's gone now. You're over here advocating the dissolution of the union and calling me a hypocrite for criticizing our institutions. Incredible.


https://time.com/6192277/supreme-court-originalism/ is pertinent.


That article is nonsense per your own argument. The idea that by grounding their dissenting arguments in the literal text of the constitution --- a document that is hundreds of years old and outdated without modern precedent --- the three liberal judges on the court might somehow change the minds of the six conservatives isn't consistent with your argument that the justices of the court are partisan and have always been so. I will point you back to your original comment for that: >Only your side thinks precedent means anything. It never has in court history. Political bias has always been how the court has operated which makes sense when Presidents and Congress appoint and confirm them. No progressive President would ever appoint a jurist that has an expansive and originalist scope of the 2nd Amendment for instance. If they could Democrats would appoint folks who would shred the 2nd and well the 10th all ready has been shredded by "incorporation". This idea of a "balanced" or "impartial" court is a fantasy and you only push it so nothing ever happens with previous liberal decisions.


When did liberal jurists ever follow precedent with libertarian and conservative rulings? Never. No, precedent is not important and never has been. You're making up a fiction to justify liberal rulings never getting overturned.


The union is clearly over.


All this happening in a time frame of a current war Russia is trying to win. A nightmare image is if trump could have succeeded in his coup. Oh what the world would be. Already living a nightmare of what Bush V Gore accomplished.


The war in Ukraine and the war on our rights here in the US, is the same war.


The Court is illegitimate and, thus, anything done to eliminate the Court is justified. This could involve expanding the Court to 13 to neuter the Republican fascists. This could involve arresting several judges (Thomas and Kavanaugh) if adequate detail on their potential felonies provides support for indictments.


“Jan 6 was treason” Now that you don’t like something, you wanna eliminate the court? The hypocrisy is amazing when the shoes on the other foot


No hypocrisy at all. I did not advocate any illegal methods. Moreover, several ARE likely felons and a minimum of one got on the Court illegitimately, and recent rulings have been running contrary to what most Constitutional scholars would support and only cater to narrow bands of the population. I strive to be consistent in my opinions.


Overall the court has spent more time as an impediment to progress and the extension of democracy than it has a proponent of it. So basically the court is going back to what it was before that small progressive window


yep. people take the ~30 years of the Warren court for granted.


There was an article in the first year of trumps presidency where mcconnell was telling everyone they needed to get behind trump in order for them to reshape the judiciary and mcconnell said it was to explicitly to legislate from the courts and block the progressive agenda. Wish I could find the article again


I swear I remember seeing that too, and boy howdy. We're living his promise.


Just find information on the federalist society. That's their entire plan.


Literally regressive. They are taking away rights using the flimsiest of logic built on logic from medival times.


Ya think?


So the ("objective") SCOTUS and moderate dems. Cool.


Really?? hadn't noticed. /s


No shit.


We need to change this, The scotus is outdated, old dried up people deciding the lives of the future. We need to have 13 members. Thomas needs to resign to senile to see what’s real.




but all the court did was say that the grounds on which roe was ruled were incorrect and then pass in back to the states. why is this such a bad thing?


- it is the first time the Supreme Court has made a ruling that has __taken away__ a right already held at the federal level - immediately following this ruling red states began enacting abortion bans, many full abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, or risk of death in cases like ectopic pregnancies - those same red states are using this ruling to justify enacting bans on contraception (another stab at reproductive rights) - Supreme Court justice Clarance Thomas stated that he intends to go after and overturn specific cases that involved contraception, gay marriage and sexual intercourse laws. - After the abortion ruling, SC has also passed down several other judgements concerning environmental protections, citizen protections from border patrol agents, and Native American land legal jurisdictions. This is a systematic dismantling of our country’s progress and it is being done by a stacked court of party aligned Republican judges.


they didn’t take the right away they just ruled that it was never really a right in the first place


Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion. The decision struck down many federal and state abortion laws. It was a 7-2 decision which held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy which protects a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion.


and the court ruled that the precedent used in the roe case was just bad law. just because Roe v. wade was “a landmark decision” doesn’t mean that it was a good interpretation of the constitution because it wasn’t


and yeah red states will rule to restrict abortion but thats what the people in those states want (at least the majority of them) that’s why it’s a red state but blue states will still have the same laws on abortion that they’ve had for awhile now. that’s what democracy is it’s where you don’t get to decide everything from the top down


And when Republicans regain power of congress and enact a federal abortion ban, blue states reproductive rights are just shit out of luck then, huh? Because that is what’s next.


i don’t think congress has that power constitutionally


On a national level, the vast majority are pro-choice. It is _not_ a close issue nationwide. On a state level, some states would be pro-choice, some would restrict access to abortion even in cases of medical necessity--and even in these cases, it's shockingly close. IE. South Dakota bans abortion, but 46% of the state are in favor of pro-choice. On a district level, every major city in the U.S. would be pro-choice. On a personal level, the people who need abortions would be in favor of having access to medical care. It seems highly suspect that we're ok with deciding things top-down at the state level, but no higher or lower. Cities in TX wouldn't be allowed to provide abortions even though the majority of people, in those cities, would vote in favor of providing said care. It just seems an _awfully_ convenient level to allow to regulate this issue.


well that is how the country is run but yeah i think you make a decent point. but it is more democratic that states be allowed to pass there own laws on abortion rather than a very broad federal law. and yeah most people in the usa don’t want abortion to be completely banned but a lot of people support certain restrictions and now with roe out of the picture states can now make those restrictions or if your alabama they can also choose to ban it


Objectively it isn’t how the country is run. We have national regulations for food and drugs safety (FDA), we have the concept of federal crime, we have policies to regulate emissions (EPA), we have federal laws dictating how medical information is used/disclosed (HIPPA). Fuck, we have federal laws preventing people from looking at your video rental history—yes, really. We also have multiple instances of things being illegal on the federal level, while being legal at a state level. For instance, federally, weed is still illegal even though multiple states have decriminalized it. We make plenty of things legal/illegal at the federal level, the only reason anyone is trying to regulate abortion at a state level is that so that they win in _some_ states by incredibly narrow margins. The vast majority of health related issues are regulated at the national level, abortion is 100% the exception to the norm.


Is progressive always a positive word? In many instances conserving things people who lived before us did is a good thing.


Please give examples.


Interpreting the constitution the way it was written. The fact is there is no right to abortion in it so the justices were correct in their ruling. The progressives think it is a living document that should change with the times.


The Constitution has always made corrections as it goes along. Otherwise, we would still have slaves and no voting for women.


Very true! Which is why democrats should have codified the right to abortion into law as a constitutional amendment during the last 50 years.


They should have, but it looks like they will take it up if they have the votes.


Define the word amendment please


An amendment makes a permanent change to the constitution. For example, women were not allowed to vote, and so congress passed the 19th amendment to give them that right.


Amendments are not permanent lmao


Of course they can be removed, like the amendment for Prohibition. But it would make it true that abortion is a constitutional right. I dont understand why Democrats are saying it was. It was just a court ruling.


Okay so now that we agree the constitution is a living document, let's go read about the 9th amendment