LogFAQs > #964947211

adjl posted...

Most of the impact is going to take the form of voter turnout, rather than how people vote. You'll get a relatively small handful of people that do change their vote based on the issue (either way, really, since some anti-abortion folks that would normally vote blue may see the Feds' efforts to codify Roe v. Wade into law as an overreach and change their vote to prevent that), but you're correct that that won't make a huge difference because most people already factor abortion rights into their voting decisions as much as they ever will. Far more significantly than that, though, this development has raised the stakes of the election quite dramatically in many people's eyes, so you're going to get quite a few people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered voting making a point of doing so. That's going to favour the left more than the right, given that the pro-abortion rights viewpoint is more popular by a considerable margin, but the exact impact remains to be seen.

But where are the impacted areas for the turnout? Again, the states most likely to ban abortion now are the same states that've been pushing restrictive abortion measures. If they couldn't get turnout over that, why would they get it over this?

While the blue states -- where it was never a concern -- might see a bump as a token gesture, it's not like it affects anything. The blue states will stay blue either way. Hell, CT's Republicans already conceded the gubernatorial election by running the same blockhead who lost in 2018 (and was literally the only guy who could lose to Lamont back then).

darkknight109 posted...

So add this one to the pile. The Supreme Court's function as an impartial arbiter of the law, unbound to political leanings, was already on pretty shaky ground for the last 15 or so years,

Which was more or less bound to happen when nominations moved away from consensus to majority, as a result of parties trying to actively obstruct each others' candidates. When parties stopped seeking universal approval, they sometimes pushed candidates who increasingly suited their preferences.

Although, I guess on a broader level, all of this goes back to shifts in SCOTUS where landmark decisions like Roe v Wade were initially decided. Or the larger trend can be traced to the growing federal government and centralized power

adjl posted...

Really, that shouldn't need a leak. The court shouldn't be trying to blindside the country with a decision like this after discussing the whole thing behind closed doors and sharing none of the process they've followed to reach the decision.

ITP: "Judges shouldn't be allowed to discuss court matters in private."

Whether or not you agree with the decision, the idea judges shouldn't be allowed to hold private discussions is absurd. What's next? Suggesting politicians shouldn't discuss things in private?