|
| ▲ | aetch an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Abortion was kept legal by not having laws prohibiting it. That’s how laws work. Also the law doesn’t stop republicans much these days. |
|
| ▲ | raisedbyninjas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought a lot of rules and norms would be codified into law after 2020. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whenever an issue is settled they can't use it to ask for donations. As long as the problem lasts forever they can make money from it. The goal of an organization is that which brings in the money. |
|
|
| ▲ | danaris 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional? |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years. | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled. They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws. Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional. |
|
