“The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion, casting aside 49 years of precedent that began with Roe v. Wade.“
“the decision permits states to implement far more restrictive abortion laws“
I’m not going to discuss any of these ‘calls’.
In a normal world, it doesn’t matter who makes a decision. At which level.
In the present world, which is far from normal, something jumps at any open minded observer.
‘States are good enough when it comes to setting rules about when a woman might have – or rather not – an abortion but they shouldn’t be allowed to decide, individually, whether a would-be president has been involved in insurrection.’
I agree with the legal minded among my readers that there are sound arguments, legal-wise, for each of those decisions. Unfortunately, most people are ‘legal-blind’. Instead of delving into the obscure paragraphs which shed light into the nook and crannies of any judicial sentence they prefer to decide based on what they see at the first glance.
And what’s staring at us is the fact that the President of the USA is elected state-side. Each state sends a number of people to Washington with a clear mandate about who should be the next POTUS. Which means that candidates need to ‘win’ more delegates, not necessarily more individual votes from the general public. States play a critical role in this process.
Equally staring at us is the fact that ‘individual rights’ are defined and upheld at the federal level. States no longer have anything to say about an individual right as soon as a particular ‘something’ is assumed – at the federal level – to pertain to the realm of the ‘individual human rights’.
nicichiarasa 