I really don't understand the argument with rvw being unconstitutionaly passed, or what.
This is the only argument that I think holds any water with the abortion debate: A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm
But that isnt what the convo was about anyway, the convo was about how the scotus with 9 is some how inherently better than a scotus of 11.
And aside from "republicans do it better and I want laws to change" the only other argument is "democrats want to abuse the scotus to change laws and legislate" when historically the republicans have 70% more amendments than democrats so I can't find any validity to that argument.
Seems pretty clear what we got here is a "I want my holy side to defeat the godless other side."
But all that would take is for someone to explain to me why a panel of 9 republicans makes more sense than a panel of 4/5 democrats/republicans, unless you're a republican.
|