Lightning round RvW takes before I stop actively thinking about it:
1. The ubiquity of responses like "no more casual sex then" and "not moving to Texas now" shows you how good law promotes virtue in society. It does actually matter. It does work. you can fix things.
1. The ubiquity of responses like "no more casual sex then" and "not moving to Texas now" shows you how good law promotes virtue in society. It does actually matter. It does work. you can fix things.
2(a). The real gamble is pushing congress to codify RvW in law. Losing RvW just sends it back to the state-by-state. But if a law codifying RvW is challenged and loses, that's a much bigger loss. Abortion might be illegal EVERYWHERE.
2(b). "But muh commerce clause" - the commerce clause has been narrowed substantially in the last 30 years. Jurisprudentially, the stars are aligning well here, assuming we don't lose the court or get wiped by more egregious cheating we lack the institutions to do much about.
3. Obergefell is actually going to be a harder row to hoe than Roe because a pregnancy is only 9 months. Marriages are open-ended, timewise. So to overturn Obergefell would create a lot more structural questions viz. peoples finances and other arrangements than RvW.
4. Regardless of what happens from here, this is a huge win because in very real, concrete terms, many innocent lives will be saved. There are lives in the bank *already*. Pregnancy cycle is short, remember? That's pretty crazy think about.
5. Obviously also a big win for momentum/demoralization purposes, but more, because it sets out a blueprint for attacking other major lefty strongholds - Thomas wrote a CONCURRENCE so he could give the signal. This is how he wants you to attack Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence.
6(a). Most people, and The People collectively, simply do not have the capacity for nuance needed to understand constitutional review or legal process. You can barely get them to understand the distinction between federal and state. We are in a rhetoric arms race.
6(b). And because it's not entirely about this policy specifically, but rather this policy as a piece of a broader political platform, it's important to realize that sometimes it's right and good to do something just to weaken your enemy.
7. Remember that John Roberts wrote a concurrence to say he's "one of the good ones" and wouldn't have overturned RvW in its entirety. Roberts is a coward, desperate to avoid upsetting people who would kill him if they could, to preserve the crumbling idea of an apolitical court.
8. This event should show you that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Whatever you thought of Trump, he was a catalyst to some meaningful wins. You need to play the odds. You are in complexity-space, you cannot fixate on specific niche ideal outcomes.
Alright, now back to regular programming
maybe I write too fast, I meant this to be a 1d chess tweet. 4d chess doesn't exist. I just think you should look for high% directionally correct moves and take advantage of unexpected opportunities. I think you should not try to mastermind moonshots.
Loading suggestions...