My goodness your writing is amazing and your content fertile. I feel like I just ate a large intellectual meal, and I’m leaning back in my chair, unbuckling my metaphorical brain belt to allow all the new data and ideas room to sit. Thank you for this.
I am, myself split. I think bith parts of the tradition are important, but that we have been VERY overbalanced in the activist direction for far too long.
A new law legalizing abortion at the national level would not have passed right after the Dobbs decision. While the Democrats did control the Senate in name, that legislative body is in fact controlled by the minority of 41 Senators it takes to support a filibuster resolution per the perversion of that rule in the 21st century. The Democrats could never have overcome a filibuster on abortion, so it would not have passed.
At the time I read--and now I wish I'd bookmarked it--by a Democratic strategist pointing out that the Republican filibuster block in the Senate was divided on the issue and enough of the seats for those who might join were up for mid-terms that year in swing states, and thus would have been vulnerable to losing their seats if their opponent could say "See, they helped stop this from coming to a vote!"
My goodness your writing is amazing and your content fertile. I feel like I just ate a large intellectual meal, and I’m leaning back in my chair, unbuckling my metaphorical brain belt to allow all the new data and ideas room to sit. Thank you for this.
Thank you, sir. It’s most gratifying to hear you say so :-)
In my soul, I am a Federalist. I was more excited about Chevron than every other case this year.
I am, myself split. I think bith parts of the tradition are important, but that we have been VERY overbalanced in the activist direction for far too long.
Maybe that's it. I guess that's all I've ever known and I just know I don't like it. Haha
A new law legalizing abortion at the national level would not have passed right after the Dobbs decision. While the Democrats did control the Senate in name, that legislative body is in fact controlled by the minority of 41 Senators it takes to support a filibuster resolution per the perversion of that rule in the 21st century. The Democrats could never have overcome a filibuster on abortion, so it would not have passed.
At the time I read--and now I wish I'd bookmarked it--by a Democratic strategist pointing out that the Republican filibuster block in the Senate was divided on the issue and enough of the seats for those who might join were up for mid-terms that year in swing states, and thus would have been vulnerable to losing their seats if their opponent could say "See, they helped stop this from coming to a vote!"
I updated the article to reflect your comment and my response. Thank you!