8 Comments
Jul 1Liked by J. Daniel Sawyer

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.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, sir. It’s most gratifying to hear you say so :-)

Expand full comment
Jul 3Liked by J. Daniel Sawyer

In my soul, I am a Federalist. I was more excited about Chevron than every other case this year.

Expand full comment
author

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.

Expand full comment

Maybe that's it. I guess that's all I've ever known and I just know I don't like it. Haha

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
author

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!"

Expand full comment
author

I updated the article to reflect your comment and my response. Thank you!

Expand full comment