re: #282 KGxvi

Maybe I’m naive on this point, but even going back to my FedSoc days, I’ve never thought that they’d pull the trigger on that interpretation. I think, at the end of the day, if they were to get their way, it’ll end up being a “constitutional right in name only” - they’ll simply refuse to call anything an undue burden and continue to curtail access without ever actually saying it’s not a constitutional right (in part because I’m not sure they want to create a legal precedent establishing an argument to undo constitutional rights).

IMO that all depends on how far the know-nothing rot of the US right extends into the Heritage Foundation judge list. My assumption is that every year’s crop of hard-right judges is substantially worse than last year, because what’s going to stop them?

The clever thing to do on abortion rights from a hard-right perspective is to continue the death of a thousand cuts Justice Kennedy was subjecting it to.

But the GOP base will not be satisfied with that, and Republicans all over the country are sending up test cases to SCOTUS seeking a repeal of Roe. Who wants to be the right wing justice that will be branded a ‘traitor’ by millions for letting Roe stand when the right had the votes to overturn it?