I'm lost with the Roe vs Wade thing

There was no laws requiring it to be legal written. No constitutional amendment or a less bounding act. The supreme court decided it should be legal 50 years ago. Their job is to decide if existing laws are constitutional not legislate new laws from the bench. Democrats had a chance several times to pass a law requiring it to be legal in every state. Judicial activism gave us gay marriage and the first time they did it a run-away slave law that said an escaped slave could be chased into a state where slavery was illegal. Think about that for a second. Before the 70's some states ban it and some legalized it already. The supreme court is invalidating what was legislated from the previous supreme court because it is literally against the constitution for judges to write laws. That is what congress and the president that people vote for directly who write the laws and vote for them. The supreme court was given too much power and they are correcting it by relinquishing it and undoing what they weren't suppose to do in the first place.

Attached: Thomas Jefferson Pepe.jpg (699x662, 195.44K)

>Democrats had a chance several times to pass a law requiring it to be legal in every state
Would never happen. That was a pipe dream and they knew it.

Part of the problem is that the Democrat Party lulled their voters into a false sense of security by pursuing an extremely controversial constitutional junta 50 years ago and then just left it at that, as if it wouldn't come back to haunt them one day. Had they tried to establish abortion rights the right way, through legislative means rather than constitutional fiat we wouldn't be where we are right now.

Your analysis is entirely correct. But leftists can't accept that other states will actually regulate abortion. That's it.

you can't have a totalitarian regime without a strong omnipotent central power. fuck the fed.

Sure you are. Tell me, oh wise law-school grad attorney, what's to stop Alabama from charging people with conspiracy to commit murder if they make concrete plans to travel to another state for an abortion? If abortion becomes illegal at the federal level, as Republicans have stated they want to do, what's to prevent them with charging people with conspiracy to commit murder when they make plans to leave the country for an abortion? They can already charge you with sex tourism for traveling to have sex with kids -- it matters not if sex with kids is legal in the country you're traveling to. What's the difference if you're going there to murder your baby?

They are leveraging it politically and will use it as such somewhat, but it wasn't their decision to bring this to the forefront, so it isn't like it was totally planned. Here's the deal with several things in America like abortion, gay marriage, etc. They are hot topic issues enough that getting a majority to change them is essentially impossible. Like, despite what it may seem like now, even Obama was against gay marriage his first term in office. So if it's actually in political deadlock, what's there to do? You have a few options in American politics:
1. Executive orders - President puts out an order saying he wants the federal government to handle pre-existing policies a certain way or foreign relations. Ineffective for these issues, but effective for ones involving what the federal government will bring to court.
2. Kick it to the Supreme Court via a case and have the court legislate from the bench by upholding something unconstitional guised flimsily underneath something like "equal protections" in the constitution.

Everyone knew that Roe v Wade was bullshit which is why even the dissenting opinion on this new case was nothing but emotional appeal-- but they wanted it to be the case because for a federal guideline to have any authority, it would need to be an amendment which isn't going to happen. Most Americans lack context for any of this and don't understand the difference between state/federal laws, nor understand what the Supreme Court is actually supposed to do or what needs to happen if they want abortion legalized. From a policy perspective, Democrats should just push for non-elective abortions to get their foot in the door, but they've made it an all-or-nothing issue and thus it's dead in the water on a federal level.

They could have done it under either Clinton or Obama. They had the votes. They decided to use the issue to sting along the voters to help them keep getting liberal judges on the supreme court. If they had a democrat president but a republican congress they would have to settle for moderates that might not push thought shit like fag marriage. Notice when we the number of Jews on the court got reduced to 3 and replaced by Catholics this Judicial activism gets reversed.

Attached: US Jews.jpg (640x468, 95.03K)

Leftists view politics as nothing other than a power struggle. Anything that grants them more power and control is good, anything that reduces their power and control is bad. They only care about winning; everything else is merely a means to an end.
They don’t actually care about abortion, it’s just that the Roe v Wade ruling ratcheted society towards a more anarchic one where they can more easily seize more power and control. It was a “won battle”; a place to stage their next attack. Overturning it is “the enemy taking back ground”. It doesn’t matter to them how inconsequential or irrelevant the hill in question is, leftists will fight to the death over it because even one hill controlled by ‘the enemy’ is an existential threat to their ideology.

because everything since the 60s has been based on the same justification using the 14th to give whatever they want at the federal level.

your assessment is entirely correct and any takes that aren't correct are just a symptom of the kiked global world agenda.

>They had the votes
For what, exactly? They need a constitutional amendment or some real fuckery a la drinking age to make this shit happen and it would have been political suicide.

But why let the court do it? Let congress pass it. The congress way is much better and lasting than allowing a group of judges to understand something to force on people.
I believe letting the interpretation of the law in the hands of a few judges is much more dangerous and antidemocratic than allow this law to be decided on state or city level.
My opinion is similar to what this user said.

When is a life alive or sentient? Does it matter if it's going to grow into a being? We think so for symbols like an eagle.

Since RvW, they’ve had multiple DNC supermajorities. During the early Clinton and Obama administration, the Democrats controlled both houses/presidency/SCOTUS. They could’ve passed whatever the fuck they wanted, but didn’t.