here's what i asked:

"which cases do you think scotus SHOULD focus on to keep you "competitive" with a genocidal dictatorship of 1.4 billion people?"

while i indeed didn't explicitly ask what you think scotus could realistically do, rather than deal with roe v. wade, to me it seemed pretty clear from the context of you claiming it was a "distraction" and me disagreeing, pointing out this was an important issue that does not prevent scotus from doing more important. still, i'll try to be more precise next time.

i mean, we basically agree on both abortion and campaign finance reform, so before this devolves into further pointless bickering and semantics let's just say we simply disagree on how important it really is.

i think overturning roe v. wade will be a significant step. considering its legal foundation, the right to privacy, overturning it will allow an assault on other landmark cases concerning contraceptives, gay marriage, pornography, homosexuality, interracial marriage, forced sterilization... a whole can of eugenics worms, none of which i would put past republicans to happily swallow...

Apparently, John Roberts has confirmed that the leak was real.

https://apnews.com/article/kathy-hochul-biden-us-supreme-court-health-f6b899076faba20517b9ac1e82438c16

this can’t possibly be true. Roberts said justices are not political. no one within the halls of the USSC would leak for political reasons

This post was edited by excellence on May 3 2022 09:54am

And that's what happens when you built a castle on quicksand. When you try to establish a series of rights that aren't enshrined in the constitution by constructing a legal fiction out of wholecloth, the sad truth is that it can be swept away overnight. Because it had no legal foundation. The US constitution doesn't say anything about a right to privacy. A right against unwarranted intrusion, search and seizure, sure. One that existed in common law since the days of magna carta. But the nebulous concept of a right to bodily autonomy and sexual identity? Its not in there. And it should be. But decades of what should have been fought in the battleground of the voter's beliefs and the legislator's powers, were instead left to courts to wrap up in a knot and keep kicking the can down the road. Fortunately the anti-discrimination statutes that did pass during the civil rights movement will serve as legal foundation to preserve most of those rights. We just needed the civil rights movement to keep going. Not put on robes.

Political, activist.....po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to

Might as well go back and reverse Marbury v Madison, then.

I think the fight to preserve the choice for women to abort is extremely important, my ire is predominately directed towards conservatives fooled into thinking this is an important matter, and on a tertiary level at both democrats and conservatives for buying into this bottom tier bullshit for decades while important issues were sidelined which got us to this deeply divided place of partisan politics. it goes beyond legislation, we turned politics into a heavyweight boxing match where both trade blows but no one ever gets knocked out. we changed "what we all agree on" from "what we can get done since we both agree" to "not important, lets focus only on our disagreement". watching people debate trans bathrooms, abortion, border security, student loan forgiveness, and many other tier 3 issues as a centrist while serious issues dont get addressed at all is mind numbing, i just get to a point where i want to replace humans with robots and watch their family trees forever stunted.

Handmaidens Tale.

it's not "quicksand" if you don't have corrupt politicians appointing activist judges in order to undermine rights that a significant majority of the population agrees on (!), to pander to a (religious) bigots. by that standard, literally everything could be labeled "quicksand" - even the constitution has amendments as i'm sure you're aware. the fact that it COULD be technically more difficult to overturn it (wonder who prevented this) should not distract us from the fact that the upcoming decision is not legal necessity (although i'm sure the cowardly bigots will do their best mental gymnastics to pretend it is) but political will of a minority at work. oh wait, distracting from that is exactly what you're trying to do there...

Almost forgot about CPI index while talking about this.