Its basically 9 people deciding on new constitutional amendments

the argument was stupid

the constitution needs an amendment to prohibit first-trimester abortion

because of search and seizure or some shit

that fell on everyone then. The judges, the elected officials who were afraid of dissenting with popular opinion...

u do know that it takes a large majority of congress just to add an ammendment right?

yeah, five people had a shitty argument once

republicans, had they spines, could have reversed it

Your point @Pyro ?

Cause ofc I'm aware

that with divided politics, it's impossible

Unless your the scotus

there are ample opportunities to override the supreme court's opinions from the legislature

they choose not to

and that is the main reason it doesn't happen

Then you can just say something is unconstitutional and its illegal

Cause of Judicial review

now republicans being cowards, and democrats being batshit crazy cultists is another matter

generally speaking, laws prohibiting first-trimester abortion are not constitutional

yes

unfortunately thats true

the constitution must be amended, in order for the answer to change

they did that by changing the definition of life...

this prevents double jeopardy, which is great

and prevents waste

however, the downside is that you get stuck with things

if the dissent is too weak

it is unconstitutional, so you must amend the constitution in order to change it

or evenly divided

and that is okay

because it is a rare oddity

and considerably better than some places

where the supreme court is held hostage by the military

Or we tell scotus that they dont have the ability to imply powers upon themselves

just go south if you want a weak supreme court

go way south

And we dont need to amend the constitution at all

basically everywhere in latin america, the supreme court has little power

so prohibition was fine?

isn't it great?

imagine if the supreme court couldn't refute the laws made by progressive democrats....