Roe vs. Wade.....

[catherine]

Successful protests in American history:

https://www.ucf.edu/news/7-influenti...rican-history/

Boston Tea Party, 1773
Women's Suffrage Parade, 1913
March on Washington, 1963
Stonewall Riots, 1969
Occupation of Alcatraz, 1971
The March for Our Lives, 2018
Protests, Puerto Rico, 2019

ETA, my favorite environmental protest was by Julia Butterfly Hill who sat for over 2 years in Luna, a redwood tree, to protest logging in that area of old-growth forest. Pacific Lumber Co finally agreed to protect Luna as well as all trees in a 200 ft buffer zone. It doesn't seem like a lot, considering spending 2 years of a person's life to get that small victory, but she brought awareness to the importance of old-growth forest on the ecosystem. I love watching the videos of her experience and she is truly inspiring.

[iris lilies]

It may well be true that protestors don't sway the minds of any the people who support whatever is being protested. In fact it's probably likely. But just as funerals are for the living maybe protests are for the protestors. If a protest helps people not give up in despair that our country is being destroyed by radical extremists and instead helps motivate them to volunteer for political campaigns, do phone banking and text banking, go door to door talking to voters, etc, then the protest was worth it.

I think that’s what was meant in a couple of these posts about how protesting strengthens resolve of participants to continue the work, and it also is a teambuilding effort to facilitate strategizing and creating effective grassroots efforts.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I think that’s what was meant in a couple of these posts about how protesting strengthens resolve of participants to continue the work, and it also is a teambuilding effort to facilitate strategizing and creating effective grassroots efforts.

Exactly. This is why I was upset by and commented upon the lack of community at this protest. Rob

[Rogar]

There are some things about legal precedence that I don't understand. When the highest court in the land interprets the constitution in a certain way, and then years later the same court with the most revered legal experts in the same court says, no that's wrong. And then supposedly another few years could roll along and the next court, could say that's wrong, the first one was right, with no change in the wording of the law. What is the value of legal precedence, and is anything not specified in the constitution sacred based on precedence.

With such a divided nation I could see some migration into or away from liberal or conservative states. It's becoming a snowball of issues between abortion, gun laws, legalization of recreational drugs, environmental issues, and maybe taxation to support social issues and infrastructure improvements. Consensus was that a lot of young people moved to Colorado when it was one of the first to legalize marijuana, but there seems to be a lot more on the table recently.

[bae]

Yet more pressure upon the US to split up - at this point I believe splitting is the only real hope for this country, though knowing this country and it's majority ways if thinking as I do - I believe such will be violent.

What does "splitting" look like in your vision? How would that even happen?

I live in perhaps the most liberal county, in one of the most liberal states in the USA. In the 2020 elections, Trump still got 23% of the vote. We don't live in "red" states and "blue" states, we all live side-by-side, in slightly different proportions from state-to-state. We live in "purple" states, of various shades.

[frugal-one]

Rogar:

The Supreme Court is now a political instrument to get the republican agenda passed. If you have an opportunity watch the Rachel Maddow show from yesterday. There were many insightful observations and historical references that pertain to today.

[Rogar]

Rogar:

The Supreme Court is now a political instrument to get the republican agenda passed. If you have an opportunity watch the Rachel Maddow show from yesterday. There were many insightful observations and historical references that pertain to today.

I understand the politics, which seems obvious. It just seems like it's not working like it was intended. And what value is the precedence of the highest court in the nation on other matters. Was the supreme court a political instrument to get the democratic agenda of Roe v. Wade passed. I assume it goes both ways.

To me this seems like a significant shift in the interpretation of the law beyond the commonly discussed issues of the day.

In some ways and certain instances I can see the value of giving the states the power to decide, especially when the politics of the Supreme Court differ from those of my state.

[Alan]

And what value is the precedence of the highest court in the nation on other matters. Was the supreme court a political instrument to get the democratic agenda of Roe v. Wade passed. I assume it goes both ways.

It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.

[bae]

It does happen both ways and almost always corrects earlier decisions that were flawed in one form or another. Everyone here complaining about legal precedence had no problem when the Obergefell decision overruled a previous 40 year old ruling, or when Brown vs Board of Education overruled the 50 something year old Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. It's happened hundreds of times, enough to ensure that while precedence should be a consideration, it doesn't make any ruling sacrosanct.

Indeed so.

https://constitution.congress.gov/re...ons-overruled/

[jp1]

I guess the thing that concerns me, and someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is the first decision I am aware of that actually rolls back previously existing rights. Brown and pleassy and obergefell all expanded rights from the previous decisions they overturned. Are there cases that have done the opposite that I’m not aware of?