The thing is

They were completely mad to let judges decide this.

If you look back at the 1960s, abortion was a really hot issue on BOTH sides of the Atlantic.

All over Europe, elected politicians grappled with the issue, debated it (reading the debates in the House of Commons over it makes you weep ... the quality of thinking compared to the soundbite addicts we have now), built electoral consensus, and put it to bed. Because the laws passed all over Europe (which vary wildly) reflected the local consensus, abortion stopped being a hot issue in Europe.

In the US, by contrast, the politicians ducked it. Too contentious, wouldn't go near it, didn't have the courage. The judges got impatient and grabbed it from them.

Result - still a massively hot issue 50 years on. Because judges aren't elected. They don't build consensus and they don't carry popular sentiment with them. My own view is that the US Supreme Court should have stayed in its lane and said "this isn't a legal question, this is a political question, and we aren't touching it".

So looking for silver linings, the SC now chucking it back to the politicians might (might) ultimately be a good thing. Because if this issue strikes a chord with enough people, then whoever catches the public mood will get elected. And ultimately, that's the only way to build a societal consensus - people expressing their will and politicians enacting it.

Posted By: Old Git, Jun 24, 16:29:09