Often rules on areas that are controversial. lebing versus virginia, many states at that time banned interracial marriage. and the supreme court said the constitution demands that the states who think differently have to change their laws. that often happens with supreme court opinions. sure. it is not just when the supreme court goes with what the national consensus is. the reason we have a constitution is that sometimes electoral majorities have to be told no, that the constitution supersedes the will of the majority. so, that s why i don t think your point is consistent with the whole idea of having a constitution. the point that i m making is not that the supreme court can t rule in defiance of public opinion. it is that historically when the supreme court rules on controversial issues, those rulings are successful and become, in effect, you know, what people like to call super
Supreme court justice married to a white woman, is going to overturn lebing versus virginia, the idea that brett kavanaugh is going to vote to overturn are ludicrous. it s somewhat telling at least that democrats have leaked so quickly to this rather than straightforwardedly talking about abortion. i think it s a continuation of a larger pattern in this debate, which is that even though the country leans pro-choice, democrats are very uncomfortable making these kind of debates about abortion because they know conflicted americans are and have been on that issue, which is why roe and casey, and other supreme court ruling has so conspicuously failed to settle that debate. jeff, what do you make of ross argument? what i don t get on ross argument is the supreme court