>>103470439>and going back to interpreting statutes according to what they fucking mean instead of what an unelected judge wants it to mean.>interpreting statutes according to what they fucking meanYou know that's literally what a judge do, right?
Job of the supreme court is precisely to rule on law whose interpretation was discovered to be ambiguous and needing a clear interpretation, or whose the application turned out to be anti-constitutional.
It's not like their decision is definitive, they can rule on the actual meaning of law that was left ambiguous because it was badly done, but the senate. But if its interpretation turn out to be something the majority do not want, the senate and the house can still vote to modify the law and give it a clerer meaning, even if it contradict the interpretation of the previous law the supreme court read as. It supersede the judge decision.
Only reason an anti-aborion law hasn't been voted yet is because even some republican are pro-choice and all of the dem are too.
But it's clear a law has to be voted that clearly set in the book the legality of abortion or not, instead o letting it depend of the interpretation of the court. But in the current setting, we won't be any clear legislation setting up against or for abortion rights, as either would irremediably be blocked.
