People get angry because millions of people are profoundly affected, while some here are pretending that nothing will happen, this is just a course correction.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/23/roe-v-...

As a foreigner, what I admire most about Americans is their ability to dispassionately accept the results of legal procedures. I truly think that’s what is responsible for the success of America and England before it. We have people who have high minded principles and notions of justice in Bangladesh. That’s not special. What we lack is a populace that will accept even monumental decisions contrary to what they wanted and move on. And that’s what I fear is being eroded.

You don’t have to agree with overturning Roe, but that’s no excuse for third-world country style rhetoric. As a matter of legal process, overruling Roe is unremarkable and consistent with longstanding principles of the kinds of cases that can be overruled notwithstanding stare decisis.

I could use your argument in the other direction. What useful purpose it served to overturn it after 50 years ago, other than to kick political compromise to the curb and increase polarization and harm.

Mostly I agree, but "just accept the government's decisions" can only be expected to go so far. "I disagree with a legal decision" is not the same as "my right is being taken away", or, "I am being harmed", and the line is highly subjective for each person. On certain topics, the conflict is inevitable.

I don’t think people are pretending nothing will happen. Nor did I say people aren’t justified in being upset.

I'm sure, if they wanted to, the supremes could come up with an originalist argument as to why slavery should be legal again. Even if that legal argument was amazing and air-tight, it won't make it right. The means don't justify the end.

Who decides what’s “right?” Is the Supreme Court a vehicle for highly educated lawyers (of either party) to impose their values on the country?

If the law doesn’t produce an answer through legal reasoning, then that means the public needs to decide. Having the supremes sit as a moral Guardian Council isn’t how it’s supposed to work.

It's ironic, but your last sentence reminds me of how the Islamic Republic of Iran is organized, with their Grand Ayatollah and council of Ayatollahs in a moral Guardian Council watching over the executive and legislative branches.

The more things differ...

That comparison was intentional. But in this comparison, the Roe court is the Guardian Council.