Twitter's got billions and fancy lawyers and lobbyists too.

> It's wild to me that people think that Elon might actually face legal consequences for this.

This stuff goes both ways. Yes Elon has a lot of money. But twitter is worth XX billions of dollars.

Twitter is willing to spend a lot of those billions of dollars, in order to get Elon to pay the agreed upon price that he committed too.

This is not the case of a nobody vs a billionaire. This is instead multiple billion dollar entities fighting each other.

> The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the richest billionare is going to be subject to any serious consequences? It's absurd to even entertain this.

You know who has the authority to overturn that decision? Our democratically elected legislature.

Are you referring to the legislature where one house is deliberately unrepresentative of the people, and where the other house has been gerrymandered into unrepresentative oblivion, and whose bills are signed by an executive position who has preposterously lost the popular vote in two out of the last six election cycles?

Yeah, the one completely controlled by the party that says it's pro-choice.

> executive position who has preposterously lost the popular vote

What does the popular vote have to do with the presidency? Neither party strategizes to win the popular vote because the popular vote is meaningless. Therefore, the outcome if the popular vote has no value in determining who would win a popular vote should that be the metric by which the president is elected.

I wouldn't be so sure a hypothetical federal law enshrining a Roe-ish right to abortion would itself survive the inevitable challenge to its own constitutionality.

I expect this Court would find it a violation of he 10th amendment, leaving the issue to be decided only at the state level.

I very much doubt it but even if I thought that would happen, I'd like to make them actually do it.

Yes, the supreme court decided that the rights of women were up for democratic election. That's fucking great when you have an anti-women's rights party.

At the same time they ruled that states could not regulate a "well regulated militia", so this has nothing to do with states rights.