For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed. They don't need to wax poetic about separation of powers etc to defend their position, because everyone understands that this is exactly what the Federal system was designed for. To allow states to augment their economies and taxation systems as they see fit (going back to colonial era reasoning).
Throughout US history the most vocal proponents of states rights have been those who attempt to limit personal liberties. They first use the constitution as a jumping board, arguing that "it's not explicitly stated in the constitution!" because the constitution is limited and vague (The founding fathers intentionally kicked the can down the road for racial issues). Technically, the regressives are right here, but they are hiding behind legalism to protect their abhorrent viewpoints.
"If it's so popular then just vote on it then!"
Unfortunately it's not so simple. At the Federal level, a filibuster proof majority is required in the Senate (non-proportional) as well as full control of all three branches of government (president and congress are also non-proportional, although in a different way). So it's incredibly difficult to pass overwhelmingly popular legislature/amendments in the US. Which is precisely why we have seen most of our civil rights gains over the last 50 years be accomplished through the court system. At the state level, there is no filibuster (mostly) and so there is no mechanism for a minority to halt legislation at the state level.
This kind of game has been played out for the last 200 years. Yes rules are important, but the reactionaries in US history have typically "meta-gamed" the flaws in our system that were overlooked by the founding fathers in order to preserve horrendous practices. That's not to say that there is no benefit to our checks and balances, but when it comes to things like civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion, the opposing side is mostly meta-gaming and exploiting checks and balances negatively.
To sum up, corruption in the third world occurs by circumventing the laws. Corruption in the US occurs when you put someone in a position of power to interpret the laws the way you want them to. If you need sources, I can provide.
> No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter."
The Roe decision was not made on "rules don't matter" it was an extension of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. The overturning of it was made on interpretations of common law going back to the 14th century, the main point of argument being that there was "no innate protection of abortion as a fundamental right".
We’re already there. That’s already happened. Stare decisis — remember when all the justices who just ruled to overturn Roe called it “settled law”? Remember when the Republican Senate refused to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Remember when the courts gutted the voting rights act? Remember when the courts determined the outcome of Bush v Gore? The side that “won” this argument didn’t do it by playing by the rules. Because the court doesn’t have rules. The constitution doesn’t outline any of the philosophy that you are calling “rules.” So sitting back and saying “let’s just play by the rules” is handing a victory to a side that doesn’t care for them.
If you watch this youtube video of Kavanaugh answering questions I never get the idea that he says he won't overturn Roe v Wage, or that it is a binding or super precedent.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter." The EU Court of Human Rights just last year refused to recognize a universal right to elective abortions. In every European country where abortion is legal, advocates of abortion made their case to the people, and the people decided whether to allow it and under what circumstances. In some cases it took a long time--Ireland legalized it just in 2018. But that's how civilized societies operate.
Your thinking is how third world countries operate. They say "lives are at stake" (or something similarly weighty) and use that to justify ignoring the legal process. As someone from one of those countries let me tell you that you do not want to go down that road. The rules are more important than anything else. They are more important than any individual lives. Because the rules are what make civilization possible. If you disregard the rules on issues that you deem sufficiently important to you, that frees the other side to ignore the rules on issues they deem sufficiently important to them, and it goes quickly downhill from there.