In the event that the non-voting majority keeps not voting (voting being declasse and icky), they're going to have enough of a majority in Congress to just pass laws. If the Supremes say it's constitutional, it's constitutional, and they can say that in days if so inclined. They've already laid the groundwork for saying Joe is not legitimately elected (thus lacks a real veto) and they've had their practice coup.
Nobody is getting up and doing some variant on "you can't own women" or treating the problem as an access-to-agency general struggle between a "generally distributed" position and a "all the agency is mine" position, either; I do not have a lot of hope for the utility of the response.
no subject
In the event that the non-voting majority keeps not voting (voting being declasse and icky), they're going to have enough of a majority in Congress to just pass laws. If the Supremes say it's constitutional, it's constitutional, and they can say that in days if so inclined. They've already laid the groundwork for saying Joe is not legitimately elected (thus lacks a real veto) and they've had their practice coup.
Nobody is getting up and doing some variant on "you can't own women" or treating the problem as an access-to-agency general struggle between a "generally distributed" position and a "all the agency is mine" position, either; I do not have a lot of hope for the utility of the response.