 So, I really feel like, or I should say, I really hope that the Supreme Court, choosing to allow Texas to just explicitly violate Roe v. Wade serves as the wake-up call that a lot of Americans needed because having a far-right Supreme Court for a generation that has really, really negative implications for the future of America, you know, it's not like Roe v. Wade is super-president and they're going to leave it alone because they know that it would be politically unpopular if they overturn Roe v. Wade. They don't care. This is a branch of government that is shielded from no elections and that's part of the reason why the court is supposed to be, you know, more valuable because they don't make decisions based on what is or isn't popular. They just rule on the basis of what is and isn't a constitutional. But that also insulates them from any threats of, you know, getting ousted from government, right? So they can do whatever. They can be as tyrannical as they want to be. And when you have a lot of activist judges, when you have a lot of ideologues on the court, things are going to get bad. And I hope that people know that remaining complacent and not fighting isn't an option anymore because things aren't just bad, but they're going to continue to get worse. And I don't think people truly are grappling with the reality of how bad this is. Like for them to undercut Roe v. Wade, like they're taking us back to medieval times and we can't just let this stand. We have to fight. We have to actually make noise about packing the Supreme Court or codifying Roe v. Wade into the U. S. Constitution. But I don't think people really understand what they need to do in order to fight. So, you know, they they're just left feeling hopeless and they throw their hands up and think, well, everything else is bad. So I guess this is just another, you know, bad thing. But I want to read an article from LGBTQ nation because John Gallagher makes a really good point about how bad this is for the Supreme Court to just like willingly let Texas violate Roe v. Wade. But on top of that, what to expect next in the immediate future if the Supreme Court continues on this trajectory, which all signs pointed them continuing on this trajectory. So Gallagher writes the five right wing justices on the Supreme Court who decided to uphold Texas's anti-abortion law last week are sending a strong signal about the shaky future of LGBTQ rights, including marriage equality. Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas cleared the way for a new law in Texas, which bans abortions after six weeks to take effect with just the single paragraph. The five justices clearly had an ideological goal in mind and they weren't about to let legal niceties such as a court hearing stand in the way. The justices used the request to use what is known as shadow docket, which they used to issue an expedited decision for emergency cases to settle this incredibly controversial case while holding no oral arguments. For conservatives, it was the equivalent of applying for college and being told they had graduated summa cum laude without having to take any courses or pay tuition. By allowing the Texas law to take effect, the justices essentially threw out any regard for precedent overnight. Roe v. Wade, the 50 year old Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion simply didn't matter. So ask yourself, is it really that implausible to believe that if they were willing to just willy nilly disregard a 50 year precedent in Roe v. Wade, they wouldn't also disregard five, six year precedent with Obergefell and allow for states to start banning marriage equality again. It's not just possible. I'd argue it's likely and that's what John Gallagher is arguing in this article. He continues. Guess what else conservatives would like to see overturned? Obergefell vihages the Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage equality. The idea that the court would strip away this right so soon after bestowing it may sound far fetched. Certainly commentators like to insist that the court would never do any such thing, except that Alito and Thomas have made it abundantly clear that they think Obergefell was wrongly decided in a decision last year involving Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to give same sex couples a marriage license. Thomas said so point blank quote by choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment. And by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix wrote Thomas in an opinion joined by Alito. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty. There's every reason to believe that Barrett with her ultra conservative background and previous anti LGBTQ history shares this sentiment. Indeed, the Federalist Society, the anti LGBTQ group that Donald Trump outsourced judicial appointments to has consistently claimed that Obergefell was wrongly decided. The group has promoted the idea that marriage equality is, as one of its writers put it, a legal and cultural mistake. The Federalist Society sets the litmus test for judicial appointees on the right. What it says isn't just an opinion. It's the template that its adherents are meant to follow. As they're ruling on Texas's abortion law shows, the five extremists on the court don't care about precedent, nor do they care about public opinion. More than half of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. They care about ideology. So what if most Americans think marriage equality is a good thing? If five justices on the Supreme Court think otherwise, that right could be gone in a flash. And that is exactly correct. People underestimate just how nefarious these reactionaries are and how low they're willing to go. We are in the middle of a new Lochner era. We're in a Lochner era, and it's going to get bad. Not only do I expect them to basically undermine, if not overturn Obergefell, things are going to get worse. They're not just going to undo the progress that we've made socially, but they're going to prevent us from making any future progress. Like, if you're if you're not really grappling with the implications of this yet, let me put it this way. Let's assume that in 10 years, 15 years, we actually get a progressive president and we pass Medicare for all and that president signs it into law. This court like that can invalidate that law by claiming that it's unconstitutional. So it doesn't matter if, you know, Congress in writing this law, they try to, you know, make it constitutionally soundproof and they literally cite provisions of the Constitution to make sure that, you know, there's no way that they can overrule it. We're working with the reactionaries here. These aren't, you know, individuals who are trying to actually follow the Constitution to the best of their ability. These are reactionaries. These are activist judges. These aren't judicial scholars. These are fucking extremists. So we should treat them as such and stop being naive of the situation that we find ourselves in. And the only way out of this mess is to, A, pack the Supreme Court or B, codify all of these rights into law. Neither of these are likely scenarios that are going to come to fruition, right? Because in order to introduce a new constitutional amendment, I mean, we can't even get rid of the filibusters. Of course, Congress won't pass any constitutional amendment protecting abortion, marriage equality. We can't even get the Equality Act passed into law. So of course, you know, Congress isn't going to do something like that, no matter how popular gay marriage or abortion becomes. But when it comes to packing the Supreme Court, this conversation around this issue, it just diminished after the election. I guess liberals and Democrats think that it's no longer necessary. So, you know, I just feel like they don't necessarily care. And this might be a little bit overly cynical, but I think it's true. I think that Democrats, they want to let things get bad, at least some Democrats, they want things to get bad. They want the Supreme Court to overturn our rights so they can A, fundraise off of the bad things that are happening and B, use this as a tool to, you know, pitch to voters to come out and vote for them. You know, it's kind of like this issue that is a gift to the parties that keeps on giving. Democrats can use this to say, hey, elect us and we'll fight this. And Republicans can say, hey, elect us and we'll protect the progress that we've made in repealing abortion and gay marriage. It's truly a disgusting situation and it's really untenable. Like this barbarity that we're seeing, it's like, I don't think that it's sustainable. At some point, people are going to get fed up. Democracy is going to collapse. I mean, I don't know. I'm not trying to make any prediction, but this is unacceptable. And, you know, if we want to live in a country that is egalitarian, that is modern, then we can't keep allowing reactionaries to control everything that we do. It's just, it's not sustainable. It's not just that reactionaries have captured the Supreme Court for a generation and they're undoing social progress. Around the country, Republicans are imposing draconian voter suppression laws. They're planning on gerrymandering themselves back to victory. They're explicitly authoritarian. So if we don't treat them like the threat that they are, the fascistic threat that they are, then we're going to lose our country to them. So, you know, I don't want to be overly alarmist and I don't want to sound like I'm fear-mongering, but people need to wake the fuck up and realize that the situation is bad and it's going to get worse. Stop being complacent, wake up, and get involved.