Readers are aware of the Supreme Court's denial of a stay of the Texas anti-abortion law - which is a decision now to not throw the thing out per se.
Renewal of the notion that an eleven Justice Court might make sense would be a shot across the bow saying escalation of the nuclear option IS on the table.
Waiting until the Texas situation reaches a more mature stage than at the motion for a stay level is what the Court majority forced. With little faith that the 5-4 split would shift at a more mature litigation point being a sane thought, why not now at least talk over and weigh eleven Justices?
Should the Dems lose the Senate in the 2024 election, adding two more Justices would be problematic for them. It is as if the 5-member majority had that possibility in mind when kicking decision making down the road.
The Republicans should, however, be cautious about what they wish for.
The abortion split in the nation has been back burner, and do Republicans gain by pushing it now, while having the Trump and anti-Trump factionalism playing out?
Some pundits have floated the idea that Garland, as Attorney General, should be looking at potential criminal liability charges against Trump, for any of several bases for charging. Trump's tax returns and heat on his empire's CFO now after he has lost pardon power and after State law bases are being developed to charge criminal conduct; all that relates to where Trump might be tried and whether a unanimous guilty verdict is possible; one Trump follower on a jury being poison to gaining a conviction. Try him in DC? Hold off? Hope he will fade away if the press ignores him over other more current things?
The problem with the Catholic disproportionate presence on the Court and that church's stand on abortion is clear to anybody who can think. The Republican awareness that they have in the population a roughly 50-50 split in the voting population on that issue is clear, whereas more money for the already wealthy is a harder sell, by Dems or GOP, so that may be why the question is being moved front burner.
Should the Republicans ever overturn Roe, they have to be aware that there could be strong blow-back were it to happen. It might be the proverbial messing with the hornets nest to destroy the decision instead of having the talking point against Roe always ready but with the opposition more complacent than if opposition were to move into a reversal of policy where the howl in backlash might undo any voting boost the Republicans could get always and count on, as long as Roe remains law.
It as always is hard to crystal-ball what the mid- and long-term consequences of undoing Roe might be, for the Republicans, whether it might be better to always have it as a punching bag vs. the other side coming out swinging hard and persistently. Not that backing for Roe is complacent, but that the strength backing it might become more decisive if Roe were to not remain law.
A big question, with the Senate split as it is and the Dem House majority thin, is there a chance that Roe could be enacted into statutory law, making a Court reversal less likely. Should the Democrats or a part of them decide to push the legislative dimension now, or later, or would that end up counterproductive?
It is anyone's question to guess to answer. How the abortion issue plays into 2022 and 2024 voting politics seems to have to be a wait-and-see thing. But the Court has waved a red cape in front of the bull, and the bull ultimately loses, so there is much room for speculation and ginning up concern in the media.
What is a laugh, showing BS for what it is, is when Ron and Rand Paul gas on about individual freedom from their libertarian pulpit, while each ducks and shuffles over the freedom of decision of females over their body, with the press letting them get away with that glaring inconsistency. Freedom either IS freedom, or it IS NOT freedom, but this "freedom except for . . ." crap really smells for what it is.
Ron and Rand lose all credibility over that truth.