And now, it's time for the Heir to speak about abortion, after hearing on audio about the situation in Texas, and how the Supreme Court declined an immediate intervention.  All this time for over 15 years we've been doing this gig, the Heir's made it a practice to not comment on issues he sees as divisive and in such a way that it makes it easy for a conformist society to pidgeonhole him as a person as being on one "side" or another.  But just now the Heir's made a pro-choice donation, and while that's all the details about that donation he's ever going to talk about, he *does* want to make a point about whether our country's founders *ever* intended for the judiciary to be at odds with the citizenry.  Looks like he's going to have to do a word search in an online version of the Federalist Papers, but he suspects the answer to that question is *NO*.  So he thinks very little of these bite-around-the-edge proposals, mainly only on cable news shows on visual, such as increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices to 12 from 9.  He's wondering exactly what problem that would solve, and whether it can really happen anyway *if* you need to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to do that.  Most proposed amendments the Heir has seen in the past ended up in the dustbin in some capacity.  But just the fact that these pie-in-the-sky proposals exist the Heir sees as a distraction from the fact that the partisan figures making these proposals have no real solutions and are caught flat-footed where an increasingly dysfunctional and socially hostile judiciary is concerned.  The Heir looks at the otherwise lamentable referendum on legal pot in Bachelor Blue State as a model for how to go forward in some capacity.  The referendum at least proposed changing the state constitution to allow for legal pot, and the Heir can't exactly imagine how anyone's going to overturn that at the Supreme Court, or try to get the Supreme or *any* court to overturn the will of the people reflected in the referendum (except maybe on a technicality, but the Heir's not seeing that here).  But again, these are the kinds of pragmatic strategies the Heir expects the progressives to put down as not fire-in-your-belly enough, solely because it's borne of a very much due and well justified political skepticism.  That said, the abortion situation the Heir hears in Texas he sees as a springboard to have this kind of discussion regarding judiciary vs. the people, particularly when he doesn't see any consequences for the judiciary, encouraging them to make more and more rulings against the people, the way it seems to the Heir.