Don't take this as me taking a side either way, I simply want to ask a question.
So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?
Wouldn't this imply that the entire time, Congress knew that they needed to formally pass a law to cement RvW as law? Not a full-out Constitutional Amendment, just pass a single bill? As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that specifically allows abortion, but there's nothing there that specifically denies it. That would be the explanation as to why the Supreme Court overturned it, right? It's not the Supreme Court's place to create laws, their job is to simply strike down laws that go against the Constitution. So, at any point, Congress could have just passed a typical bill into law to cement abortions being legal, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to do even if they wanted to strike it down.
Just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly, because throughout the entire thread people have been saying that it needed a full-blown Constitutional Amendment, which is hard as balls to do, when just a normal passed bill into law would have sufficed, which is MUCH easier and could have been done damn near effortlessly in comparison.