They say that Republicans could call a convention on the premise, say, of producing an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced, then open the door for a free-for-all in which a multitude of other amendments are considered, including some that could restrict abortion access or civil rights.

"I do not want California to inadvertently trigger a constitutional convention that ends up shredding the Constitution"

I am all for changes to the constitution that say 1) corporations are not people and 2) money is not speech.
#2 | Posted by Nixon

That can be done with an amendment.

Concern with going the constitutional convention route, instead, is that the MAGAts/GOP can open it up to destroy pretty much every progressive legal protection currently in existence. Or widen the door for Trump's SCOTUS to do the same.

It scares you because you know the American people do not feel the same way as progressives.
You are scared they may vote to dilute some progressive initiatives that have been imposed on a public that doesnt want it.
#4 | Posted by boaz

I guess I'd be less concerned if, for example, the MAGAts of the fine states of Wisconsin and North Carolina had not gerrymandered their minority status into control of the state house.

I don't put anything past the MAGATs and GOPhers and, as we all know, SCOTUS will do nothing to stop them. Heck, Trump's SCOTUS will probably give the Republicans explicit directions on how to go about it.