SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

[Kepler]

This isn't creepy at all.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

This isn't creepy at all.

Not sure why they're worried, Justice Handmaid is a lock.

 

[MissThundercat]

Thomas and Alito are now calling for Obergefell to be overturned. If they get Barrett, they'll probably get their wish.

But I know, I know... don't panic.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Imagine being such a pos human that you are bothered by who marries each other

 

[SJHovey]

Thomas and Alito are now calling for Obergefell to be overturned. If they get Barrett, they'll probably get their wish.

But I know, I know... don't panic.

Alito, Thomas and Roberts all dissented in Obergefell. It takes 4 votes to grant cert, iirc. If we assume Roberts still thinks it's a bad decision, that means that they couldn't get Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to be the fourth vote.

I've written this before, been roundly mocked for it, but I'll write it again. I do not believe that we will see a US Supreme Court decision in which the Court says a person has a constitutional right to a certain thing, then a subsequent decision revoking that right. It won't happen for the right to counsel in criminal cases. It won't happen with respect to the right of interracial marriage, or abortion. It won't happen to gay marriage. That is what I firmly believe.

 

[St. Clown]

I've written this before, been roundly mocked for it, but I'll write it again. I do not believe that we will see a US Supreme Court decision in which the Court says a person has a constitutional right to a certain thing, then a subsequent decision revoking that right. It won't happen for the right to counsel in criminal cases. It won't happen with respect to the right of interracial marriage, or abortion. It won't happen to gay marriage. That is what I firmly believe.

I hope you’re right.

 

[Kepler]

Alito, Thomas and Roberts all dissented in Obergefell. It takes 4 votes to grant cert, iirc. If we assume Roberts still thinks it's a bad decision, that means that they couldn't get Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to be the fourth vote.

I've written this before, been roundly mocked for it, but I'll write it again. I do not believe that we will see a US Supreme Court decision in which the Court says a person has a constitutional right to a certain thing, then a subsequent decision revoking that right. It won't happen for the right to counsel in criminal cases. It won't happen with respect to the right of interracial marriage, or abortion. It won't happen to gay marriage. That is what I firmly believe.

Ever since the ascendancy of the Right, decisions are not based on law or principle. They are pure force. They are a punch in the face. The ostensible argument is a paper thin rationalization after the fact for an act of pure will.

These are not jurists, they are ideologues.

 

[SJHovey]

Ever since the ascendancy of the Right, decisions are not based on law or principle. They are pure force. They are a punch in the face. The ostensible argument is a paper thin rationalization after the fact for an act of pure will.

These are not jurists, they are ideologues.

Ok. But again, can you point me to instances where the US Supreme Court has declared that citizens have a constitutional right to "x" and then in a later decision by the Supreme Court, made up of different justices, they said "nah, we don't think you have that constitutional right anymore."

 

[Jimjamesak]

Ok. But again, can you point me to instances where the US Supreme Court has declared that citizens have a constitutional right to "x" and then in a later decision by the Supreme Court, made up of different justices, they said "nah, we don't think you have that constitutional right anymore."

Voting Rights Act.

 

[Kepler]

Ok. But again, can you point me to instances where the US Supreme Court has declared that citizens have a constitutional right to "x" and then in a later decision by the Supreme Court, made up of different justices, they said "nah, we don't think you have that constitutional right anymore."

The right here is not the right to an abortion, it is the right of privacy, and the Right is on record as saying they don't believe such a right exists (even though it implicitly underlies everything they claim to believe in and without it all other rights are vulnerable).

In any case, the history of reproductive rights cases since Casey has been the abridgment of that right in the name of the state's "compelling interest." So the instance in which the right has been denied by subsequent decisions by different justices is... the last 40 years of abortion cases.

 

[SJHovey]

Voting Rights Act.

Well, the VRA was an act of Congress, not a declaration by the US Supreme Court that a person has certain constitutional rights. But I think I can anticipate your argument. 50 years ago the Supremes said a certain section was constitutional, and then 5-10 years ago they determined that it wasn't. Is that your argument?

I'm not an expert on the VRA or the cases, but as I understand it, the reason the Supremes ruled that it was unconstitutional a few years ago was that Congress was still relying upon facts and data that had been accumulated 50 years before. Basically the Supremes said that the VRA is fine if you want to rely upon current facts or data, but you to just say today that because a state acted inappropriately 50-75 years ago they are still doing so today is inappropriate.

 

[SJHovey]

The right here is not the right to an abortion, it is the right of privacy, and the Right is on record as saying they don't believe such a right exists (even though it implicitly underlies everything they claim to believe in and without it all other rights are vulnerable).

In any case, the history of reproductive rights cases since Casey has been the abridgment of that right in the name of the state's "compelling interest." So the instance in which the right has been denied by subsequent decisions by different justices is... the last 40 years of abortion cases.

Every single constitutional right has undergone the same thing, even those actually enumerated in the constitution, such as religion, speech, etc... Supreme Court cases are a constant ebb and flow of how broad or narrow the right is construed.

I'm not going to tell Miss T that there won't be cases in which issues pertaining to gay marriage aren't debated or subject to decision. But an express repudiation or reversal of Roe, of Obergefell or similar cases will not be forthcoming.

 

[MissThundercat]

Sayeth the right wing heterosexual.

 

[Bronco]

A Conservative Supreme Court will find a way to bring back discrimination in the guise of States rights.

 

[unofan]

Sayeth the right wing heterosexual.

I mean, we're getting worked up over an opinion written by 2 justices who nevertheless agreed to deny cert. Yeah, Thomas was his usual derp self, but there's also a reason he writes a ton of solo concurrences and doesn't really have any major decisions where he is the primary author. His reasoning rarely attracts enough votes to carry the day.

Where Hovey is being disingenuous is that death by 1000 paper cuts is still death. I have no doubt a Court will never explicitly overrule Roe. But they can easily nibble away at it until it's a right in name only. And a right wing court could do the same to gay marriage if it felt it was politically expedient to do so.

The saving grace is simply demographics and the fact that it isn't politically expedient to do so. Gay marriage is a non issue for anyone under 30, even among the young Republican crowd. There are going to fewer and fewer cases challenging it as time marches inexorably onward. That doesn't help near term, but you can be confident you'll win in the long run.

 

[Kepler]

Gay marriage is a non issue for anyone under 30, even among the young Republican crowd.

This is untrue. Every Gilead Thumper is pumping that poison into their dozen kids and maybe the smartest one sees through it but the other 11 will drone along. Fundamentalist religion trumps generation. Those kids will be vicious bigots, and so will their kids, and their kids, and their kids, world without end.

 

[unofan]

This is untrue. Every Gilead Thumper is pumping that poison into their dozen kids and maybe the smartest one sees through it but the other 11 will drone along. Fundamentalist religion trumps generation. Those kids will be vicious bigots, and so will their kids, and their kids, and their kids, world without end.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-sex-marriage/

Granted, this is from 6 years ago, but I honestly haven't seen any indication that the trend isn't still holding true.

 

[Handyman]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KimberlyRobinsn/status/1313271962446200837

So it would seem to me this is kind of a big decision for them to choose to make now considering the ballots are already being sent...

 

[dxmnkd316]

I’m not sure that’s true Kep. The vast, vast majority of even my right wing friends don’t oppose. We’re even talking trump diehards.

I’d guess that only 10% are opposed to it. If that. For the other 90%, 2/3 don’t see any issue with gay marriage and 1/3 are actively for gay marriage. I might even be low on that 1/3.

I think I’m aware of only two people I’m friends with who oppose it. One is a friend I go pretty far back with. The other may have moderated over time. He last made a comment a decade ago.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I’m not sure that’s true Kep. The vast, vast majority of even my right wing friends don’t oppose. We’re even talking trump diehards.

I’d guess that only 10% are opposed to it. If that. For the other 90%, 2/3 don’t see any issue with gay marriage and 1/3 are actively for gay marriage. I might even be low on that 1/3.

I think I’m aware of only two people I’m friends with who oppose it. One is a friend I go pretty far back with. The other may have moderated over time. He last made a comment a decade ago.

Agreed. My conservative derp friends in sc who hate abortion don’t have an issue with gay marriage