Agreed. Plus we would lose a GOP vote because presumably there would be serious pressure on Lee not to vote for his own confirmation. With McCain’s absence, that leaves us in a 49-49 tie with no room for defection.
Not so. I just disagree with the idea of the “evolving standards of decency” argument at the outset. And even if it was a good constitutional argument, it is not applied.
These new standards demand legal same sex marriage everywhere? Thirty plus states passed constitutional amendments against it.
These new enlightened standards say that there should not be a death penalty? Again, thirty plus states, the federal government, and the U.S. military disagree.
Where does this modern standard come from? It certainly isn’t the people. It is the ivory tower liberal standard.
This is a remarkable assertion. Should be easy enough for you to offer citations to support it, but, in your haste, you neglected to give them. Here’s another opportunity.
State constitutional amendments. Amendments to their own state constitutions defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Do you really need cites for that? Or am I just an old guy that remembers all of those ballot initiatives?
Are Senators able to see a running tally of the votes as the votes are in progress? Maybe Lee would abstain from voting if it looks that he’ll pass, but if he does the ongoing math and sees that the GOP will be one vote short, then he’ll vote for himself.
At any rate, it looks like Kavanaugh, Barrett and a non-Lee pick are the final remaining trio so it is moot.
Wait now, are we talking about “ballot initiatives” now? Efforts to change the Constitution that may or may not have failed? Because that’s not exactly what you said, now is it? Here, let me help…
Here’s how this works, you got, you bring. You got?
Are you serious in asking for a citation that thirty states passed state constitution amendments that forbid same-sex marriage?
Yeah, but seeing as you’ve weighed in, its likely “true” but is also likely not the whole story. Why don’t you both stop finger fucking and lay it out?
This was not hard to find. Why didn’t you just spend literally 30 seconds googling “state marriage amendments” or “constitutional gay marriage amendment” or anything of the sort? Doing it for multiple posts in a row when this is something that can easily be found on wikipedia is just obnoxious.
The statement was simple. 30 states. If you think there is more to the story, it’s really up to you to supply that.
I can’t imagine whatever other part of the story you’d like. Thirty states passed state constitutional amendments prohibiting either: (a) same-sex marriage; (b) same-sex marriage AND same-sex civil unions; or (c) same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, AND any civil contract that creates similar benefits.
As you can see, same-sex marriage was prohibited by all thirty, and some states went further.
A thirty-first state, Hawaii, went in in a more defensible direction: they passed a state constitutional amendment that vested the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in the legislature. In other words, they made it crystal clear that the state constitution did not protect same-sex marriage but did not forbid it either.
All of these were made legally inoperative by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.
Do you still need a cite?
Good citation, was especially intrigued by that last column listing “Fates” with its abundant wording of “ruled unConstitutional by (something) or (something else)”. Didn’t count 'em, several.
And when I did google, I got thirteen states with laws against it. In the meantime, it changed to ballot initiatives. So, yeah, I got a mite suspicious. You wouldn’t? Then the Counselor rolls in to snide at me for not knowing the fact he doesn’t offer either!
The last column is “fates”. Seems that about fifteen or so of these were found unConstitutional in various cases. A couple more were dumped with special secret probation, being done in by Something v. Someone and Obergefell
Accurate. A point that is better the less you know.
Original claim: These new standards demand legal same sex marriage everywhere? Thirty plus states passed constitutional amendments against it.
Actual fact: Thirty states passed state constitutional amendments forbidding same-sex marriage. One state passed an amendment that forbid a judicial finding that the state constitution required legal same-sex marriage, but left the actual decision in the hands of its legislature.
All of these state constitutional amendments were made legally unenforceable (but not erased) by the federal Supreme Court in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges.
Do you agree with the above, or do you require a cite?
Thirty state legislatures passed laws, of which about half were found to be fatally flawed in cases other than Obergefell. Predominantly Republican legislatures, I’m assuming?
So, mean and spiteful, and stupid enough to fuck up half of them? Yeah, OK.
You win!
Right?
IIRC, they do a roll call vote in alphabetical order. So, Lee could hear every Senator’s vote from A-L. No Manchin. 
[Monty Python on] That {ship} burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. [Monty Python off]
Ah I see.
Well, if he sees that Donnelly and Heitkamp don’t vote aye for him, then he’ll probably sense that his vote for himself is needed.
Wondering what would be better, in the cold grim light of realpolitik? Roe v. Wade is crunched before the midterms, and harvest the backlash? Or not, and harvest the dread?
In many cases, the state constitutional amendments were spurred on by a state court decision that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.
So, in such cases, the timeline was:
(1) A couple seeking a same-sex marriage license,
(2) Is denied under a state law,
(3) Sues claiming the state anti-same-sex marriage law is violative of the state constitution,
and (4) Wins a state court judgement to that effect, which
(5) Spurs the adoption of a state constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.
In other cases, such as my home state, the state constitutional amendment was adopted pre-emptively, before an adverse court decision.
On the federal level, the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits had all decided that there was a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but the Sixth Circuit held that the issue was foreclosed by a prior Supreme Court decision (Baker v. Nelson).
The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits all generally followed the US Supreme Court’s 2013 logic in United States v. Windsor, a case that found that the federal DOMA law was itself unconstitutional. Windsor involved a same-sex couple originally married under Canadian law, and whose marriage was later recognized by New York. Following one spouse’s death, the surviving spouse, who had inherited the entire estate, sought to invoke the federal tax exemption for surviving spouses. The IRS denied this exemption, relying upon Sec. 3 of DOMA, and the Supreme Court struck down Sec 3.
I have supplied the broad history in an effort to answer whatever question you might be raising. Your exact question or objection remains unclear to me.