Regarding Kavanaugh, I once heard someone make the point that he agreed it was ‘settled law’ not that he wouldn’t try and change it.
I’m still not sure it wouldn’t be struck down 5-4 even if she was telling the truth.
I couldn’t parse all the legalese, but I did not find the responses in that article encouraging.
Clever people are usually able to make a case for doing what they want and convincing themselves that it’s the correct thing to do.
There is the difference that saying “Going forward, no more abortions” only affects people pregnant currently or who get pregnant in the future. Past abortions are over and done and the overturning of Roe does not change that.
Whereas, if gay marriage is overturned, what happens to all the current gay marriages? They become legal in some places and illegal in others? That would cause chaos. I can see the Supremes (well, some of them) being reluctant to kick that hornets’ nest.
Grandfathered in. We already had the situation where gay marriage was legal in some states (or countries) and not in others.
In effect, it sounds like Barrett is saying that liberties are basically anything that a mass hue and cry would arise if the government infringed upon them. In some sense that’s a practical standard since laws and even provisions of a constitution are abstractions, but in another sense problematic from a legal standpoint.
But she specifically states her reasons why she believes that reliance interest doesn’t apply to abortion. Basically that whole discussion was about why she beleives that the constitution and stare decisis protect marriage in a way that it doesn’t protect abortion.
She’s not trying to get confirmed, she is free to say anything she pleases. She brought of the marriage issues herself. If she felt that gay marriage wasn’t worth protecting she wouldn’t have to lie she could have expressed her actual view point or could have just kept mum.
We’ll see in the next year or two but after this interview I would lay at least 2 to 1 odds that she won’t vote for a complete overturn, although there could be a possibility that she would support just grandfathering in the existing marriages, but preventing others going forward.
That might satisfy the Right without causing the chaos she said she wants to avoid. Still awful of course.
Add me to the list of people who think she’s outlining a concurring opinion that will give states a path to pass legislation declaring that marriages entered into on or after a certain effective date will no longer be recognized as valid.
Boom. No more reliance interest. Won’t hurt past marriages, will further marginalize “teh gaze”.
Trusting a Trump appointed Justice to follow their prior statements will only result in disappointment.
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” - Susan B. Anthony
Haha! WOO!
That is a gigantic relief
In related news, Clarence Thomas checked into the doghouse for an extended stay.
I came here to post that. A sliver of good news today.
Big time. Allow me to add some cogent analysis of the situation: “Fuck you, Kim Davis. Pay up!”
Oh, I’m sure all her God-fearing supporters on GoFundMe or similar will help her avoid any actual accountability for her actions.
I’m not saying I like Coney Barrett or agree with her on all of her decision, but she has surprised me that she is trying to make an effort to be fair & balanced.
We have no idea how the vote went down. We only know that it takes four votes to have the hearing.