Sure. Each party keeps their radical supporters so as not to lose the 3 to 5 percent of the vote to a third party. Happens all the time. Biden isn’t Bernie, but he throws bones to his supporters.
My logic is sound. Nobody is going to court over interracial marriage, contraception or anything like the parade of horribles mentioned.
People thought that about Roe and Casey, too, and look what happened. Sure, either one of us could argue that that the other cases you mentioned are different, but there are a lot of people on the pro-choice side who are quite upset.
As I said, I don’t think anyone on the SCotUS right now would vote that way, but the nutjobs are out there and they’re not all dysfunctional. @Ann_Hedonia’s post after yours covers a bit more ground, so I’ll just point to that.
I forget where you live, but while there is not, currently, a national movement to abolish inter-racial marriage, same-sex marriage, or regulate what sorts of sexual activities can occur between consenting adults there very much are people in favor of all of those things and some of them live in my region. They’ve been embolded by the overturn of Roe (whether they should be or not) and have become quite noisy of late. I have no idea whether or not this will become a big deal down the road or not, but it can’t be entirely ruled out.
Yes, there is a LOT of distrust of the Republicans and conservatives in general by Democrats and liberals/progressives. Perhaps you are not as aware of this as some of the rest of us, not spending much time in those circles.
Not in the US, no - there are nations where the first one carries the death penalty. So it’s quite conceivable that such a thing could occur. The White Supremacists in the US very much want to outlaw inter-racial marriage. Although the only folks I know who object to condoms are the Catholic Church (as opposed to American Catholics, who often follow their own rules on this topic) but that’s not the birth control that some others want outlawed. More specifically, I’ve had acquaintances who ranted about how the Pill destroys conceived embryos so it’s an abortifacient and should be banned along with other forms of abortion. Ditto for Plan B and IUD’s.
Maybe you’ve never met folks like this, but I assure you they are very much out there. I’d name names but they’re no one famous so that wouldn’t mean anything to you.
I frankly don’t care if it upsets “old ladies who write checks”. THIS old lady (who, yes, continues to write checks at least some of the time) is very much pro-choice, a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, thinks we should have had same-sex marriage two decades earlier than we did, finds the DOMA morally repugnant and disgusting, thinks inter-racial marriage is a great thing because inbreeding is bad and outbreeding is good, and is probably the embodiment of a lot of Fundy Christian nightmares.
Instead, we get Republican nutjobs like Jennifer-Ruth Green who opposes abortion even to save the life of the mother. She is running for freakin’ Congress and you can bet your sweet bippy she’d vote for a total national ban - even to save the life of the mother - in a heartbeat because that’s one of the freakin’ “promises” filling up the mailers getting jammed in my mailbox every damn day. It’s getting so even my pet parrot is getting sick of taking a dump on the junk mail.
Fine, @UltraVires, the Republicans you’re friends and neighbors with aren’t nutjobs, racists, and sexists. But quite a few of them in my neck of the woods are. These folks do exist, some of them are running for office, and they very much want to enact an extreme agenda even if you don’t.
Ha, ha ha - seriously?
Our schools are very much segregated these days. Unlike the 1950’s the basis of division isn’t race, now it’s class. Poor people get shit schools. The wealthy either get good public schools in their high class neighborhoods or send their kids to private schools.
We shouldn’t fund schools based on local taxes. It should, at minimum, be a state-wide tax and state-wide funding, distributed equally among all districts in the state. I’d also favor a law mandating that ALL children be compelled to attend public schools, no more private schools for the wealthy and no more home schooling but I admit that’s probably more extreme that most other Americans would put up with. That’s the only way we’ll get equitable funding for everyone and break the stranglehold of wealthy and privilege on education. A child’s education shouldn’t depend on whether or not their parents can pull strings or have influence. All children should have equal educational opportunities in order for our society to be a true meritocracy.
That’s what a lot of people said about Roe. Yet you say it was always in play. Well, a lot of people are still pissed off about same-sex marriage and the “gay agenda” so why should we doubt them when they say they will keep opposing it?
Yes.
There have been cases where pharmacists refused to fill legitimate birth control prescriptions for legal adults. I’m sorry you don’t believe this is an issue but it very much is. Any medical provider in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, or South Dakota can refuse to fill such a prescription if they have a moral or religious objection. Some have done exactly that. I’m a bit gobsmacked to find an instance where West Virginia, of all places, is more liberal on a subject than other states because I recall it as a VERY conservative, fundy-religious place but perhaps it really has changed since my family made the mistake of moving there in the 1960’s.
Here is another link on the topic.
People are already being denied contraception. See above links.
More recently:
Right in your headline: “IF” And your cite is hardly neutral.
ETA: Shouldn’t people enforce the laws if they are found to be lawful? If I am a prosecutor should I dismiss all seat belt tickets because I don’t like the law?
It goes to your contention that it is only some fringe types that want something like this. It isn’t. These are people in power now.
And I grant the source is not neutral but the question is did the South Carolina governor really say that? I think he did.
Seems to me he wants a ban.
More:
Missing the point, the ones saying that were conservative judges who told that to senators on their way to being appointed, or what they declared to others.
Ask them.
Do you have evidence for those extraordinary claims?
This is becoming a seriously narrow argument trying to make here. Okay, so we can’t use the actual policy platform of the republican party to determine what they may want to do, they’re just trying to appeal to what their voter base wants. But we also shouldn’t worry about the fact that their voter base wants this enough that they feel like it’s strategically valuable to include in their party platform, because what their voters want is also apparently nothing to be concerned about. So their party policy advocates it, and their voters want it, but don’t worry, there’s no chance anyone does these things.
Because of, I don’t know, the predictability, sanity, and good-will of the 2022 Republican party?
You’re a lawyer, right? I’m not even sure if it’s correct to call it motivated reasoning in this case, since it’s more like a tool you use professionally; I guess it still applies.
The nutjobs run your party. The inmates control the asylum. When they successfully rig the system, like they’ve done in states like Wisconsin, to permanently enshrine their rule, they’re going to be targeting all sorts of regressive policies. Repealing Roe was just the first taste for them - they’re certainly not going to be happy to stop there. What’s next up in the regressive agenda?
I don’t know if it as much that as it is a belief that The Bible should run this country and not The Constitution. And from that if you are working for God then all rules are off the table.
When one Republican member of the Supreme Court announces a list of decisions Republicans want to overturn and the Republican members of the Supreme Court overturn the first decision on that list, it’s not hysteria to think the other decisions are going to follow.
The last ten years or so have taught me that, when someone professes to want something bad, it’s far better to take them at their word and believe them than to try to convince yourself that they’re just kidding.
I spent a couple decades before that on the internet and, when people would start to espouse extreme positions, the rank-and-file would always say “Ah, he’s just trolling with that shit”. Then 2016 and, oh wait, actually a lot of these people weren’t trolling and here comes all sorts of shit.
So, yeah, when state GOPs are openly saying “Let’s ban gay marriage” then the safe money is on them wanting to ban gay marriage and not “Awww… it’s just politics”
It really wasn’t in the first 20+ years after the ruling. It certainly wasn’t an issue when Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens, when Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Conner and Anthony Kennedy, and when Bush Sr. appointed David Souter. By the Bush Jr. years it was becoming more of an issue WRT SCOTUS appointments, but we didn’t have a bunch of state legislatures constantly passing laws just with the idea of challenging Roe vs. Wade. It’s only in the last 10 years or so, and mostly since around 2015, when things really picked up momentum.
That really is an excellent point. However, party platforms are always places where things go to die. IIRC, didn’t the GOP have, in its platform, support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe and also one to allow prayer in schools? You never saw those pushed hardly at all.
I guess what I am failing to articulate properly is that the little old lady with the checkbook who would not want her daughter dating a black man is going to vote Republican. I don’t think that fact hurts my side because any left wing radical would vote Democratic. However, this old lady, while a dying breed, is perhaps 5% of the population. Do you want her voting third party causing you to lose an election in a swing state?
No you don’t. You don’t support what she is doing but you let her think you are on her side by talking about “traditional values” and if she wants to think you are on her side about the black thing, then that is her fault. You take her money and her vote while not promising anything.
From my perspective, and I agree that you have a right to be skeptical, that is all that is being done with these party platforms. Again, I know of nobody who supports the parade of horribles cited in the thread, and Dobbs explicitly rejected them. I’m here to give testimony because I live in a red state where just about everyone is a Republican. Nobody cares about these issues. They are not on our secret list once we establish a theocracy.
And even if we did have a secret plan, there is nothing in Dobbs that would support the theory; Dobbs itself rejects it.
My recollection of history is different than yours. It started in earnest no later than 1980. Republicans complained that O’Connor was pro-abortion because of her earlier votes in the AZ legislature but decided not to fight Reagan on it. Rehnquist and Scalia largely got a pass because it was a conservative for conservative swap. When it mattered, with Bork, then it was “war on.” This was in 1987, a few more than 10 years ago.
Bush didn’t appoint Souter because it was okay that he was pro-Roe. It was and continues to be cited as a mistake (one that Dem presidents never make) because Bush didn’t properly vet him.
Surely you’ve heard the similar line of questioning in all confirmation hearings since they have been televised:
Q. Would you overturn Roe?
A. It is not proper for me to comment on cases which may come before me if I am confirmed.
Q. Do you believe in stare decisis?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. Is Roe settled law?
A. Yes, it has been ruled upon and reaffirmed.
Q. So that means you would not overrule it?
A. Again, I cannot comment on a possible pending case.
Q. Ah, so you don’t believe it is settled?
A. It is settled.
Q. So you wouldn’t overrule it.
A. I cannot comment on a possible pending case.
This has been going on for more than 10 years.
My issue isn’t Dobbs by itself. Yes, it overturned precedent for dubious reasons, based seemingly only on the convictions of the people making the decision.
The issue I’m concerned with is a case that you, @UltraVires, argued entirely correctly (IMHO) but turned out to be wrong. That’s right: I’m talking about Kennedy. You had it right that all precedent indicated that the school should have been within its rights to restrict his coercive public prayers. Instead, however, the decision ignored the facts and acted like he’d offered a private prayer.
That was what tells me that this Court is willing to ignore precedent. No, they won’t overturn Loving. Just like they didn’t overturn any previous prayer in school cases. But they’ll effectively override Obergefell anyways.
Sure, maybe not. It’s not entirely clear what the personal convictions of the people on the Court are. But that’s where we are now. Not people arguing for cases via textualism, some theory of justice, or anything else. Not even public perception of the Court matters when making decisions now.
I don’t see how anyone can feel comfortable saying they won’t overturn Obergefell. Especially in this current climate of treating homosexuality as grooming and trans healthcare as child abuse. They may not have geared up for it yet, but I see no reason to be assured they won’t try. There is an outright attack on LGBT Americans going on in the Republican Party, and a Court that has indicated they put their own personal convictions above legal theory.
(And, again, legal theory does NOT just mean textualism or originalism. What I hate about those is that they tried to pretend there was no bias, when there inherently is in all frameworks.)
I don’t think I used that language, but yes, I agree that Kennedy (and Bruen) are on very shaky foundations. To shore those up, I might be even further right wing on those, or I could be convinced to abandon them. However, their reasoning is exceptionally poor, much like Roe, and leave themselves to future overruling.
It is really a good example. You pray with the whole team and the other team in the middle of the football field after the game and that is a “private” or “personal” prayer??? Of course not. And simply because the school wouldn’t punish you for checking to see if your wife sent you a text after the game, they cannot stop an organized prayer? Absurd (according to controlling case law).
I think it is a fair inference to take away from recent decisions that there will be no further left wing social progress with the current court. The point of the thread is that they will not upset anything more than abortion (or at least nothing radically more like shall issue concealed carry), which got them appointed in the first place.
To be clear, my point is that, because that case was decided so poorly, I don’t have any faith in this Court not to use the same level of bad reasoning to overturn anything.
And I would say that, regardless of your opinion of Roe, Dobbs was not well decided, either. My point with bringing up Kennedy is that this shows it isn’t a fluke. They are willing to decide badly to get the result they want.
As Republicans right now want to blame LGBT people for all our ills, I cannot remotely share your confidence. Your argument is more about how the Court should rule, not how they will.
We may agree. There should have been stronger language such as “Although we have quoted the Glucksberg standard for substantive due process, we recognize that we have not always followed it, especially in Lawrence and Obergefell. However much we would decide those cases differently today, will will not disturb them because of reliance interests and the fact that they have created a ‘new normal’ in society.”
I would have liked to have seen that, but again, this is a court that in no instance should deprive the potential challengers to Lawrence or Obergefell a fair hearing. A court shouldn’t preemptively decide those cases, so they simply used language which was basically screaming, “Don’t bring these cases here because you will lose!”
Obviously you read it differently, but to me it could not be plainer. That is why Thomas needed to chime in and basically say, “Oh yeah? Speak for yourselves. I would vote to overrule them!”
Which makes me very sad, being (compared to you) left-wing and socially progressive.
I don’t see why not - what is to stop them upsetting additional settled law? They have lifetime tenure, they don’t have to worry about the next election or how the majority actually feel about them and their decisions.
We’re getting YOUR opinion, not anything that would actually bar the SCotUS from doing whatever the hell they decide to do.
Great, they won’t disturb them today - what about tomorrow?
That statement indicate they do not agree with the results. Which makes me think that, given the opportunity, they’d be willing to overturn those decisions as well.
The notion that the SCotUS might one day decide to simply invalidate the marriages of people I know and care about makes my blood run cold.