My point was that if he didn’t mention overturning Loving v Virginia it wasn’t because he doesn’t see it as being about marriage and does see it as being about the right not to be arrested because if those were the reasons, he wouldn’t have mentioned overturning Lawrence. There has to be some other reason that applies to Loving but not to Lawrence. There might be more than one possibility - but high on the list is that he believes a black person and a white person should have the right to marry and live as a married couple without facing arrest - but he doesn’t think same sex couples even have the right to have sexual contact with each other without facing arrest.
Here’s what I expect,
‘I mean I support the right to choose but what have they done about insert pet issue here? There’s no Democrat candidate advocating for insert pet issue here I’ll probably just not vote.’
The banned poster also said something like this, but I’m not sure I agree. This is a fanatical issue based around religion. I can’t see Trumpists and evangelicals high on victory being satisfied with anything less. They generally don’t care about political realities; in general, they think that literally anything they want, they’ll get. Why wouldn’t they, and the politicians who believe like them, push hard now?
If the red wave rolls down in November, and Republicans get the house and 51 Senators, McConnell is going to be under a massive amount of pressure to ditch the filibuster and pass a national abortion ban. Failure to do so would get him called a baby killer and put him in the RINO traitor category with Cheney.
Still gonna need a veto proof majority to get it through.
At which point the Republicans start yelling about “death panels” and eliminate public health care assistance programs altogether.
Having now re-read the Obergefell dissent, I see that he only mentioned it after assuming, for the sake of argument, that substantial due process was a valid interpretation of the Constitution. Basically he said ‘even if substantial due process was valid, which it isn’t, the “liberty” protected only means liberty from physical restraint. It doesn’t imply any right to a marriage license.’ And that is where he puts the footnote for Loving that I recalled.
So yeah, his approach would also strip Loving of any due process grounds, leaving only the equal protection argument. I can still think of two reasons he didn’t mention overturning it.
- He thinks the equal protection clause is sufficient to uphold Loving.
- He recognizes that he cannot decide a case impartially, since he himself commits miscegenation, and so avoids opining on its merits in any dicta.
I quoted Justice Thomas’s written opinion that he thinks arrest for sodomy is an unworthy “way to expend valuable law enforcement resources”. Beyond that, I don’t think you’ll be able to draw any more blood out of the stone.
~Max
The Democrats’ inability to rouse the rabble no longer matters, the Supreme Court just did it for them. Tens of millions of women are going to lose the right to choose almost immediately. Why would you think their reaction won’t come quickly enough to affect the midterms? For those of us who are paying attention, this ruling wasn’t a surprise, but half the country just completely tunes out on politics until it affects them personally. Well, it doesn’t get more personal than this. Americans aren’t used to seeing civil rights just vanish overnight. I think we’re going to see a much bigger backlash from this than we saw from the more gradual erosion of abortion rights which has been in process for decades.
One thing worth noting is that one big driver for unscrupulous politicians to keep average folks at heel, in the rural areas, has been to wave “baby murder” at them.
Stealing some money from the electorate, cheating on your wife, taking bribes, all be as it may if you’re still the guy fighting to prevent baby murder then that’s all sort of forgivable. A guy who doesn’t cheat on his wife but does want to approve baby murder… Well, that’s just a worse person.
Once you take baby murder off the topic list, there’s a non-zero chance that those guys start to see their power diminish.
And you should really consider that if rural states are so gung-ho about trying to prevent baby murder that they’ll back an idiot and reprobate like Donald Trump and whatever all other scumbags to such an extreme level as to forgive all the BS that they’ve already accepted, then whether it’s really worth trying to force them to allow baby murder in their states? It’s their territory and they’re the ones who have to live with the consequences of their choices. You’re not their keeper or their mother. We don’t force Christian Scientists to go to the doctor, we don’t force the obese to go to “fat camp”, and etc. They’re all adults and they’re voting for the laws of their states. The states don’t all have to have the same laws.
I wish I didn’t agree with this, but I do.
No, they did not lie. Let alone commit perjury.
What Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Said About Roe at Confirmation Hearings - FactCheck.org
Because tens of millions of women aren’t perpetually sitting around waiting to get abortions. It is not an issue of immediacy for most people–politics can make things an immediate concern, that’s literally a part of what playing politics is (see how CRT literally was manufactured as an immediate concern for the right’s base voters out of thin air.) It takes sustained political effort to make it so. Lots of the women who are desperate for abortions are lower income, non-white, and thus much less likely to be voters or to be voters in States that are politically relevant.
I agree with this. Young women who really weren’t in tune with the specific politics of the day just got their rights taken away and those who may not think of voting (esp in a Midterm election) now have been given a reason to vote. They aren’t necessarily going to care about much else on the ballot, but voting against the people who want to take away their rights even more in the state they live in will get a lot of those folks out.
And interestingly I’ve seen some young men who generally wouldn’t care about a midterm election getting all angry (to put it very crudely, they may have thought of abortion as a final protection from having to support a child earlier than they would have hoped).
Yes but we’re still a light-year away from that point. “take baby murder off the topic list” would have to require something like:
- federal ban of abortion nationwide, plus
- Supreme Court upholds such a ban, plus
- pro-choicers die down to the point that they no longer pose a serious threat to revive abortion in America
Until then, the “baby murder” topic will forever be there to use.
Pretty much. Unless of course someone invents a way to transplant fetuses into another womb, natural or artificial.
Staking out a reasonable position that holds your opponent to the words they said is going to work better than choosing an extreme position and telling your opponent that their position is different and worse than any they have ever given.
If they said “states rights”, “states rights” is a fairly reasonable option that makes most people satisfied, and it’s the basis for the Supreme Court ruling, I don’t see the advantage to trying to convince Republicans that they should be dissatisfied with the situation.
Mutually challenging each other to more during and extreme positions doesn’t work to anyone’s favor. Someone’s going to step up and use the dramatics as the basis for roping the dopes in.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-privately-called-roe-v-172306069.html
The man most responsible for shaping a U.S. Supreme Court that delivered the conservative movement a long-sought victory has spent weeks saying he did not think it will be good for his party.
Publicly, after a draft of the likely decision leaked in May, former President Donald Trump was remarkably tight-lipped for weeks about the possible decision, which the court ultimately handed down Friday, ending federal abortion protections. But privately, Trump has told people repeatedly that he believes it will be “bad for Republicans.”
JPMorganChase will financially help employees get an abortion if needed. What’s in it for them (the bank, not the employees)?
I think that you drastically underestimate the powers of laziness and complacency.
Save a whole lot of money on maternity leave.
Maybe have lower health insurance rates, as well, as a birth is expensive.