Because he can possibly get one more pick if anyone else on the Court dies. And then gay marriage was decided 5/4. So his first judge is part of the 4, and then the second judge replaces one of the 5, flipping the court. Then all it takes is for new legislation to be brought forth, run through the appeals system, and get to the Court.
The main thing that can stop them is if they don’t get rid of the fillibuster in the Senate, either altogether or for Supreme Court picks. Then the Democrats can just refuse to confirm anyone who is likely to be on the against side. They should also do so for the anti-abortion side.
Yes, one my slip through, but hopefully not two or more.
Right now, as a Christian, I am praying more for the health of the Supreme Court than I have in my entire life. Maybe it does nothing, but I can’t see what else I can do.
For those of us who didn’t vote for Trump, it boggles the mind how 61 million people felt he was qualified to be president.
I think the only thing Trump truly will fight for is his ego and reputation. Which means both parties as well as international interests are going to be using carrots and sticks to manipulate him for the next four years. Surgical praise and criticism to make the puppet dance.
I think you misunderstand why religious people supported Trump.
Nobody with any sense thought Trump was going to do anything about gay marriage or abortion; those horses have left the barn. Those issues, as political matters in 2016, are settled, dead, over. Voting for someone because they opposed gay marriage makes as much sense as voting for someone because they opposed Jimmy Carter on the Panama Canal. Nor did many support him because they thought he was any kind of moral role model himself. That would be idiotic.
Religious conservatives voted for Trump because
of reasons other than religion. The Venn circles for “Evangelical” and “White working class” overlap pretty heavily, after all.
Supreme Court
Because they sense that Trump will fight for them in the battles to come. It doesn’t do any good to elect someone who is morally unimpeachable and ideologically perfect if he/she folds like a pup tent as soon as someone calls them “intolerant/sexist/homophobic/islamophobic.”
I think most thinking people on the religious right are coming to understand that the fights to determine whose ethos will dominate the culture are over, and that they lost. The fights of the future are about whether or not traditional Christians will just be able to live lives consistent with their beliefs, or if they will be the ones getting forced to live in the closet. Trump, to the extent he has a social ideology, seems to be a live-and-let-live guy. In 2016, that puts him on their side. Add in Mike Pence as a guy who is also willing to fight for live-and-let-live, and it’s a no-brainer.
Dude. Nobody is asking religious people to “live in the closet”. We asking them to not use their religion as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination. They can believe whatever they want as long as it does not affect the rights and wellbeing of other people.
And the idea of Pence as a “live-and-let-live guy” is absolutely laughable. This is a guy who supports throwing gay kids into “conversion camps” and electroshocking the gay out of them.
The point is that the fights of the future are not going to be over the rights of homosexuals/transgendered to do ___. Those issues are settled. Rather, they will be about the extent to which traditionally religious people can be forced to say or do things that violate their beliefs. e.g. can religiously-affiliated wedding venues decline same-sex weddings; can churches decline to offer transgender bathrooms; can religious schools teach traditional Christian morality in the classroom; can religious hospitals decline to perform abortions, etc.
For religious people, their religion impacts every part of how they live, and for religious organizations, things like schools and hospitals are an integral part of their identity. The free exercise of religion definitionally involves more than merely promising that people can believe what they want – it includes actions, including those that impact the public and may collide with the rights of others. Sorting out those competing rights will be the task of the legislature and the courts.
I did not say he was a “live-and-let-live guy.” The point was that Pence has demonstrated his willingness to fight, and the battles to come are going to be over “live-and-let-live” issues.
Has not already been essentially decided, either formerly in law, or via persuasion.
is not one that is an issue of resolving gay / trans rights versus others rights of conscience.
If you can, please tell me. On the other hand, I see obvious issues where religious groups desire to operate in accord with their beliefs puts them at odds with the new cultural/legal consensus.