While we try to absorb the abortion decision and how things are going to change as a result of that, make sure you are paying attention to the other things that the Supreme Court is getting ready to burn are many federal-level protections:
Same sex marriage rights
Miranda rights
Right to access contraception
Interracial marriage
Sexual choice in general, not just related to marriage: pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, adultery–even unmarried adults will find their personal choices restricted
Voting rights protections
Furthermore, get ready to see fugitive-slave act type law, which allows one state to enforce its laws in another state.
For all the right’s talk about “individual liberty,” the majority of Americans are going to face having their personal choices limited in a lot of ways.
I think even Clarence Thomas is going to have difficulty getting on board with miscegenation laws. The rest of the items in your list are either already under active assault (voting rights, sexual choice, limits on police ability to compel or coerce statements) or are items that conservative justices have already indicated hostility toward (marriage equality, access to contraception). I’m dubious about federal action to allow individual states extend their jurisdiction into other states because there is really no precedent for this. (Even the Fugitive Slave Acts were predicated that slaves were property that was illegally removed, and there was no general recognition at the federal level that slaves were human beings with their own inalienable rights.)
The entire ‘Don’t Step On Me!’ crowd that is supposedly in favor of individual liberties has always been selective about which freedoms the government should respect and protect and those that it should not. “Freedom for me but not for thee,” is their unspoken mantra.
He will just live in a state that doesn’t re-instate anti-miscegenation laws. That will be the case for all powerful conservatives—they will continue to live in their own world. They’ll get their abortions if they want them. The arguments they have set forth doesn’t offer any basis for eliminating right to access contraception or same-sex marriage but also not eliminating federal protections for interracial marriage or desegregated schools.
At every step, there’s always some point that someone has said “they won’t go that far” because of some supposed personal interest, but so far they’ve marched on steadily without any hesitation.
And, of course, Thomas is just one judge and not even he will be there forever. When he goes, he will be replaced by someone even more radical.
I didn’t say all these things are going to happen tomorrow, but we are firmly on that path.
Here is my question. With the long history of attacks on 4th and 5th amendment rights (and throw in Kelo), are we really surprised anymore that SCOTUS is expanding its crusade against individual rights? Allowing gay marriage was the anomaly, not the rule.
Agreed, and stacking the federal judiciary with conservative judges after Mitch McConnell et al quite deliberately starved judicial appointments for eight years under Obama (which is a story the media totally missed at the time when it was occurring) will ensure conservative interpretations of the law for decades to come regardless of who is in control of the executive and legislative apparatus.
Obergefell v. Hodges was largely about acceding to popular opinion; given that it is not ensconced in federal statute, it could easily be reversed, throwing it back to the states to determine the validity of non-heterosexual marriages. Whether it could be retroactively applied to existing registered marriages or not is in question but I suppose a state could just annul gay marriages issued by its states by statute and refused to recognize licenses issued by other states. That is such a massive legal tangle that goes far beyond the right to marry itself I don’t really know how that would work out but it would be a fucking mess for sure.
Something I’ve been wondering since yesterday; what happens if the Supreme Court reverses the Loving and Obergefell decisions and removes the right to interracial and same-sex marriages, instead leaving it up to the states? Some states like Connecticut or California may allow interracial or same-sex couples to marry while states like Texas or Tennessee may not. Doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause require the states to respect the laws and judicial proceedings of other states?
I firmly believe that the Supreme Court shenanigans during the Obama and Trump administrations were Mitch McConnell’s tacit admissions that Republicans were at the doorway of a long period of electoral disadvantages; and that the SC would be conservatives’ final bulwark against the nation’s leftward march.
The only thing that’s really all that surprising is how blatant and unequivocal the rollback has been especially this SCOTUS term.
Could be wrong but my guess with gay marriage is that they say individual states can outlaw gay marriage, but would have to respect marriages from other states (even just as a practical matter - I don’t think the SCOTUS wants to be responsible for the bureaucratic mess of people’s marriage status being inconsistent between states). The really scary possibility is if the SCOTUS reinstates the Defense of Marriage Act. If I had to guess I’d say they don’t do that because they’d create the same or worse situation if the federal government repealed DOMA and allowed gay marriage again.
Nope. That was the issue when some states started allowing gay marriage. In fact, it even goes back to states that allow minors to marry. IIRC there was a case where a couple got married when the girl was 12 because Kansas allows that. They moved to another state and the husband was convicted of child rape for having sex with his wife. And I think it even goes back to when a few states allowed interracial marriage. It has something to do with violating public policy in the different state or something or other. I don’t claim to fully understand the rationale but to me the layman it seems to violate the Constitution if you have a certain legal status here but not there.
The philosophy is that there is a divinely or naturally ordained hierarchy of People (or groups of people) In Their Place, and they all must Know Their Place and Stay In Their Place. Now, if they apply themsleves they may be granted the grace of a seat one table up, or they may earn one by fighting and prevailing in a way that impresses the Betters, but they must not overthrow the hierarchy itself.
One important tool to put this in effect is a legal structure by which you can hold the threat of criminal penalties over anyone who deviates from the established norm of how everyone should comport themselves. The rich, powerful and connected can continue to have affairs, abortions, and be gay on the Down Low, as long as they keep it discreet, but woe to whoever comes out and says “I want this to be accepted as the norm”. You have to maintain the kayfabe of “polite society” and “values” and that it’s “them others” who are prone to promiscuity and crime; you do that by letting it be known the Establishment can regulate your private conduct, so behave yourself or we’ll take you down over that.
I always saw the consenting-adult victimless sex crime laws boiling down to just keeping a blackmail weapon in society’s back pocket to force the nonconforming to shut up and keep their heads down. And while at it they’re also society giving Dad a weapon with which to crush any “wrong” partner of his sons and daughters… or any son or daughter who picked the “wrong” partner.
It reminds me of Liberace, Paul Lynde et al. in the 70s. We know you’re gay but we like you so we don’t condone you being gay or homosexuality in general but we choose to ignore it in your case.
This is an interesting issue. Is it learned? Is it intrinsic? Have human civilizations always had this almost equal division between conservatives and liberals (at some level) or do some societies nurture one over the other?
For conservatives it is inequality that is the fact of life, either tragically or for the best, and thus efforts to produce artificial equality should be scrutinized. … For conservatives, inequality suggests that some people do indeed know best what should be done. These may be the more virtuous, the stronger, the more patriotic, the more intelligent and religious, or any combination thereof. … Conservatives believe the views of these “recognizably superior” persons should naturally be granted greater weight and significance politically, even if these views happen to look like prejudice. Indeed the prejudices that liberals and leftists criticize so furiously may actually reflect a kind of shared wisdom that binds a community together and commits it to higher standards of excellence, which gives way to the anarchy and decadence of levelling when gone.
Getting back to one of the links in the OP: So Miranda warnings are no longer needed to be given, but the overall concept of “I have the right to remain silent” still applies, right? I ask because I’ve read a James Duane book (he is a defense attorney) recently where he argued that if you invoke the right to silence the wrong way, you can still have it used against you in court, such as phrasing with the wrong grammar or using the word “incriminate” rather than “silence.”
Re: gay marriage. One of the issues is that while marriage is a state matter, there are federal rights that accrue. I left the country because although I was in California, which allowed gay marriage, our attorney advised us that entering into a marriage would be a violation of my fiancé’s visa, because immigration is a federal matter and gay marriage was not legal at the federal level, and full faith and credit didn’t apply.
We didn’t want to take the chance, because a violation might mean never being allowed to visit again.
If even one state outlaws gay marriage, however that looks, that calls the federal benefits of marriage into question for all Americans, which includes how to file taxes, etc. I’m not saying they won’t roll back that right, but it’s going to have a lot of unintended consequences if they do.
What was common is that someone who doesn’t truly understand es rights would be in custody and the cops would just coerce a confession. Or else someone would invoke the right but the cops would ignore it until they overcame any resistance. Or the cops would straight up lie about what your rights were.
The Supreme Court has upheld cops’ right to lie about a lot of things during interrogation.
That was kinda my hope as well. I hope we are right. Young Supremes like Kavanaugh/Comey Barrett can cause havoc for decades, but there would be a light at the end of the tunnel for my kids/grandkids.