I wrote that in a hurry because I’m avidly following the Jan. 6 Hearings thread!
What I meant was … OK, there are conspiracy theorists and idiots who believe all kinds of bullshit, but at some point in the process of making a law banning gay marriage – let alone the SCOTUS upholding it – wouldn’t there need to be some actual proof of harm?
(And even as I write this, I think “Texas.” Never mind. Question withdrawn.)
No. There is no requirement to demonstrated any need, harm, or essential efficacy in drafting laws. Laws don’t even have to be within the bounds of Constitutionality to be passed into law, although they can later be ‘struck’ (essentially negated) by a judgement of a district or appellate court. Provided a legislator can get the votes they can pass a law or resolution that says anything.
Stranger
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.
This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.
Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.
But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.
So I was about to argue, saying Roe was more recent in 1979 than desegregation was, since that dates back to the '50s and late '60s for the initial ruling and then the Civil Rights act.
But then I googled to verify when the last schools finished desegregating. 20-fucking-16. Six years ago. Jesus fucking Christ.
Clarence Thomas has already explicitly targeted these other rights:
Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs evinces at least the candor to call this what it is. In his Dobbs concurrence, he writes that the court’s contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage decisions are “demonstrably erroneous” and that “we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” Unlike the majority, which pretends that this project stops at abortion, he acknowledges that the project merely begins there.
Here’s the actual text from Thomas’s concurring opinion:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, … (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, … (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, … (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. … For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” …, we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because we, as a society, tolerate these abominations among us, we will all die when God destroys us with hellfire and brimstone!!!
There are still segregated schools now. They’re just slightly more subtle about it.
And it seems like Republicans have never even heard of the Ninth Amendment. The Constitution itself, in its direct, plain text, assures us that there are other rights, worthy of protection, that aren’t explicitly laid out, and specifically says that the fact that they’re not mentioned is not grounds to deny them. So what do Republicans do? Exactly what the Ninth Amendment says that they shall not.
I said that about repealing Roe, I thought they were just gonna nibble it to death. I wuz wrong.
Only with a Republican Prez and a GOP Senate.
That is codified in the Bill of Rights.
huh?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
About the only thing the cops can’t lie about is offering a plea bargain.
No. All we have to do is never let a Republican get into the Oval office, and get 52 votes in the Senate. Thomas and a couple others are on their way out, leaving Gorsuch (who is not so bad) Kavenaugh and Barrett, with five liberals, and Roberts, who goes either way.
This is why VOTING is the simple easy answer. The Dems have the votes, if people get out of their chairs and vote.
That would requite an Amendment, and that is more or less politically impossible.
Yep. Sure, the Church teaches abortion is wrong, but so is gay sex, drunkenness, gambling and such. But as Pope Francis said: Most importantly, he said, was that priests and bishops must respond pastorally and not politically to any problem that comes before them. He said they must use “the style of God” to accompany the faithful with “closeness, compassion and tenderness.”
“And what should pastors do? Be pastors, and not go condemning, condemning,” Francis said.
Cite?
Thomas hates Biden and would only leave feet-first.
I do wonder if Roberts, who has occasionally seemed like a decent human being, may retire now that Roe has been overturned. That’s his legacy.
True, with some caveats.
This recent foolish dec by Scotus only allows a state to outlaw abortion. By no means does it make abortion illegal.
Count again. 
Why has DeSantis lashed out at Disney, with his followers accusing Disney of “grooming”?
No. Not in the case of the first 14 weeks. They are nonviable blobs.
And if the GOP really wanted to “protect children” why are they against pre and post natal care? Health care for kids? Decent education?
Yes, I know that and you know that. But a foe of legal abortion will claim those blobs are babies.
Thomas is 73 yo, and in poor health. Feet first is a reasonable option. I expect that he with retire due to poor health or die within a few years.
If it doesn’t happen in the next 6 months it may not matter.
ALL Federal judicial positions, not just Supreme Court justices. I don’t doubt there are some right assholes out there in the Federal judiciary who are basically unsupervised and have no sort of review/recall/firing ability beyond actually getting impeached by Congress. Which would likely take some pretty extreme shenanigans to even draw their attention in the first place.
Maybe a long, but finite term (10 years?) would be appropriate for Federal judges of all levels?
Well, then VOTE DAMMIT!!!
Interesting idea, but I was thinking I’d vote Democrat. 
Maybe 12 years to keep it in sync with presidential elections? That would break down to, what, three new justices appointed each presidential term? Or would the idea be to replace the entire court every few presidential terms?
Are either of those options workable? Three new justices every term seems like kind of a high turnover. But letting a single president nominate an entire court doesn’t seem right either.
EDIT: Well actually, Trump got to nominate his three. So now we have Biden replace the three longest serving judges with three new ones, then the last three get replaced by the next president in 2025. Trump’s three would then be replaced in 2029, and so on. I don’t totally hate this idea. (My math doesn’t work.)
I think @JRDelirious was on to something in post 11 with his blackmail weapon to force the nonconforming to shut up and keep their heads down. A lot of this is more a huge effort to remold society into one with “curtains” that keep those people/behaviors behind closed doors than it’s a sort of crude desire to injure those groups. Their thinking is that they don’t want to see, be confronted with, or otherwise deal with gay people, so they’re systematically removing the ways that they can be openly gay. The fact that it’s hurtful and hateful is more of a bonus than the end goal.
It’s like they want to live in this myth that they’ve constructed, and that myth doesn’t include any of these things that have been part of humanity for millenia- gay people, other races, interracial relationships, immigrants, poor people, trans people, abortions, infidelity, and so forth. Their myth doesn’t include any of that- it’s the idealized, mythical 1950s that never actually existed, and had all those things I listed, but behind closed doors.
Potato, poTATo. 
I wonder at what point the current court will cite the precedent of Bush v Gore and declare the Republican candidate President.
Will they wait until after the convention so they know which Republican they’re appointing to the office?
Will they announce the winner before November 5 and cancel Election Day?
Or will they decide it’ll be more fun to let people vote and then tell them it didn’t matter?