Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same sex marriage is definitely next but interracial marriage will be allowed because it is so popular among voters.

In this order:
Birth control
IVF
Interracial marriage
gay marriage

SCOTUS can’t overturn any of these unless there is a challenge. I can see a GOP governor challenging Obergfell to try to get that to SCOTUS. I don’t see a lot of political will to challenge birth control. GOP may hate abortion, but its a small minority of the base who don’t use birth control. Same with interracial marriage. Maybe there are a lot of bigots among the RWNJ, but I just don’t see any state trying to reverse that anytime soon.

I think you are underestimating the GOP. It wouldn’t be a direct challenge to the right to access birth control, it would be very onerous restrictions on hormonal birth control on the grounds that it is an abortifacient and therefore prohibited under the state’s abortion ban. Someone will challenge these restrictions to try to get them lifted, it will eventually make its way to SCOTUS, and then if the current majority (or a similar one) is in place, SCOTUS would go beyond ruling simply on the issue presented to hold that Griswold was wrongly decided and therefore is being overturned (just like they are presently doing with Roe). Republicans will make the same noises they are now about how the ruling doesn’t actually ban anything, people will get complacent again if it doesn’t personally affect them, and red states will move forward with more bans on hormonal birth control, age restrictions on over-the-counter birth control, expand the ability of not just pharmacists but also store clerks to sell birth control products prop,e who can’t prove they are married if they are morally opposed to sex outside of marriage, etc.

[Anonymous]

Insurance companies will be pressured to drop abortifacients from their plans and women will have to pay out-of-pocket for them.

[Anonymous]

My DD uses hormonal birth control to regulate her cycle. Guess we’d better stock up.

[Anonymous]

Complicit Republicans who aren’t part of the forced birth religious right never believed that Roe would be overturned. This is how they voted R and assumed that their reproductive rights would be still be protected. They weren’t crazy because one of the very core principles of conservative judicial philosophy is stare decisis. It’s unthinkable from a legal scholar perspective that conservative jurists would remove a fundamental right throwing out a fifty year precedent.

You put trash on the bench who are hacks and not serious constitutional scholars and jurists like insurrection supporter Thomas, handmaiden ACB and groper Kavannagh and you can quickly get to a majority that destroys the credibility of the court. Law isn’t about right or wrong. It’s about balancing the scales, legal precedent that provides durability and stability, and fairness. You have justices who aren’t qualified to be there and lied in their hearings. You have two jurists with a history of harassing or assaulting women. You have jurists whose first allegiance is to extreme right religious zealots. The GOP filled the court with trash. So yeah believe the GOP when they say they are going after gay people, civil rights, healthcare. There is no wink wink we won’t really do it so vote for us anyway. Unless you are as willfully blind as Susan Collins, a GOP vote is basically a membership to an extreme religious state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Complicit Republicans who aren’t part of the forced birth religious right never believed that Roe would be overturned. This is how they voted R and assumed that their reproductive rights would be still be protected. They weren’t crazy because one of the very core principles of conservative judicial philosophy is stare decisis. It’s unthinkable from a legal scholar perspective that conservative jurists would remove a fundamental right throwing out a fifty year precedent.

You put trash on the bench who are hacks and not serious constitutional scholars and jurists like insurrection supporter Thomas, handmaiden ACB and groper Kavannagh and you can quickly get to a majority that destroys the credibility of the court. Law isn’t about right or wrong. It’s about balancing the scales, legal precedent that provides durability and stability, and fairness. You have justices who aren’t qualified to be there and lied in their hearings. You have two jurists with a history of harassing or assaulting women. You have jurists whose first allegiance is to extreme right religious zealots. The GOP filled the court with trash. So yeah believe the GOP when they say they are going after gay people, civil rights, healthcare. There is no wink wink we won’t really do it so vote for us anyway. Unless you are as willfully blind as Susan Collins, a GOP vote is basically a membership to an extreme religious state.

Complicit like these ladies?

Talk to your neighbors people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

Many gay couples want to have children and those children are a third party that might be seen as requiring protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that corporations are citizens and should have unfettered free speech rights. Corporations barely existed as a concept at the time of the founding. And yet the right wing found that “right”. There’s nothing that says an individual may own a million guns outside the context of a regulated militia, and yet the court found that right. There’s no language about homeschooling at all, yet the court found that right too. In fact, the entire concept of judicial review was invented out of whole cloth by Marshall. So what now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that corporations are citizens and should have unfettered free speech rights. Corporations barely existed as a concept at the time of the founding. And yet the right wing found that “right”. There’s nothing that says an individual may own a million guns outside the context of a regulated militia, and yet the court found that right. There’s no language about homeschooling at all, yet the court found that right too. In fact, the entire concept of judicial review was invented out of whole cloth by Marshall. So what now?

Also, the constitution bans involuntary servitude, which forced birth is.

[Anonymous]

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Supreme Court recognized that privacy was an unenumerated right, one aspect of which was the right to make one's own reproductive decision. The Court did not create a law when it decided Roe. It struck down a law that violated the unenumerated right to make one's own reproductive decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering.

It is the only way the Dems think they can hold their majority in the midterms.

But, it will not work. The American people can see through their tactics.

I'm (CRT) sorry (trans kids), did you (illegal immigrants) say something about (socialism) fear mongering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

A fetus is not a third party. The Constitution is quite clear about birth being the dividing line.

No laws were made by Roe. A right was affirmed and laws that violate that right were struck down as impermissible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.

The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss.

If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion.

Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that corporations are citizens and should have unfettered free speech rights. Corporations barely existed as a concept at the time of the founding. And yet the right wing found that “right”. There’s nothing that says an individual may own a million guns outside the context of a regulated militia, and yet the court found that right. There’s no language about homeschooling at all, yet the court found that right too. In fact, the entire concept of judicial review was invented out of whole cloth by Marshall. So what now?

Also, the constitution bans involuntary servitude, which forced birth is.

Only for the duration of the pregnancy to preserve the life of the baby. Then you can give it up for adoption to a good home like Amy Coney Barrett’s.

[Anonymous]

Abortion is by far the biggest issue for the Right and has been for decades. But even with a historically conservative court, they are still barely getting the 5 justices needed to overturn it. And even that isn't guaranteed.

I don’t think overturning gay marriage or contraception is out of the question with this court, but I'd be surprised if all 5 rule to overturn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So all gay marriages outlawed in July 2022. Got it. I wonder if this will incentivize a large Republican turnout for the midterms or embarrass them enough to stay home?

Lol no they can not be.