What landmark cases will get turned back with the conservative trifecta?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

The entire republican party was built around overturning roe. It was going to happen sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

What if Loving v Virginia is deemed a state issue and not a federal issue stemming from the long line of cases of right to privacy like Roe was decided. What if Griswald is also deemed a states right issue. Roe followed Griswald. Are you saying that anyone in an interracial marriage should only live in states north of the mason dixon line or coastal western states. Can a woman Carey her birth control in vacation across state lines when visiting granny in “The Villages “, without having fear of being arrested for having illegal contraband. Want to know how far you think these state rights go and how to keep a list of which states are safe for certain people to visit and or live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

What if Loving v Virginia is deemed a state issue and not a federal issue stemming from the long line of cases of right to privacy like Roe was decided. What if Griswald is also deemed a states right issue. Roe followed Griswald. Are you saying that anyone in an interracial marriage should only live in states north of the mason dixon line or coastal western states. Can a woman Carey her birth control in vacation across state lines when visiting granny in “The Villages “, without having fear of being arrested for having illegal contraband. Want to know how far you think these state rights go and how to keep a list of which states are safe for certain people to visit and or live.

Marriages travel with you from state to state. An abortion stays within a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

Look dude. The point being there are 6 extremely religious people on the SC. They chose to destroy the concept of stare decisis when it was convenient to further their ideology. “Settled case law” is no more and now the door is open to do it to other things, like Gay marriage.

Isn’t gay marriage ratified into law thanks to Schumer and a few Republicans? It would take 60
Senators, unless the change the rules, to get rid of gay marriage if it’s ratified law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

No, that would be so unpopular they’d never do that

They will however go after gay marriage and will probably allow more “conscience objection laws based on firmly held beliefs” type of stuff. You know more or allowing doctors to not treat trans people based on organized religion.

So you’d be OK with a government tha forced you to treat LGBTQ+ even if went against your beliefs? Ridiculous. Doctors / hospitals should be transparent about what they will or won’t do. often they not doing things because they are run by private equity now but that’s a separate issue. Maybe we need different medical designations to handle this.

To be clear, I meant a government that forced doctors to “straighten out” LGBTQ+ that went against your beliefs (eg, there was nothing to correct).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

What if Loving v Virginia is deemed a state issue and not a federal issue stemming from the long line of cases of right to privacy like Roe was decided. What if Griswald is also deemed a states right issue. Roe followed Griswald. Are you saying that anyone in an interracial marriage should only live in states north of the mason dixon line or coastal western states. Can a woman Carey her birth control in vacation across state lines when visiting granny in “The Villages “, without having fear of being arrested for having illegal contraband. Want to know how far you think these state rights go and how to keep a list of which states are safe for certain people to visit and or live.

Marriages travel with you from state to state. An abortion stays within a state.

Um No it does not. Read the Loving decision. The Lovings were married in Washington DC, but hubby wanted to go back home to Virginia after living for a period of time in DC. When the married couple returned to Virginia to live, they were arrested and thrown in jail. He also lost his job. Miscegenation was illegal in Virginia, ergo the arrest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

What if Loving v Virginia is deemed a state issue and not a federal issue stemming from the long line of cases of right to privacy like Roe was decided. What if Griswald is also deemed a states right issue. Roe followed Griswald. Are you saying that anyone in an interracial marriage should only live in states north of the mason dixon line or coastal western states. Can a woman Carey her birth control in vacation across state lines when visiting granny in “The Villages “, without having fear of being arrested for having illegal contraband. Want to know how far you think these state rights go and how to keep a list of which states are safe for certain people to visit and or live.

Congress already passed a law requiring states to recognize gay marriage and interracial marriages from other states. That is not going anywhere even if these precedents are hypothetically overturned. SCOTUS will not touch Loving V. Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:theres also a good chance that birthright citizenship is NOT actually granted in the 14th amendment and that it was only extended to free whites and AADS. This interpretation could be challanged in the SC and it is tehir job to interpret the constitution. they could decide in the originalists favor. Latinos were routinely excluded from citizenship and even those who were eligible for birthright citizenship were also routinely deported and not considered eligible so there is some precedent for this.

I dont think/hope this will be applied retroactively but it could be. Im worried b/c im brown and my parents were beneficiaries of the immigration act of 1965, which could also get repealed.I think it is considered a HUGE mistake by most MAGA elites. even more than the voting rights act/loving/brown. even RBG said that brown was decided wrongly and the result of an activist court. ppl need to wise up and vote straight not red in the midterms so that this crazy state of affairs with no checks or balances only lasts for 2 years.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said WHAT?!?!?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_02-07a-06.html

Brown v Board is as constitutionally grounded as SFFA. Racially discriminating against children because of their skin color is prohibited by the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Anxiety-filled progressives LOVE to worry. It's like a drug to them.

[Anonymous]

I think Pyler V. Doe will be overturned. it’s likely that SCOTUS will decide children without legal status in the US are not entitled to a public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

This is what they said about Roe too.

Roe is easy to understand if you have any sense. They did not "outlaw abortion" as people here like to say. They ruled it’s a State issue not a Federal issue, because it is. Don’t like what your State has to say about it, change it at that level. As frustrating as it is, legally it’s the correct ruling.

Ok - but then how can you not apply this same principal back to most of these landmark states? Put it back on the states to determine things like brown vs board, loving, griswold, obergefell? Red states can remove all of these rights and blue states can keep them. Just like roe vs wade.

DP here.

Because the 14th amendment addresses a lot of what you are talking about so that makes it federal. There isn't a lot in the constitution about abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My biggest concern is Obergefell. Not a peep about protecting that out of Harris or anyone in or running for Congress, as far as I could tell.

The Respect for Marriage Act protects recognizes same-sex marriage federally and all 50 states. This battle is over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Don’t be naive

You think Clarence Thomas will overturn Loving? I mean I hate the guy and think he's terrible but I don't think he'll do that.

Clarence Thomas was holding out for a Republican President to replace him. He is leaving the court in the next year. It will be a kennedy like replacement. You have no idea what his replacement is like. And frankly they don’t need Thomas’s vote. It only takes five, not six.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor must resign immediately, so that Biden can replace her before Trump gets into office.

They will never be able to even get the hearings done in time.

Just hope that Sotomayor can hold on for another 4 years.

Expect Thomas to retire and become a board member of dozens of corporations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loving? Brown vs board? Griswold? Will these get overturned? If so what will happen? Does anybody care?

Don’t be silly.

Yes, you’re right. Those are all settled case law. Just like Roe was settled case law.

Roe was never settled. It was constantly being challenged.