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.
Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor must resign immediately, so that Biden can replace her before Trump gets into office.
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.
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.
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.
Anxiety-filled progressives LOVE to worry. It's like a drug to them.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.