The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Moliere]

Which state is going to be the first to test this court by outlawing gay marriage? When will it happen?

I don't think Utah will do it. I don't think the LDS church will want to be the pioneer on this one and will wait it out for someone else to do it. They will join them in their efforts, but one be the one driving it.

I think it will be one of the crazy bible belt states and I do expect it to happen.

No state is really going to test the birth control issue.

I'm 50/50 on if there will be a state that will outlaw gay sex to test the court on that one. I think they probably know that even this court won't go that far.

I would protest and March if Texas proposed something like that. I support gay marriage pretty much without reservation.

[falafel]

Maybe I should put this question in an abortion thread, but I'm sincerely curious about the rape/incest/life of the mother exceptions to abortion bans that all, or nearly all, states have. I don't disagree with those at all, but don't they rest on the premise that the mother's life is more important/valuable than the fetus's? If one rejects that premise and believes a fetus is a human life equally worthy of protection, then why have any exceptions at all? Why should one human (assuming we're assigning full human status to the fetus) have priority over another?

In that case, it seems there is a competing choice - which life do we save? We have prioritized the mother in that instance. But when there's no decision regarding which life to save, it makes more sense to push back on ending a life for convenience.

[falafel]

Which state is going to be the first to test this court by outlawing gay marriage? When will it happen?

I don't think Utah will do it. I don't think the LDS church will want to be the pioneer on this one and will wait it out for someone else to do it. They will join them in their efforts, but one be the one driving it.

I think it will be one of the crazy bible belt states and I do expect it to happen.

No state is really going to test the birth control issue.

I'm 50/50 on if there will be a state that will outlaw gay sex to test the court on that one. I think they probably know that even this court won't go that far.

Texas. Alabama close second.

[Flystripper]

I know what if’s aren’t really constructive, but what if Hillary doesn’t put a stranglehold on the democratic nomination and loses to Trump. What if RBG is a little more humble and retired while Obama is in office. What if the democrats passed abortion laws while they had a supermajority instead of wasting their time on passing Obamacare.

Democrats are adults but they suck at politics.

Your right they shouldn't have trusted decades of precedent and more recently they should have known Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch were lying in their senate confirmation hearings when asked directly about Roe and precedent. Pretty stupid to take a nominated supreme court justice at their word.

[Moliere]

Your right they shouldn't have trusted decades of precedent and more recently they should have known Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch were lying in their senate confirmation hearings when asked directly about Roe and precedent. Pretty stupid to take a nominated supreme court justice at their word.

Yep, they were stupid. Conservatives have tried for decades to overturn Roe. Many legal scholars (even liberal ones) think the decision was tenuous at best. They could have solidified it in federal law, which would’ve made it far more difficult to overturn. But instead they passed Obamacare.

[Uncle Ted]

Your right they shouldn't have trusted decades of precedent and more recently they should have known Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch were lying in their senate confirmation hearings when asked directly about Roe and precedent. Pretty stupid to take a nominated supreme court justice at their word.

IDK... They all said pretty much the same thing: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v Ferguson (in 1896) was also precedent for a long concerning segregation until it was overturned by Brown v Board of Education. Given how long that ruling was around it might have been considered an important one too.

[Northwestcoug]

Man, term limits for SCOTUS judges sounds pretty good now, amirite?

[Pelado]

Man, term limits for SCOTUS judges sounds pretty good now, amirite?

What sounds good is Congress doing their job and legislating instead of leaving things to executive orders and Supreme Court decisions.

[Uncle Ted]

Man, term limits for SCOTUS judges sounds pretty good now, amirite?

Man, I would be happy with just term limits for members of congress.

[BlueK]

What sounds good is Congress doing their job and legislating instead of leaving things to executive orders and Supreme Court decisions.

Congress just did that with the gun bill just passed. I give it six months or less for the Court to throw it out.

[Clark Addison]

Yep, they were stupid. Conservatives have tried for decades to overturn Roe. Many legal scholars (even liberal ones) think the decision was tenuous at best. They could have solidified it in federal law, which would’ve made it far more difficult to overturn. But instead they passed Obamacare.

While I don't necessarily disagree all that much (I think they should have passed UHC rather than Obamacare), I could find you several quotes, including from me, probably, scoffing at the idea that abortion rights would be reversed. There was a period of 20+ years where no one really thought it was possible.

[Northwestcoug]

What sounds good is Congress doing their job and legislating instead of leaving things to executive orders and Supreme Court decisions.

I'll take that also. But lifers on the SCOTUS can undo a lot of legislation, even good stuff. They need to go after awhile.

[falafel]

While I don't necessarily disagree all that much (I think they should have passed UHC rather than Obamacare), I could find you several quotes, including from me, probably, scoffing at the idea that abortion rights would be reversed. There was a period of 20+ years where no one really thought it was possible.

I don't think this is really accurate. Both sides have been continuously debating abortion for 40 years after Roe was issued. Pro-Lifers have been trying to get it reversed all that time, without letting up on their anti-abortion fervor. If we all thought it wasn't possible to reverse it, we weren't paying very close attention.

[BlueK]

While I don't necessarily disagree all that much (I think they should have passed UHC rather than Obamacare), I could find you several quotes, including from me, probably, scoffing at the idea that abortion rights would be reversed. There was a period of 20+ years where no one really thought it was possible.

I said on here just a couple of months ago that this was going to happen and got scoffed.

[BlueK]

I'll take that also. But lifers on the SCOTUS can undo a lot of legislation, even good stuff. They need to go after awhile.

It only takes one POS abusive boyfriend contesting a judge's decision taking away his guns under the new law being funded by the NRA to push to SCOTUS for Thomas to write a nifty majority opinion graciously agreeing that the boyfriend is a turd but the law is unconstitutional, while working in some additional commentary calling out several other gun laws currently on the books.