Turned around and voted against it? 16 years is very slowly turning around. When was the law passed that said anytime someone expresses an opinion, they are tied to that opinion for the rest of their lives? If they ever change that opinion, even based upon new information, it makes them a liar because once uttering something you were tied to it forever.
But Roe v. Wade is suddenly too far? Says who? gator_lawyer? An apparent minority of justices on the Supreme Court? I'm not saying that to be completely dismissive. I'm just saying that it's clearly an issue where even the best legal minds in the country disagree, and the majority of the ones that matter seem to agree with me. It won't always be that way, I'm sure there will be a liberal/Living Constitutionalist majority on the Court in my lifetime, and I'll be making similar claims that you are. And I'll have to make the caveat that I'm in the minority opinion, but it is still legitimate legal opinion, even if it isn't "good law" or "binding law."
You assume it's 2%. And this isn't just "extremists" protesting. Plenty of moderate & even conservative women don't think nor want Roe overturned. Abortion with restrictions? Sure. Use viability as a guideline. You and the other extremists on the other side hang your hats on the whole "it's all these jezebels using Abortion as birth control because of loose morals" concept and when confronted with the rape argument you claim "well that's such a small percentage". You. Don't. Know. Folks would be shocked, or maybe don't like to think of it, at the number of women who've been sexually assaulted and just don't report it. Why? Well attitudes such as "should've kept your legs closed", or "what were you wearing", or "were you flirting with him", etc. Being judged & dragged through the mud. So no, you don't know the numbers. And extremists would be the ones who want to reduce a woman to nothing but an incubator for breeding whether she wants it or not.
Reading isn’t your strong suit is it. I said fair trial by a jury of your peers [/quote] Checkmate Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You mention Priests offering confidentiality and professional legal standards of confidentiality in the same breath as Constitutional rights to privacy, then have the nerve to lecture me on reading comprehension. Why don't you read like a single book then get back to me. You do realize Obergefell is available for anyone to read? Seriously, I want to be nice, but I don't have to take your snark. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf "In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”" That's from Roberts's dissent. "When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification." That's from Scalia's dissent.
I've noticed there's a stark difference between you and me... I'll disagree with Breyer, RBG, and Sotomayor decisions but I'll respect them as legitimate opinions, even if they're not good law. You'll call Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito opinions basically absurd, even when your opinion resembles that of the minority.
Imagine trying to argue that discriminating against gay people purely because they're gay doesn't run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. Now, imagine making that argument after you concede that you're discriminating against them in their exercise of a fundamental right. And Scalia's gobbledygook is laughable when the guy never hesitated to "find" new interpretations of constitutional amendments when it advanced conservative causes. (Plus, banning gay people from getting marriage is expressly prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.) The conservative opposition to Obergefell was motivated by animus, not principled jurisprudence.
I prefer Scalia's dissent for a reason. That's an attack on Scalia's consistency, not the originalist interpretation, which seems to be that the 14th Amendment was around from 1868 to the time of Obergefell. The ratifiers of the Amendment did not intend for it to mean that marriage will be redefined to apply to homosexual couples as well.
The text of the Equal Protection Clause clearly applies to gay people. Text > speculation about intent.
It's amazing how every decision that alines with your political ideology is not "terribly reasoned" while every politically inconvenient decision seems to be "terribly reasoned."
There seems to be such disagreement about it, maybe it's not so clear. The ratifiers along with the majority of people for the next near 150 years didn't seem to think that was clear.
You're incorrect, as usual. Speaking of two recent cases, I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in Shurtleff, which resulted in a conservative group prevailing over the liberal City of Boston. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, an opinion written by Sotomayor (with Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett in the dissent) that rules for the liberal City of Austin. I also agree with the Eleventh Circuit's recent free speech decision in Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright. In that case, Judge Newsom ruled in favor of a conservative group over UCF regarding a UCF policy that prevented conservative students from being able to express views like: "that 'abortion is immoral,' that the government 'should not be able to force religious organizations to recognize marriages with which they disagree,' that 'affirmative action is deeply unfair,' that 'a man cannot become a woman because he "feels" like one,' and that 'illegal immigration is dangerous.'"
You can say the exact same thing about the Second Amendment, except it was an even longer period of time. I guess that means you think Heller was wrongly decided. "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Speaks for itself on this issue.
