I'm not a lib but thanks. And as seen, just because something is held or precedent doesn't mean it won't be overturned.
Really? You might note that vote was 5-4, and even Roberts wrote the dissent on that one whereas he is presumably against overturning Roe v Wade with Alito’s writing the opinion. Alito basically uses the same horse crap justification in that Obergefell dissent! It doesn’t count as liberty unless it’s in our “deeply rooted history”. He’s pulling that out of his ass! I don’t get it. Why would you assume ANY precedent would be upheld by these liars? I’d say the better reason to believe it would continue to be upheld is that Roberts probably doesn’t want another stain in the court (so perhaps he flips his own vote, despite actually writing that previous dissent), and Gorsuch and Kavenaugh have sometimes ruled in favor of those sorts of cases so perhaps one or both would uphold that precedent rather go along with upending another one.
Roe has been a precedent for nearly 50 years. But Alito and crew are willing to overturn it based on abortion not being an enumerated right and history of abortion being illegal. Obergefell has been precedent for less than 10 years, and just like abortion, you can't find gay rights in the Constitution. And there's a longer, stronger history of gay rights not being allowed. So why wouldn't a state try an overturn Obergefell? The Alito draft gives them the exact legal pathway to try.
I think the justices have demonstrated with their weasel words that nothing is off the table. Don't even bother to put in a paragraph that insistently assures that this argument will only apply to abortion.
Why, indeed? Abortion has a larger constituency than gay rights (I think, might be about the same) so it can't be a fear of alienating voters.
There is actually no rational or legally consistent basis for them NOT to overturn gay rights across the board if they are consistently following this path of insanity. The only reason not to, would actually be political games to not cause too much damage to republicans all at once (and with Peter Thiel being a big money backer of GOP politics, they might not want to agitate his $$$). It’s all rotten.
Alito did not simply find the dissent in Obergefell more convincing. He held that the Court abused its authority and usurped the constitutional right of the people to to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. He also stated that the decision might have dire consequences. Why would he not vote to reverse Obergefell if he believes it was such a dangerous and unlawful ruling? I don't think stare decisis would stop him; it seems to me given his reasoning that every argument he laid out in Dobbs would also justify reversal of Obergefell as well.
Couple of great EDITORIALS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/supreme-court-reform-polling/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...t-might-never-recover-overturning-roe-v-wade/
Yeah, I was wrong on school closures, lockdowns and masks working. Oh wait, that was you. Swing and a Miss. The best part is you know gay marriage won't be overturned. You are just being your normal self.
Incidentally, this is why I was not a big fan of Kennedy relying on the due process argument in Obergefell. Once one implied right falls, they're all at risk. And it's been plain for decades that conservatives don't favor implied rights and would immediately overturn several of them as soon as they have the votes. That's a very shaky foundation to build a landmark opinion on. An equal protection decision, on the other hand, would have been more narrowly cabined to the specific issue of gay marriage, and less susceptible to these sorts of (very predictable) collateral threats.
Will be a good test of the supposed handshake agreement of Kennedy retiring and picking Kavanaugh as his successor, also if he gets cold feet on flat out overturning Roe
Except it needs to be true to be funny. You know, like you being wrong on covid lockdowns, school closures and masks. Need some work on your comedy.
Im sure some high drama individuals are posting that but it’s obviously just for dramatic effect Very few states, if any, will ultimately ban abortion. Again it depends how popular it is. Abortion, at least through 10-15 weeks is fairly popular. So if nearly all states allow abortions women will prefer to remove their uterus? That is obviously bs. Even if you live in one of the few that may ban it all it takes is a quick drive to a place that does do it. That is far cheaper and less intrusive than removing your uterus. So they are either bullshitting for drama purposes or they are just dumb.
You're welcome to look through the links and maps shown. There are a number of women who DO NOT want kids. Their choice. They've asked for tubals or, yes hysterectomies and are told no. Some have kids and are done. I had mine after 2 kids and it was approved ONLY because I had early stage uterine cancer. And I STILL needed my husband to sign off on the procedure because I was "young". They get denied routinely so they use other birth control. Which can fail. So if abortion is illegal completely or to 6 weeks, what do you think they'll want? So no, not hysterics or dramatic. Because this has been an issue for women FOR YEARS and now would become an even more urgent need for those that don't want to be pregnant.
