Will Gorsuch or Kavanaugh want to keep gay marriage around?

[Alben Barkley]

Yeah, everyone understands that gay marriage is settled.  Nice try though.

Roe v Wade is also settled law.  It was a 7-2 decision.

I don't see mass murder and allowing gays to marry as being on the same level.

"Power justifies everything, and Democracy is undermining our power."

Democracy is a means to an end, which should be a better world.  That is failing us right now.

Well at least you don’t pretend to care about democracy. You’re open about your fascism. I can respect that, in a twisted sort of way.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

SSM isnt seen as a threat like amnesty and PR statehood,  if Dems got enshrined PR statehood, Rs would never get power back, and Conservatives want power back in 2024, with all 3 branches of govt. Creating a pool of Latino voters for Ds isnt gonna happen without comprehensive immigration reform and a 6-3 R CRT is likely to strike it down. As well as Obamacare, which was a Union bill, as it is currently written

I am fine with both accounts

[GeneralMacArthur]

BUMPIN for all y'all who were like, "lol the court would never want to overturn Obergefell"

ICE COLD TAKE

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

BUMPIN for all y'all who were like, "lol the court would never want to overturn Obergefell"

ICE COLD TAKE

Obergefell is not being overturned. Alito and Thomas are hacks who vote with republicans/conservatives on everything even if it's totally ridiculous. Roberts, Gorsuch and maybe even Kavanaugh would likely vote in favor of upholding it

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

BUMPIN for all y'all who were like, "lol the court would never want to overturn Obergefell"

ICE COLD TAKE

None of Gorsuch, Roberts or Kavanaugh joined the Thomas and Alito opinion you are most likely referencing. So Obergefell looks very safe.

2 is not 5

[Stranger in a strange land]

Probably, becuase:

1) Neither appears to personally hate gay people
2) Reversing Obergfell at this point would be electorally disastrous for the GOP: the Court was actually behind public opinion on this issue. It's quite telling that within about 10 years, the GOP went from campaigning on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, to saying "While I disagree with the court's ruling, it's the law of the land and we have more important issues to discuss, now let's talk about how we need to keep out the scary Muslims to protect our gays".

[Agafin]

Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. It has over 70% support nowadays. As much as people try to pretend otherwise, the court does bend to public opinion.

Also, in 2016 Trump said he wasn't interested in reversing that ruling. They will respect their God-Emperor.

I don't think the bolded is true. Didn't Loving v Virginia happen while only 4% of the country was supportive of interracial marriage?

[EastOfEden]

Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. It has over 70% support nowadays. As much as people try to pretend otherwise, the court does bend to public opinion.

Also, in 2016 Trump said he wasn't interested in reversing that ruling. They will respect their God-Emperor.

I don't think the bolded is true. Didn't Loving v Virginia happen while only 4% of the country was supportive of interracial marriage?

True, but that was an exceptionally liberal court.

[หมูเด้ง]

Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. It has over 70% support nowadays. As much as people try to pretend otherwise, the court does bend to public opinion.

Also, in 2016 Trump said he wasn't interested in reversing that ruling. They will respect their God-Emperor.

I don't think the bolded is true. Didn't Loving v Virginia happen while only 4% of the country was supportive of interracial marriage?

True, but that was an exceptionally liberal court.

And this is a very conservative court.

[Anni di ghiaccio]

BUMPIN for all y'all who were like, "lol the court would never want to overturn Obergefell"

ICE COLD TAKE

Plus it was decided on very weak legal grounds. I agree with gay marriage, but the actual constitutional case should have been made better. Another failing of Anthony Kennedy, an incredibly poor excuse for a judge.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Lol SSM is already Civil Unions in most secular states

[Meclazine for Israel]

Gay Marriage is only offensive to people over the age of 60.

And that is because of their upbringing.

As of 2021, you won't see too many countries reversing the legalisation of gay marriage.

[Suburbia]

Same-sex marriage enjoys 60% support (only 30% opposed) nationwide. AL and MS are the only states where more oppose it than support it. This doesn’t preclude some extreme right-wing justices from overturning Obergefell (though personally I think Roberts and Gorsuch wouldn’t), but it would be incredibly foolish for the GOP to want them to do it, from an electoral standpoint. Never mind that most Americans support SSM anyway, tearing up thousands of loving marriages for no good reason would make the optics even worse.

[Dwarven Dragon]

I honestly think Gorsuch is an Aye on keeping Obergefell. We have the ruling from earlier this year, plus the guy legit attended an LGBT accepting church when he was a circuit judge.

The question is Roberts, who seems to really care about Stare Decisis even if he didn't agree with the original ruling.

Kavanaugh probably votes to overturn.

[MarkD]

I honestly think Gorsuch is an Aye on keeping Obergefell. We have the ruling from earlier this year, plus the guy legit attended an LGBT accepting church when he was a circuit judge.

The question is Roberts, who seems to really care about Stare Decisis even if he didn't agree with the original ruling.

Kavanaugh probably votes to overturn.

Roberts is probably going to agree with Gorsuch on keeping the Obergefell precedent, since he agreed with Gorsuch on the Bostock decision. If the Court hears another case in which attorneys are arguing that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be overturned, I can see a 5 to 4 split, with Roberts, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voting to uphold Obergefell and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett voting to overturn it.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Moot point really because I can't see a state actually deciding to refuse to recognize all same-sex marriages and thus creating a case that can even reach the Supreme Court. At most someone like Kim Davis might refuse to certify them and if the SCOTUS upholds that then it just means same-sex couples have to travel one county over. Or the Kim Davis-type gets removed like she was.

[lfromnj]

I honestly think Gorsuch is an Aye on keeping Obergefell. We have the ruling from earlier this year, plus the guy legit attended an LGBT accepting church when he was a circuit judge.

The question is Roberts, who seems to really care about Stare Decisis even if he didn't agree with the original ruling.

Kavanaugh probably votes to overturn.

Roberts is probably going to agree with Gorsuch on keeping the Obergefell precedent, since he agreed with Gorsuch on the Bostock decision. If the Court hears another case in which attorneys are arguing that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be overturned, I can see a 5 to 4 split, with Roberts, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voting to uphold Obergefell and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett voting to overturn it.

Bostock is less important for Roberts vote than the Louisiana case with abortion and stare decisis.

[R.P. McM]

Yes, a 6-3 Republican SC will tread lightly with respect to deeply unpopular rightwing social crusades. Preferring to focus its attention on voter suppression and safeguarding the interests of the moneyed elite. Which is exactly why Democrats should expand the Court. Public accountability would force the GOP to choose between alienating its retrograde base, or precipitating a massive mainstream backlash. The current dynamic allows Republicans to pretend they're incapable of meeting the demands of the Christian right, only their wealthy donors.

[Beet]

Yes, a 6-3 Republican SC will tread lightly with respect to deeply unpopular rightwing social crusades. Preferring to focus its attention on voter suppression and safeguarding the interests of the moneyed elite. Which is exactly why Democrats should expand the Court. Public accountability would force the GOP to choose between alienating its retrograde base, or precipitating a massive mainstream backlash. The current dynamic allows Republicans to pretend they're incapable of meeting the demands of the Christian right, only their wealthy donors.

I certainly hope that's true. But the liberals in this thread prove again that if there's one thing they are as good at as the Right is taking over the Courts, it's convincing themselves that they shouldn't care about or oppose the takeover. Meanwhile they'll bleat about cases like Citizens United for a few years & then forget about it and go back to cheering on Bloomberg for money.

[R.P. McM]

Yes, a 6-3 Republican SC will tread lightly with respect to deeply unpopular rightwing social crusades. Preferring to focus its attention on voter suppression and safeguarding the interests of the moneyed elite. Which is exactly why Democrats should expand the Court. Public accountability would force the GOP to choose between alienating its retrograde base, or precipitating a massive mainstream backlash. The current dynamic allows Republicans to pretend they're incapable of meeting the demands of the Christian right, only their wealthy donors.

I certainly hope that's true. But the liberals in this thread prove again that if there's one thing they are as good at as the Right is taking over the Courts, it's convincing themselves that they shouldn't care about or oppose the takeover. Meanwhile they'll bleat about cases like Citizens United for a few years & then forget about it and go back to cheering on Bloomberg for money.

No question. If Diane Feinstein, et al., refuse to expand the Court, it's not because they're procedural sticklers. Rather, it's because they're looking out for the interests of their class.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

At most, 3 justices would vote to overturn Obergefell. I don't think it at any risk to being overturned.