SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Badger]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Is Mitch McConnell saying that

He's not the Arbiter over whether this happens by any means. All it takes is one conservative gop-dominated state to pass a law Banning gay marriage or outline sodomy, and the case will invariably go before The Supremes and, based on the language in Hobbs, probably result in reversing those cases as well.

[Badger]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Because Braun is a complete f[inks]ing moron who wasn't aware that the Loving decision was based on the 14th Amendment and not the right to privacy and is a completely seperate decision and backed down the next day after pointing this out.

The question is what state is actually going to ban interracial marriage this creating a challenge case that can go to the Supreme Court? Unlike abortion there has been zero push for this for decades. Are states just going to ban interracial marriage out of the blue despite its legality having >90% support and there being zero lobby of any type to ban it?

I thought just hit me. As I previously noted no state is about to vote to ban interracial relations. But what if a single municipality were to do so? That's not inconceivable.

I could see that States Supreme Court overruling it on state constitutional grounds, no matter how conservative the court or non expansive the state's Constitution, and thereby foreclosing potential Federal litigation. But isn't that impossible that a state supreme court might invalidate the law on federal grounds?

If so, it still will probably be invalidated by the federal courts, but it'd be really interesting to read the concurring opinions from Alito et al.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff .

[Devout Centrist]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Anyone who told you that Roe wasn't going to be overturned before this was an idiot. Not my fault you chose to listen to them. The Supreme Court still isn't going to overturn Loving or whatever you're blathering about.

It doesn’t matter to me. People have argued as much for decades, but we all knew Roe being overturned was a fait accompli when Trump won (even more so when Ruth kicked the bucket). I am calling out those in the press (and on this website) who have argued otherwise.

Also, Loving is not the precedent that I am worried about in this case. Nevertheless, I can understand the concern. Conservatives will push as far as they can with the Court over the next term. Almost as though they think they’re invincible.

[Badger]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Is Mitch McConnell saying that

Why would Mitch McConnell care if Mississippi and Alabama ban interracial marriage once the SCOTUS strikes down Loving? McConnell doesn't live in the deep south.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=1&year=2000&f=0&off=51&elect=0

59.49% in 2000 might be both embarrassingly low and embarrassingly late for a vote to repeal an unenforecable ban on interracial marriage, but it's still high enough to show that there's no majority or popular support for reinstating such a ban.

I've mentioned this before, but there is a really really good grad school paper somewhere online analyzing the boat from that 2000 referendum. The conclusion based on extremely detailed historical voting records and Precinct data combined with Census Data was that blacks voted literally close to 99% in favor of taking Amendment taking the interracial marriage ban off the books, that the white vote was split pretty much 50/50. And that was without a single individual of note or almost any funds whatsoever supporting the no vote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Because Braun is a complete f[inks]ing moron who wasn't aware that the Loving decision was based on the 14th Amendment and not the right to privacy and is a completely seperate decision and backed down the next day after pointing this out.

The question is what state is actually going to ban interracial marriage this creating a challenge case that can go to the Supreme Court? Unlike abortion there has been zero push for this for decades. Are states just going to ban interracial marriage out of the blue despite its legality having >90% support and there being zero lobby of any type to ban it?

I thought just hit me. As I previously noted no state is about to vote to ban interracial relations. But what if a single municipality were to do so? That's not inconceivable.

I could see that States Supreme Court overruling it on state constitutional grounds, no matter how conservative the court or non expansive the state's Constitution, and thereby foreclosing potential Federal litigation. But isn't that impossible that a state supreme court might invalidate the law on federal grounds?

If so, it still will probably be invalidated by the federal courts, but it'd be really interesting to read the concurring opinions from Alito et al.

That wouldn't even be a case of Loving or federal law, municipalities can't override state law like that...and besides how could they enforce it? The benefits for marriage are at the federal and state level.

Why didn't anywhere try this against same-sex marriages pre-Obergefell? Like in Minnesota we legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, yet even Prinsburg which voted 95.61% to ban same-sex marriage a year earlier didn't make any moves like this.

[Devout Centrist]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff .

Lol. Lmao

[Ferguson97]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff .

Lol. Lmao

Um yes it is , as just look at how Republicans talked about Roe on the campaign trail for decades and how state after state they controlled tried to undermine it . They have not done the same about Obergefell

[OSR stands with Israel]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

Parties don’t implement 90% of their platform

[SnowLabrador]

It doesn't look like this will impact the midterms. Just look at that R+7 generic ballot poll that had keeping Roe favored 2-1.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Is Mitch McConnell saying that

Why would Mitch McConnell care if Mississippi and Alabama ban interracial marriage once the SCOTUS strikes down Loving? McConnell doesn't live in the deep south.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=1&year=2000&f=0&off=51&elect=0

59.49% in 2000 might be both embarrassingly low and embarrassingly late for a vote to repeal an unenforecable ban on interracial marriage, but it's still high enough to show that there's no majority or popular support for reinstating such a ban.

I've mentioned this before, but there is a really really good grad school paper somewhere online analyzing the boat from that 2000 referendum. The conclusion based on extremely detailed historical voting records and Precinct data combined with Census Data was that blacks voted literally close to 99% in favor of taking Amendment taking the interracial marriage ban off the books, that the white vote was split pretty much 50/50. And that was without a single individual of note or almost any funds whatsoever supporting the no vote.

As if often the case with a lot of southern states repealing unenforceable Jim Crow-era laws the primary motivator in the "no" votes on referendums isn't of course keeping the no longer used laws in place but rather a stubborn kneejerk opposition to any change or "the law was overturned, why bother repealing it" sort of attitude, dumb as it is. Like how Kentucky's vote on repealing references to segregated schools recieved over 50% no in five tiny rural almost all white counties that weren't impacted anyway, so how "yes" got 56% in Elliot County, less than Barack Obama received in the county 12 years later in 2008.

Today of course the people most likely to be critical of interracial relationships are actually wokester types, but it goes without saying they're quite outnumbered and I'm sure that black voters in rural Alabama or inner-city Birmingham are definitely overwhelmingly not of the woke Twitter mold.

[Ferguson97]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

Parties don’t implement 90% of their platform

That's not what I asked.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't want to actually do it?

There's only two reasons to include something on a platform: if you intend to do it, or if you want to excite the base.

So you either have to concede that the Republican leadership wants to overturn Obergefell, or you have to concede that the majority of Republicans want to overturn it. And these two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either.

So which is it?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

Parties don’t implement 90% of their platform

That's not what I asked.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't want to actually do it?

There's only two reasons to include something on a platform: if you intend to do it, or if you want to excite the base.

So you either have to concede that the Republican leadership wants to overturn Obergefell, or you have to concede that the majority of Republicans want to overturn it. And these two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either.

So which is it?

No basically the point is most republicans who support gay marriage really don’t care about the issue while the ones who oppose it do so that’s what the virtue signaling is there to do .

Also like I said they literally didn’t change a word from the 2016 platform , and had literal parts of it mention the Obama years as the current admin in it

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1522689996171448321?t=6n7RxLyOeum1FlUuOE6...

 

[lfromnj]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1522671337403265030

We have dules favorite congressman with the best takes folks.

[Gass3268]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1522671337403265030

We have dules favorite congressman with the best takes folks.

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1522603314327789568?s=20&t=u0GEfVooh9y...

[Badger]

Before the Ruling: "That'll never happen"; "You're delusional!"; "They would never overturn something with so much precedence"; "They told Senator Fu.ckelstein they would never overturn X"

After the Ruling: "Yes, they overturned this precedent, but they won't go any further!"; "You really think Justice McGillycuddy would do something like that?"; "The shadow docket is a valid exercise of the Court's authority"; "Seriously, you are being delusional!"

Republicans have been openly campaigning on reversing Roe for 40+ years

And they've been openly campaigning on reversing Obergefell for 7 years.

No they have not . Putting stuff on a virtue signaling  platform is different than actively campaigning on stuff.

No, it's not different.

Why would they include it on their platform if they didn't actually want to do it?

Parties don’t implement 90% of their platform

Even by Beep Boop standards: Worst. Response. Ever.

[John Dule]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1522671337403265030

We have dules favorite congressman with the best takes folks.

At this point, either Swalwell is completely ignorant of basic constitutional law or he is just trying to whip his three followers up into a frenzy through scare tactics. Remember when Democrats used to accuse Republicans of playing the "politics of fear?"

[Badger]

Despite this I'll admit that unlike Loving there is a small possibility of Obergefell being challenged because there might still be just enough opposition to same-sex marriage in some state to actually see a state attempt to challenge it. However it's also worth noting that no state has made any serious push to do so in the past two years, like I haven't heard of any bills even being proposed, despite this abortion bills being proposed left and right.

Bunch of that Republican so-called support for gay marriage was viewing it as a fait accompli. That's clearly no longer the case. Besides, I submit the Republican legiators are tangibly more radical nowadays than most of their constituents.

At 55% support, it's really really easy to see Deep South State or someplace like Idaho voting to prohibit gay marriage within the next couple years.

Think about it. After this ruling what's the likelihood that some Ultra conservative state house rep or state senator introduces such a bill. At that point, what are the odds that the Republican legislative leadership are going to bow to religious right pressure to permit a vote on the bill? At that point, how many of these GOP legislators want to risk a primary challenge by voting no? Anywhere near enough to keep a bill from passing even with unanimous Democratic opposition? I doubt it.

[Badger]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

[OSR stands with Israel]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

This is such a disingenuous argument that only liberal hacks could make .

[Person Man]

On another note, I am absolutely rotflmao over the latest Fox News outrage of finding non-committal about people possibly choosing to protest outside of I'm home. I'm generally not in favor of protest in front of private homes, with the White House being an obvious exception, but oh the irony.

" what is a violation of privacy. Democrats understand they live their life behind closed doors? WHAT ABOUT THE VUE OF PRIVACY?!11?!"

What about the "legitimate political discourse"?

[T'Chenka]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1522670972909805569


Like I said , nobody outside Partisans will care in October

If you think only partisans care about abortion rights, you're incredibly, deeply out of touch.