Supreme Court Cases Thread

[DQ12]

Is 85% a lot?

Yeah.  Like I said, I haven’t seen a state law that prohibits abortion in every circumstance.  I feel like my own views are fairly fringe, and that’s not what I want to see.

I must confess, it is difficult for me to square the sweet Dlew I've met in real life with the Goblin-mind Dlew in this thread. Still catching up on the thread, though.

Yeah, I don't really see the need for another Internet Abortion Debate, which is why I haven't really talked about abortion much -- and mostly waded into this thread to try and quell some of the fears re. slippery slope by providing the rapidly evolving public opinion on gay marriage.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

[DQ12]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against?  If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.

[catastrophe]

I think Obergefell was a stretch for the Court to rule on in the first place, tbh. It only did not receive uproar due to overwhelming public support of gay marriage.

Of course, that public support did nothing to stop many states from denying massive numbers of people the right to get married. If Obergefell were overturned I have a very hard time believing we'd end up any different than pre-Obergefell.

[cfbandyman]

1. Those numbers will quickly change once churches and other powerful political groups start campaigning. 

2. These numbers don't take into account conservatives correctly imo.  Just like when they tried to measure how many trump voters there were.

Like I said, we're both speculating.  But broadly speaking, the issue has bipartisan support across the electorate.  I don't have up to date numbers on state by state pub support, but I think people (you, Chi, Lib) are underestimating the shift since pre-Obergefell.  And I don't know what's on the Court's docket or when it'll have a chance to reverse Obergefell, but time looks like it's on the pro-gay marriage side. 

All that to say, those trying to definitively say "and gay marriage is next!" may end up being right, but I think that fear is quite a bit more remote relative to abortion.  The Court would need to reverse Obergefell, and states where it is prohibited/vague would need to withstand an electorate (and in many cases, a state court) that disagrees with the prohibition.

I think you should really take a look at these two maps and re-evaluate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

The colors on those maps largely (entirely?) reflect the electorate pre-2015/obergefell.  If you can't recognize that support has fundamentally changed over the last 10ish years, then we're just disagreeing, which is fine.

I generally tend to agree with this, but I think like with Roe, there def needs to be some law/protections put in place "in case." Though to your point while Roe has less support, it was/is somewhat shocking it happened, if we get in Thomas' wish list of contraception, gay marriage, etc then I think you'd see a giant wave of some support of some amendment/law cause it just seems to ridiculous at that point to not have something to protect those.

Side note, while a general, I think besides the credibility part Spracne talks about, I think the thing that strikes me the most is how generally once things are giveth, it's very, almost impossible to take away on things related to government. Of course it does happen, but it's so damn rare and hard.

[catastrophe]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against?  If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.

This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.

[Spracne]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against?  If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.

This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.

Ding ding ding.

[DQ12]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against?  If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.

This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.

Yeah, it's hard for me to say whether it's disqualifying without knowing more info about the stances of the politician and the opponent.

As a result, no, it's not necessarily disqualifying to me.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It really should be a lot easier for a gay marriage ban to get a large amount of evangelical support than it was for abortion. The bible actually says stuff against homosexuality. Just start running homophobic stuff on conservative talk radio and ~40% of the country will support gay marriage bans by this time next year.

[catastrophe]

It really should be a lot easier for a gay marriage ban to get a large amount of evangelical support than it was for abortion. The bible actually says stuff against homosexuality. Just start running homophobic stuff on conservative talk radio and ~40% of the country will support gay marriage bans by this time next year.

The difference is that (as with far too many things in life), there is still such a stigma surrounding abortion that people simply don't talk about it like they do gay marriage. It's not constitutional or even logical arguments that turn people's opinions, it is realizing that so many people that they know and love are directly affected by the issue. I'm sure I know at least half a dozen people who have had abortions in heartbreaking situations. Those people simply do not talk about their experiences so it doesn't feel like a personal issue to me like even gay marriage does.

[CNS]

Per Gallup, in may 22, all but 15% of ppl though abortion should be legal in some form or another. If that remaining 15%, 2% had no opinion. Only the remaining 13% thought it should be illegal in all cases.

Seems like public support of an issue is not a good arguememt right now.

I don’t think I’ve seen a single state law that prohibits abortion in every case no exception.

Even without going all the way to zero exceptions, a 61% majority want the right with no exception. All interpretations of the Gallup data show a court precedent restricting rights a majority want.

Would you mind providing a link to that data supporting 61% want abortion access without exception?

I was mistaken the 60% is support of Roe.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

DQ I'm curious, please indulge me on this hypothetical. If you are voting and the R candidate states that they will not stand in the way of an overturning of Obergefell et. al would you switch tickets or be like well, alright then, that's fine and vote R anyway?

And this isn't a classic BAC-ambush-to-get-you-to-admit-you-hate-gays question it’s more like a litmus test to see how ambivalent you are on the issue.

FTR I will admit that I am a straight white cis male, and I (and my family) do not currently require abortion services (for any reason, like the 1% medical or 99% recreational) nor do I anticipate we will anytime soon. None of these cases affect me or my day to day life directly but the idea that millions of people could be (and are being) stripped of their rights because a small percentage of people disapprove is unconscionable.

I’m not saying shame on you for not caping up fighting for stuff for which you have no skin in the game, I guess this is just a really long winded way of saying I think you are drastically underestimating what the gop intends to do and I don’t believe you have much incentive to scrutinize or worry about it

Just so I'm clear on the hypothetical, how would a state politician stand in the way of a SCOTUS decision.  Not trying to be pedantic, just want to make sure i'm understanding the hypothetical.

Fair point. I guess what I mean by that is the hypothetical politician saying that, if these decisions are overturned and it gets kicked back to the states, he will not oppose legislation to ban it at the state level

It depends on a host of issues -- what other things does this politician stand for? What legislation is actually at issue or anticipated? Who is the politician running against?  If you're basically asking whether I'd be a single-issue gay marriage voter, no I wouldn't.

This could just be me, but I think of "single-issue voter" to refer to someone who only wants their elected official to DO one thing. It's a bit different to say that a politician's stance on a particular subject is disqualifying. I think BAC is asking whether a state legislator's anti-gay marriage position is disqualifying to you. I think it would be to me simply because I can't imagine someone holding that view and being an otherwise totally reasonable legislator.

Yeah, it's hard for me to say whether it's disqualifying without knowing more info about the stances of the politician and the opponent.

As a result, no, it's not necessarily disqualifying to me.

Fair enough, I concede my admittedly rushed hypothetical is overly simplified and there could be a host of other issues that, to you, would offset this position. For myself I don’t think I could get past it. Granted I don’t vote Republican and I can’t imagine many dems taking that position.

[waks]

It really should be a lot easier for a gay marriage ban to get a large amount of evangelical support than it was for abortion. The bible actually says stuff against homosexuality. Just start running homophobic stuff on conservative talk radio and ~40% of the country will support gay marriage bans by this time next year.

The difference is that (as with far too many things in life), there is still such a stigma surrounding abortion that people simply don't talk about it like they do gay marriage. It's not constitutional or even logical arguments that turn people's opinions, it is realizing that so many people that they know and love are directly affected by the issue. I'm sure I know at least half a dozen people who have had abortions in heartbreaking situations. Those people simply do not talk about their experiences so it doesn't feel like a personal issue to me like even gay marriage does.

I remember thinking the 1 in 4 women will have an abortion statistic seemed high when I first heard it. The other night I was having a discussion with three other women and another man and all three women had had one. I don't think people realize how often birth control and contraceptives can fail. Add in the need for them for medical reasons and that statistic makes even more sense.

[Pete]

He’s also an adult. Suck it up and deal. That’s also how I feel about the high school stuff. Like, I think it’s weird that the coaches/teachers think it’s ok (it isn’t) but I also don’t care that much. Life is full of people unaware of how in appropriate and ignorant they are.

If your kid was getting singled out and bullied as a result you might care more.

What would my kid be singled out and bullied for? Also it’s wrong and shouldn’t be allowed but I’d spend more of my energy laughing at the person doing it than anything else.

Not being the preferred flavor of Christian or a non-Christian?  Happened at my high school. I can vividly recall the mocking a Jehovah’s Witness kid got….kid was just following parents/church commands, and refused to participate.

Saw an evangelical kid tell a Jewish kid he was “going to hell.” Only came up because an adult forced a religious activity (“church”) in a government funded (“state”) school.

That kind of crap happens all the time.

Yeah, kids can be mean I guess. Religion, clothes, shoes, weight issues, the kind of car you drive, etc. i was very fortunate in high school and never had to worry about being bullied or anything. I guess I’d just let my kid know how big of clowns those people are though and that simply ignoring something or laughing at it is usually a good plan. If it’s not one thing it’s another and making big deals out of things you’ll more than likely never going to be able to fix/get rid of is hardly ever the best policy. But that’s just me.

I wish more parents were like you and not force religious adherence on their kids, and that the adults at the school would take your advice and just not do that.  Here we are though.

[Kat Kid]

@dlew
Maybe we are talking past each other?

The point I am making is that it will be incredibly disruptive if Obergefell was overturned because even LEFT COAST CALIFORNIA has laws on the books that would negate all the gay marriages in their state. I think the best argument that the court won't overturn it is it is an administrative state nightmare to dissolve that many marriages overnight.

Now it is pretty easy to believe that California would act quickly to reverse that, but you are confusing public polling with the legislative or ballot process that would need to occur to proactively support gay marriage as a political question after it had just been overturned by the Supreme Court. I think that would be a much bigger lift, than you are implying.

Anyways, this is of course all hypothetical but I think you should probably think about how difficult it is to pass even very popular pieces of legislation and agree that this would probably be contentious in many states.

[DQ12]

@dlew
Maybe we are talking past each other?

The point I am making is that it will be incredibly disruptive if Obergefell was overturned because even LEFT COAST CALIFORNIA has laws on the books that would negate all the gay marriages in their state. I think the best argument that the court won't overturn it is it is an administrative state nightmare to dissolve that many marriages overnight.

Now it is pretty easy to believe that California would act quickly to reverse that, but you are confusing public polling with the legislative or ballot process that would need to occur to proactively support gay marriage as a political question after it had just been overturned by the Supreme Court. I think that would be a much bigger lift, than you are implying.

Anyways, this is of course all hypothetical but I think you should probably think about how difficult it is to pass even very popular pieces of legislation and agree that this would probably be contentious in many states.

Yeah I have reconsidered.  If Obergefell (oberge)fell tomorrow, it would be a bit of a shitshow in a lot of places (at least for a while), notwithstanding the broad (and becoming broader) bipartisan support for gay marriage.

That said, given that Obergefell is still good law today, and only one lone justice hinted at even granting a challenging case cert, i think it's a ways off from being left to the states.  In the meantime (and in light of Dobbs), i think states would be wise to start getting some state legislation going, even if it's redundant in the interim.

fwiw, i think the bolded part of your quote is wrong

[steve dave]

Wild democracy fact

[Spracne]

Wild democracy fact

It was 5-4 to overturn Roe. Roberts concurred in the judgment only (to reverse the lower court) and wrote separately to state he would not have gutted the prior precedents.

[steve dave]

You keep that fancy lawyering stuff to yourself!

[michigancat]

Wild democracy fact

[SpongeBob font] IT'S A REPUBLIC

[kim carnes]

Can’t believe someone just posted a robert reich tweet

[sonofdaxjones]

Is Robert "third" Reich still pushing re-education camps and struggle courts?

[Institutional Control]

Where is Spracne’s meme when you need it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

Where is Spracne’s meme when you need it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dal9]

ken paxton (TX AG) just said that he would defend Texas' sodomy law in court if Lawrence got repealed...now, maybe you can say Texas Republicans would repeal the law, but they certainly don't appear to be in any hurry to do so