Clarence Thomas Signals Willingness to Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges

[BS Filter]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper

Agree. So you support democracy until it affects you negatively. Got it.

 

[rightwinger]

I know the thought of any interference in your lifestyle scares you. But you can relax. Nobody is coming for your gay rights. You and your boyfriend are safe.

Conservatives are emboldened by their new TRUMP Court
Nothing is off the table

 

[BackAgain]

Conservatives are emboldened by their new TRUMP Court
Nothing is off the table

That makes no sense. Everything the Constitution prohibits is off the table. … Now.

 

[Coyote]

Precedent still matters. Bad precedent never should. The court legislated an alleged right to slaughter the innocent unborn. The court may fix that error.

Disagree…this has cut through precedent. Roe was upheld many times. Even the Trump SCOTUS justices, when they lied to Congress indicated it was settled law.

 

[Coyote]

Conservatives are emboldened by their new TRUMP Court
Nothing is off the table

Yup. And that is clear when looking at what they are eying down the road. If precedent is off the table…what happens when tbe ideological balance shifts?

 

[rightwinger]

Yup. And that is clear when looking at what they are eying down the road. If precedent is off the table…what happens when tbe ideological balance shifts?

Formerly untouchable decisions that are now on the Conservative “Wish List”

School Prayer
Same Sex Marriage
Obamacare
Worker Protections
Environmental Protections

 

[BackAgain]

Disagree…this has cut through precedent. Roe was upheld many times. Even the Trump SCOTUS justices, when they lied to Congress indicated it was settled law.

So what? It was a badly decided case. The rule of stare decisis is not meant to prohibit correcting past mistakes. And if a past mistake has been compounded by other cases’s reliance on it, the wrongly decided case is still not immune from being corrected.

Nobody “lied.” It was settled. It was settled incorrectly. And now it is about to be repaired.

 

[Coyote]

So what? It was a badly decided case. The rule of stare decisis is not meant to prohibit correcting past mistakes. And if a past mistake has been compounded by other cases reliance on it, the wrongly decided case is still not immune from being corrected.

Nobody “lied.” It was settled. It was settled incorrectly. And now it is about to be repaired.

Yes they did lie.

 

[Coyote]

Formerly untouchable decisions that are now on the Conservative “Wish List”

School Prayer
Same Sex Marriage
Obamacare
Worker Protections
Environmental Protections

And legal contraception.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes they did lie.

No. They didn’t lie.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes they did lie.

They didn‘t say it would depend on the case
They acted annoyed by the question and said Roe and Casey were settled case law

 

[Coyote]

No. They didn’t lie.

Can’t agree with you on this one.

 

[BS Filter]

Conservatives are emboldened by their new TRUMP Court
Nothing is off the table

Correct. Some things need to be corrected. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a socialist state ruled by a politburo.

 

[SweetSue92]

Some people refuse to recognize marriage between different religions or races, and it doesn’t really matter, as long as they aren’t enacting laws that discriminate. It is an individual thing and if you don’t want to recognize it that’s your freedom.

A marriage between a man and a woman of any race or religion is still a marriage. Man-man or woman-woman is not. It could be some kind of legal something. But it is not a marriage.

And you are right: I have freedom to believe that.

 

[SweetSue92]

Doesnt make your relationship any more valid than anyone else’s

The law you celebrate is based on a hatred of gays and the validity of their relationships

You saying anything about me does not make it true.

Calling me hater and other names does not refute my point. But go on. You'll just lose harder.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yup. And that is clear when looking at what they are eying down the road. If precedent is off the table…what happens when tbe ideological balance shifts?

You realize that other SC rulings have been overturned

 

[rightwinger]

You saying anything about me does not make it true.

Calling me hater and other names does not refute my point. But go on. You'll just lose harder.

People used to consider interracial marriages “yucky” and banned them

You consider gay marriage to be “yucky” and want to ban it

It is not up to you, it is up to the individual to choose their mate

 

[Coyote]

A marriage between a man and a woman of any race or religion is still a marriage. Man-man or woman-woman is not. It could be some kind of legal something. But it is not a marriage.

And you are right: I have freedom to believe that.

The definition of marriage has changed over time. For example it has been a legal contract between two wealthy houses to protect assets while the commoners had a common law arrangement; it has been pluralistic, usually one man and multiple women (in fact that is biblical)…it is no threat to me if two consenting adults want to enter into marriage.

 

[BS Filter]

People used to consider interracial marriages “yucky” and banned them

You consider gay marriage to be “yucky” and want to ban it

It is not up to you, it is up to the individual to choose their mate

Wrong. We want the states to decide marriage laws. Listen to what's being said and ignore those voices in your head.

 

[Jets]

The five votes are there to reverse this decision.

One wonders what other precedents would be up for consideration…