6 ms·

After two or three conservative justices are appointed the court your life will be mega affected. Are you gay? Kiss gay marriage goodbye. Right to privacy ? Gon

• inimino 10y ago
  Gay marriage is here to stay because of a massive shift in public opinion on the issue which has been taking place over decades. None of that is going away.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    All it will take is a reversion to "let the states decide", which may also be what we see with issues such as abortion. What scares me though, are the decisions like Citizens United, issues with privacy and regulatory oversight, and that kind of thing.
  • mattnewton 10y ago
    I have a hard time believing you after Trump said that he would get someone to repeal Roe V Wade and now he has the house and senate to do it.
    • masonic 10y ago
      Have you read Roe v Wade (or even the Constitution, for that matter) at all? Again, describe the mechanism by which this could happen.
      • mattnewton 10y ago
        Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp. I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar. As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
        • masonic 10y ago
          "... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion" Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.) Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar. You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
          • mattnewton 10y ago
            Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch. I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
            • masonic 10y ago
              No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
          • b1daly 10y ago
            I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
            • masonic 10y ago
              No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for. But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it. And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent. The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
    • M_Grey 10y ago
      Congress, and 3 Supreme Court justices... it's going to be a bloodbath on civil liberties.
      • wyoh 10y ago
        It depends which civil liberties, gun rights will hopefully be less threatened than with liberal SCOTUS.
        • M_Grey 10y ago
          You can already own and operate a fucking arsenal, what more do you want?
          • hiram112 10y ago
            Well most of the state and city bans to limit the 2nd amendment were struck down by the courts. So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc. Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
    • inimino 10y ago
      He said a lot of things which appealed to certain voters but pretty clearly aren't going to happen. His style is to overstate. People on the other side taking his words literally has led to a lot of fear.
      • mattnewton 10y ago
        I hope you are right, I really do, but with the house, senate, presidency and SCOTUS tiebreaker slot, these are not impossibilities.
    • rorykoehler 10y ago
      Trump said a lot of things. Often things that directly contradicted other things he said. What he really thinks is anyone's guess.
      • bwooceli 10y ago
        History is pretty consistent that candidates actually do try to enact what they say during campaigns... Anyone expecting a suddenly different President Trump vs. Candidate Trump will likely be in for a surprise.
    • BurningFrog 10y ago
      It's funny how people think Trump lies about everything, except the promises they hate.
      • MereInterest 10y ago
        Trump has said many things that contradict reality. These are clearly lies. Trump has said many things that contradict other things that he has said. These indicate more lies. Trump has made many promises regarding policy. There is no reason to believe these to be lies. I am hopeful that they are, but it is just a hope.
        • berntb 10y ago
          Come on, be realistic. The guy would say anything to get votes. He is just like my Swedish politicians [0]. So what will the US and the rest of the world get? I don't know. You don't know. I'm not even certain that Trump knows. I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries... Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade. Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either. [0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
    • coredog64 10y ago
      An an actual repeal of Roe v. Wade (or Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unlikely. It's mainly red meat for the base. To actually do it would be political suicide of the type we saw when an unpopular ACA was passed.
      • brianwawok 10y ago
        So you mean political suicide like being elected for 4 more years?
• mirkules 10y ago
  Can you point to some supreme court cases? One that comes to mind is Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the "sodomy law" by a largely republican court (I think only one or two justices were democratic at the time) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
  • kilotaras 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder - aka gutting of Voter Rights Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC - aka "Companies are people and money is free speech"
    • coredog64 10y ago
      That's a gross misstatement of Citizens United. People do not give up their right to free speech by forming a voluntary organization (aka a corporation). We know this is true because we allow corporations and organizations like the New York Times, the ACLU, and the Teamsters unions to have a right to free speech. As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
• ewolf 10y ago
  However, as long as you are not directly affected by any of those, e.g. you are not LBGTQ, you might consider staying to defend LGBTQ rights and thereby have a more meaningful impact. Even if you're not a politician, voting, educating your children and talking to friends and coworkers can have a significant impact.
• icantdrive55 10y ago
  Justices are people. People change their views as they age. Justice Robert's had a conservative record; Then he saved Obama Care. At least up to 1989, there was no real predictability of Supreme Court Justices. I got the question wrong on a test. I'm lying--I got it right. I was trying to prove a point, by being theatrical. I had a Professor drilled this paradoxical observation into our heads. He pointed to studies, but I'm too tired to look them up. It was in a national textbook.
• mcintyre1994 10y ago
  Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got a mandate to take action against the media and free speech on the internet. What's left? If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
  • gph 10y ago
    The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to. Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
    • mvindahl 10y ago
      I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience. Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
    • yardie 10y ago
      You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support. I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.