4 ms·

Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickl

Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickly.

spoils19 4y ago
This just reads like the slippery-slope fallacy. At no point will gay marriage and contraception be on the chopping block. I just talked to some conservative gay couples who align with this draft ruling, and they have no fears whatsoever.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wade. And what happens as soon as they get control of the court? As fast as they humanly could they tested Roe in front of their new court, and now they've overturned the entire decision in the most brazen way possible. That was item 1 on their list. In the intervening 20 years there have been other items added to the list as reasons for wanting control of the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has been absolutely listed as a top target since 2015. Given how they've stated they want to overturn Roe and they followed through, why do you consider the idea that they will go after gay marriage a slippery slope? They've told us they want to do it. Why are we not to take them at their word at this point?
  - spoils19 4y ago
    A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, same-sex rights are not deeply rooted in history, as is stated in the leaked ruling. The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure, and with the knowledge that citizens who votes for these representatives who voted for these justices are getting what they voted for. Who are we to say what is legally right or wrong, without morals?
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. It's not a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. It's not a conspiracy to have a long term project that you telegraph to everyone by campaigning on it. That's called a political platform. It's not some shadowy thing they've done in private; they've done it in the open, slowly, but deliberately. I don't think this is even a question, so I'm surprised you're pushing back on that point unless you don't pay attention to politics. I'm not giving them credit for anything they haven't already taken credit for. And although I say engineering, it wasn't something they could entirely control. But what they did do was exercise power in pretty craven ways to end up at this 6/3 split (I'm thinking precisely of McConnell holding a seat open with the argument that the people should decide through the upcoming election; and then filling the next vacancy at lightning speed despite being even closer to an election than the last opening). > I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. Missing from this site are the fervently religious conservatives. The objection isn't grounded in reason. They're the ones who don't want gay marriage, and they're also actually in power right now in many places. This opinion is a testament to that. > The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure This presumes that the actors on the court are apolitical and the opinion is grounded firmly in law and logic. I'm still reading the full opinion but my feeling so far is... not positive on that front.
      - johnnyanmac 4y ago
        >You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. in all fairness, that is prime conspiracy narrative. "just follow the line of strings and it all makes sense!". The US has been in a swing between the two parties for the past 40 years. to suggest that there's been some kind of plan to fill the courts up an convince the country to overturn a previous ruling would only be possible if you believe the opposing party was in cohoots with the plan. Which is a conspiracy level take that I'd need signifigant, official documents to be swayed on. Occam's razor still supports your point while keeping the story simple: there's been decades of swing votes with each party getting a justice in over the decades. with the last case happening right towards the end of a controversial president with a controversial 2016 and 2020 election period. It's a platform, sure. But I think this comes down to a series of happensstance for their plans lining up rather than some carefully crafted web of plans like some sort of thriller movie. We don't need to turn into reddit and make things out to be some grand conspiracy to discuss a topic
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  It’s not a fallacy of any sort to think the cons are going to do what they’ve explicitly said they will do.
- wwweston 4y ago
  "I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!" https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2022/02/21/michigan-gop-birth-control-griswold-abortion-dobbs/6879282001/ https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/... https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marriage-equality/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marria... https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marriage-1848759151 https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marri... https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/1521294720449888256 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/152129472044988825... One of my acquaintances who's a lawyer says in particular certain personal rights to privacy/autonomy that Griswold is built around is a target of the federalist society for a variety of reasons, some of which are business related. Can't remember the details but if you combine a wealth/profit-driven interest with a social conservatives christian patriarchy, the idea that Griswold is just safe because the court wouldn't go there looks pretty thin. The courts are going to go for broke here, they've got a certain makeup that's been in the making for decades and McConnell's manipulations and Trump's victory got them across the finish line. They're not kidding around with power, they're going to use it. EDIT: Downvoters, while we're all entitled to the use of that pointy disapproval button, if you think it's fundamentally incorrect to state that Obergfell or Griswold are going to be targeted by the court, you have no idea how thrilled I'd be to be persuaded you're correct. Please, make your case.

Alito is literally calling out gay marriage and contraception as on the chopping block in that thing. I think this ends up someplace very very ugly very quickly.

spoils19 4y ago

This just reads like the slippery-slope fallacy. At no point will gay marriage and contraception be on the chopping block. I just talked to some conservative gay couples who align with this draft ruling, and they have no fears whatsoever.

ModernMech 4y ago
The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wade. And what happens as soon as they get control of the court? As fast as they humanly could they tested Roe in front of their new court, and now they've overturned the entire decision in the most brazen way possible. That was item 1 on their list. In the intervening 20 years there have been other items added to the list as reasons for wanting control of the Supreme Court. Gay marriage has been absolutely listed as a top target since 2015. Given how they've stated they want to overturn Roe and they followed through, why do you consider the idea that they will go after gay marriage a slippery slope? They've told us they want to do it. Why are we not to take them at their word at this point?
- spoils19 4y ago
  A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, same-sex rights are not deeply rooted in history, as is stated in the leaked ruling. The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure, and with the knowledge that citizens who votes for these representatives who voted for these justices are getting what they voted for. Who are we to say what is legally right or wrong, without morals?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. It's not a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. It's not a conspiracy to have a long term project that you telegraph to everyone by campaigning on it. That's called a political platform. It's not some shadowy thing they've done in private; they've done it in the open, slowly, but deliberately. I don't think this is even a question, so I'm surprised you're pushing back on that point unless you don't pay attention to politics. I'm not giving them credit for anything they haven't already taken credit for. And although I say engineering, it wasn't something they could entirely control. But what they did do was exercise power in pretty craven ways to end up at this 6/3 split (I'm thinking precisely of McConnell holding a seat open with the argument that the people should decide through the upcoming election; and then filling the next vacancy at lightning speed despite being even closer to an election than the last opening). > I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. Missing from this site are the fervently religious conservatives. The objection isn't grounded in reason. They're the ones who don't want gay marriage, and they're also actually in power right now in many places. This opinion is a testament to that. > The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure This presumes that the actors on the court are apolitical and the opinion is grounded firmly in law and logic. I'm still reading the full opinion but my feeling so far is... not positive on that front.
    - johnnyanmac 4y ago
      >You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. in all fairness, that is prime conspiracy narrative. "just follow the line of strings and it all makes sense!". The US has been in a swing between the two parties for the past 40 years. to suggest that there's been some kind of plan to fill the courts up an convince the country to overturn a previous ruling would only be possible if you believe the opposing party was in cohoots with the plan. Which is a conspiracy level take that I'd need signifigant, official documents to be swayed on. Occam's razor still supports your point while keeping the story simple: there's been decades of swing votes with each party getting a justice in over the decades. with the last case happening right towards the end of a controversial president with a controversial 2016 and 2020 election period. It's a platform, sure. But I think this comes down to a series of happensstance for their plans lining up rather than some carefully crafted web of plans like some sort of thriller movie. We don't need to turn into reddit and make things out to be some grand conspiracy to discuss a topic
KerrAvon 4y ago
It’s not a fallacy of any sort to think the cons are going to do what they’ve explicitly said they will do.
wwweston 4y ago
"I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!" https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2022/02/21/michigan-gop-birth-control-griswold-abortion-dobbs/6879282001/ https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/... https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marriage-equality/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-marria... https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marriage-1848759151 https://jezebel.com/yes-republicans-are-coming-for-gay-marri... https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1521296185977417732 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/1521294720449888256 https://twitter.com/notstevenwhite/status/152129472044988825... One of my acquaintances who's a lawyer says in particular certain personal rights to privacy/autonomy that Griswold is built around is a target of the federalist society for a variety of reasons, some of which are business related. Can't remember the details but if you combine a wealth/profit-driven interest with a social conservatives christian patriarchy, the idea that Griswold is just safe because the court wouldn't go there looks pretty thin. The courts are going to go for broke here, they've got a certain makeup that's been in the making for decades and McConnell's manipulations and Trump's victory got them across the finish line. They're not kidding around with power, they're going to use it. EDIT: Downvoters, while we're all entitled to the use of that pointy disapproval button, if you think it's fundamentally incorrect to state that Obergfell or Griswold are going to be targeted by the court, you have no idea how thrilled I'd be to be persuaded you're correct. Please, make your case.