6 ms·

Justice Alito's draft opinion specifically criticizes decisions which legalized sodomy aka its no longer a crime to be gay, and same-sex marriage, basically sta

by jgon 4y ago

Justice Alito's draft opinion specifically criticizes decisions which legalized sodomy aka its no longer a crime to be gay, and same-sex marriage, basically stating that they have the same (invalid in his opinion) reasoning behind them as Roe v. Wade, so yeah buckle up because they aren't stopping here.

ravar 4y ago
Awesome if true. However it is unlikely we are getting sodomy laws back, republicans never actually get wins. They just exist to slow down the lefts agenda. Not that long ago Obama publicly said that he thought gay marriage should never be legal, something he obviously did not believe. I think people forget just how much things have changed in the last 10 year.
- jgon 4y ago
  Just so I can get you on the record, you think it would be awesome if we got sodomy laws back, effectively making it illegal to be gay in America?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  Where do you get your news? because your reality looks entirely like the one I inhabit. Or is this sarcasm?
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    Ugh typo 'unlike'
gadders 4y ago
Page 62 to in the draft opinion: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterised, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
- jgon 4y ago
  Alito during his confirmation hearing: "Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed." Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing: "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." I guess you'll have to forgive me if I say that I don't put a ton of weight into what the justices claim, and I think that time will probably bear out that my opinion is the correct one if we revisit this in a few years' time.
  - throwaway-bzOxW 4y ago
    Not disagreeing with your original comment, but my guess is the justices phrased what they said during confirmations in such a way that they would still agree with it now. "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" - I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia: "A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts." So I suspect they said "settled as a precedent" knowing that settled and reaffirmed precedents have the possibility of being overturned while still following "principles of stare decisis".
chrisdfrey 4y ago
Are you basing this on Mark Stern's tweets? I read pages 31-32 of the opinion and it mentions Obergefell v Hodges but the decision isn't explicitly criticized.

by jgon 4y ago

ravar 4y ago

Awesome if true. However it is unlikely we are getting sodomy laws back, republicans never actually get wins. They just exist to slow down the lefts agenda. Not that long ago Obama publicly said that he thought gay marriage should never be legal, something he obviously did not believe. I think people forget just how much things have changed in the last 10 year.

jgon 4y ago
Just so I can get you on the record, you think it would be awesome if we got sodomy laws back, effectively making it illegal to be gay in America?
cwkoss 4y ago
Where do you get your news? because your reality looks entirely like the one I inhabit. Or is this sarcasm?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  Ugh typo 'unlike'

gadders 4y ago

Page 62 to in the draft opinion: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterised, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

jgon 4y ago
Alito during his confirmation hearing: "Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed." Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing: "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times." Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other." I guess you'll have to forgive me if I say that I don't put a ton of weight into what the justices claim, and I think that time will probably bear out that my opinion is the correct one if we revisit this in a few years' time.
- throwaway-bzOxW 4y ago
  Not disagreeing with your original comment, but my guess is the justices phrased what they said during confirmations in such a way that they would still agree with it now. "It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" - I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia: "A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts." So I suspect they said "settled as a precedent" knowing that settled and reaffirmed precedents have the possibility of being overturned while still following "principles of stare decisis".

chrisdfrey 4y ago

Are you basing this on Mark Stern's tweets? I read pages 31-32 of the opinion and it mentions Obergefell v Hodges but the decision isn't explicitly criticized.