3 ms·

The thing is 'doing unconstitutional things and getting smacked down' is no longer a certainty. This Supreme Court has shown itself to wipe their ass with the C

The thing is 'doing unconstitutional things and getting smacked down' is no longer a certainty. This Supreme Court has shown itself to wipe their ass with the Constitution, or any law, if it helps either the conservative agenda or Trump.

snapplebobapple 1y ago
Yah, you're looking at it on too short a time frame. If enough people are butt hurt about something over a long enough time period, it will get reversed (as you just saw from this very issue that started the discussion). Also, unconstitutional does not mean something you don't like, it means something explicitly outlawed in the constitution. Things like stopping pregnant women from exercising their right to travel, not setting restrictions on abortion to a level higher than I personally would like.
- const_cast 1y ago
  There were constitutional arguments for abortion in Roe. And, coincidently, those constitutional arguments are extremely similar to the ones used in Obergefel. Meaning, if this court was willing to overturn Roe on those grounds, they could easily overtune Obergefel. Its a matter of if they have the political will. Which, the answer should theoretically be yes - the supreme Court doesn't care about politics. But this court isn't like other courts, so it might be no. Overturning Obergefel would be very politically unpopular for virtually no gain, even for the Republicans. So, personally, I doubt it's going to happen.
  - snapplebobapple 1y ago
    Then maybe that should go back to the states to decide as well. I personally feel their smartest move would be to rule that having government involved in marriage at all is too excessive a limitation on freedom of association and therefore government is out of the business entirely
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      Segregation too? That's just for the states to decide?
      - snapplebobapple 1y ago
        segregation was disallowed under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which is much sounder law (and much more likely to be respected by an originalist since it's pretty obvious what they meant and once you make a black person a person under the law (which is also done by the 14th amendment) it's pretty clear you can't treat them differently than anyone else). Conversely, Roe V Wade relies on some pretty tortured reinterpretation of the right to privacy, which in itself is only kind of guaranteed by a less tortured interpretation of other parts of the constitution. It's also pretty important to point out here that things are only for the states to decide in so far as you guys haven't made an amendment to make that right part of the constitution. The whole point of this is you can't make up rights that aren't there as the supreme court, you aren't the legislative body. If you want more/different rights there is an amending process to change the constitution and then the supreme court will be bound to uphold your changes as well. Also, why do I know more about your constitution and governing structure than you appear to? I'm not American, I just appreciate how straightforwardly you guys recognize government will always screw you over and needs to be agressively restrained. I just wish you had realized it was all large organizations and more effectively applied your restrictions to corporations as well.
        UncleMeat 1y ago
        > Also, why do I know more about your constitution and governing structure than you appear to? Do you? All you have said here is that you think that the equal protection clause forbidding segregation is more sound than the substantive due process clause forbidding criminalization of abortion. That's not a statement about governing structure. That's a statement about your interpretation of the text. I (and many others) don't think that finding a right to abortion in the text is so difficult. It is ludicrous to point at an originalist interpretation to justify Brown. It is plainly obvious that the authors of the 14th did not intend it to forbid segregation nor would the public have interpreted it to do so at the time. Yes, there is a cottage industry of law professors seeking to square this circle but it is a ridiculous project. If you insist on originalism being the sole interpretive model of the constitution (which I disagree with) then you don't get to so easily say "well obviously Brown was correct."

snapplebobapple 1y ago

Yah, you're looking at it on too short a time frame. If enough people are butt hurt about something over a long enough time period, it will get reversed (as you just saw from this very issue that started the discussion). Also, unconstitutional does not mean something you don't like, it means something explicitly outlawed in the constitution. Things like stopping pregnant women from exercising their right to travel, not setting restrictions on abortion to a level higher than I personally would like.

const_cast 1y ago
There were constitutional arguments for abortion in Roe. And, coincidently, those constitutional arguments are extremely similar to the ones used in Obergefel. Meaning, if this court was willing to overturn Roe on those grounds, they could easily overtune Obergefel. Its a matter of if they have the political will. Which, the answer should theoretically be yes - the supreme Court doesn't care about politics. But this court isn't like other courts, so it might be no. Overturning Obergefel would be very politically unpopular for virtually no gain, even for the Republicans. So, personally, I doubt it's going to happen.
- snapplebobapple 1y ago
  Then maybe that should go back to the states to decide as well. I personally feel their smartest move would be to rule that having government involved in marriage at all is too excessive a limitation on freedom of association and therefore government is out of the business entirely
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Segregation too? That's just for the states to decide?
    - snapplebobapple 1y ago
      segregation was disallowed under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which is much sounder law (and much more likely to be respected by an originalist since it's pretty obvious what they meant and once you make a black person a person under the law (which is also done by the 14th amendment) it's pretty clear you can't treat them differently than anyone else). Conversely, Roe V Wade relies on some pretty tortured reinterpretation of the right to privacy, which in itself is only kind of guaranteed by a less tortured interpretation of other parts of the constitution. It's also pretty important to point out here that things are only for the states to decide in so far as you guys haven't made an amendment to make that right part of the constitution. The whole point of this is you can't make up rights that aren't there as the supreme court, you aren't the legislative body. If you want more/different rights there is an amending process to change the constitution and then the supreme court will be bound to uphold your changes as well. Also, why do I know more about your constitution and governing structure than you appear to? I'm not American, I just appreciate how straightforwardly you guys recognize government will always screw you over and needs to be agressively restrained. I just wish you had realized it was all large organizations and more effectively applied your restrictions to corporations as well.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        > Also, why do I know more about your constitution and governing structure than you appear to? Do you? All you have said here is that you think that the equal protection clause forbidding segregation is more sound than the substantive due process clause forbidding criminalization of abortion. That's not a statement about governing structure. That's a statement about your interpretation of the text. I (and many others) don't think that finding a right to abortion in the text is so difficult. It is ludicrous to point at an originalist interpretation to justify Brown. It is plainly obvious that the authors of the 14th did not intend it to forbid segregation nor would the public have interpreted it to do so at the time. Yes, there is a cottage industry of law professors seeking to square this circle but it is a ridiculous project. If you insist on originalism being the sole interpretive model of the constitution (which I disagree with) then you don't get to so easily say "well obviously Brown was correct."