SCOTUS Watch

[Drazzil]

Yeah. Yaknow. I'm talking out of my ass here. I need to avoid R&P and I'm furious that you guys don't seem to get how the appeaseniks have sold us out for AGES!

You know what? Fuck the US and everyone in it. Assuming I work overtime and keep saving, I might just have enuff cash for an exit visa in a few years. My friends, and family are all dead The US is a nation of eternally grateful to be fucked peasants as long as the other gets it harder. I want out.

I'm wasting my breath here. No one agrees with me, my powers of persuasion are not equal to the task; or frankly is my rhetoric or vocabulary. I'm out. Have fun all.

[malchior]

At this point I'm ready for the Union to be dissolved. Let these Bible-thumping fucksticks go form their own territory and leave the sane folks alone.

I would at this point also prefer to see the union dissolved or a constitutional convention that'll revert to some regional model or whatever will keep the peace. That won't happen, elections will still result in little change while the word advances, and we will may very well see the first generational living standards decline. I don't know what it'll look like exactly but none of this is trending towards stable or anything representing democratic values.

I don’t really understand all these calls to dissolve the Union in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned. What exactly would that accomplish?

I think it is because this isn't just about Roe.

What do you think the result of dissolving the Union will be?

I'm not so sure but it more is an expression that this country has broken and it is time to face facts. For me, I'm extrapolating the potential risks. And they are many now. In that range of risks, I'm now open to anything that'll push our political and societal realignment along in the most peaceful way possible. But that isn't likely to happen so I believe we will see either a period of authoritarianism (and frankly I lump this in with authoritarianism to be honest) or violence.

I hate that this is happening, and I think it is wrong. I’m incredibly concerned about the state of our country and feel like our three branches of government and the system they are supposed to work within have gone completely haywire.

But if the people in Mississippi want so badly to restrict abortion and now have the right to do so, it’s not going to convince me that those who are pro-choice should just take their ball and go home. It’s a feckless and pointless response.

I don't understand this take to be honest. I'm not sure this is what people are saying. At least what I'm trying to say is that I expect accelerating realignment without a brake. Alito (if this stands) will have broken the brake and we're going to see runs by states at all sorts of behavior all over this country. People are legitimately frightened now about the political future of our country. This isn't about taking our ball and going home, this is about the fabric of a nation disintegrating.

[Kurth]

But the people calling to dissolve the Union are asking for exactly that: To “disintegrate the fabric of our nation.” I’m not sure I understand your position on this.

[Drazzil]

I'm appalled, fucking angry, and very fearful for the future of the US right now, more so than I was a few days ago.

I realized this morning that I really need to get a passport for my almost-17 year old LGBTQ daughter. We're living through the period in "The Handmaid's Tale" they show in flashbacks just before the rise of Gilead - I need her to be prepared to flee if things continue down this path.

I just printed out my passport paperwork this morning. I had one that i let expire many years ago.

I renewed mine as well. Recently; before the rush I figured was coming. One last note. The Democrats in power have proven time and time again that their true sympathy lies with their class. They have allowed themselves to be painted into a smaller and smaller box, now the box is microscopic. Their last chance to climb out of the box is right now. If the Democrats let go of this (as they will) they will COMPLETELY cease to exist as any sort of opposition as well as a party; cause whats the fuckin point of doing anything for a person who is *supposed* to fight for you but lies down every time someone slaps em in the face?

[malchior]

But the people calling to dissolve the Union are asking for exactly that: To “disintegrate the fabric of our nation.” I’m not sure I understand your position on this.

I think you're being too literal. At least for me, it is meant to be a thought experiment/rhetorical device to discuss the range of outcomes we may see. This is a moment where we have to face that our nation is changing drastically and in a way that is inherently chaotic.

What I'd say is think about are what is going to happen in the next few years. This decision if it stands is entirely radical. And bigger picture we have been facing a crisis of trust in our institutions. All had low trust except for the courts. Now we will see the Courts slide into the muck as just another political institution gone amok.

That is what the fabric of a nation disintegrating looks like. So when talking about the union dissolving as a preferable outcome, I see that as a possibility to attempt to forestall chaos that is much more likely now or perhaps even inevitable. If so, preserving the union at the risk of civil war or an authoritarian regime in my mind needs to be balanced with finding a way to peacefully go separate ways. Back in reality, I don't think that is likely or even possible. So it will be likely very ugly here. Folks are looking down a line to their rights curtailed, their literal physical security compromised, and may come to see their very existence criminalized. Imposed by a minority rule.

[Drazzil]

Drazzil, please tell us what Bill Clinton could have done in 2000 after the decision in Bush v Gore that wouldn't have been a catastrophic constitutional crisis.

Yep. It would have been a huge constitutional crisis; but it was one we needed to have. Perhaps if then President Clinton had stuck it out we would have had some sort of precedent that the SC keeps its dirty hands off our elections and related law. Think of how much trouble that would have saved us?

[Drazzil]

The best thing the Democrats can do now is give the blue states the tools, weapons and resources to go their own way before the midterms. Biden needs to be Gorbachev.

[Octavious]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

[Dogstar]

I don’t really understand all these calls to dissolve the Union in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned. What exactly would that accomplish?

Look at the map from the NYT article Where Abortion Access Would Decline if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned from last May.

...

I hate that this is happening, and I think it is wrong. I’m incredibly concerned about the state of our country and feel like our three branches of government and the system they are supposed to work within have gone completely haywire.

But if the people in Mississippi want so badly to restrict abortion and now have the right to do so, it’s not going to convince me that those who are pro-choice should just take their ball and go home. It’s a feckless and pointless response.

I can't speak to calls to dissolve based on Roe alone, but a country that has two different philosophies when it comes to unenumerated rights, with all that that entails, definitely is a nation divided.

[Drazzil]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

I mean EVERYTHING a state would need to maintain integrity in the face of agression from a pissed off Gilead.

[Drazzil]

Pardon me guys. Taking a step away to cool off.

[Blackhawk]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

[pr0ner]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

Drazzil is in fantasy land again.

[hepcat]

If you take the proper nouns out of his posts, he sounds like Trump.

[Drazzil]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

From this moment forward; I'm callin out your bullshit in the most direct way possible. Stop following me around like a bad smell. You don't like me; I don't like you.

[Blackhawk]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

You've been an asshole to me for like forever
Now from this moment forward; I'm callin out your bullshit in the most direct way possible. Stop following me around like a bad smell. You don't like me; I don't like you. Piss off and stay that way.

I spent years trying to help you, offering you advice, researching options, and have put in many, many hours on your behalf. You decided to ignore the advice of the entire community, and to embrace the insanity rather than deal with it, and now - yeah. I call bullshit when I see it, and suggesting that the government arm half of the country for the purpose of overthrowing the other half isn't just an extreme position, it's insanity, and I think if you cover up the names and scroll back, everyone else has responded in kind. So I guess that makes us all assholes - suggestion - if you want to avoid assholes, and we're all assholes, go somewhere else.

(I'm moving on.)

[Drazzil]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

Drazzil is in fantasy land again.

Yeah I sure am. Expecting the Dem's do anything at this point would be fantasy. Utter stark raving lunacy. We know who they are. People who would rather appease and feather their nests while they watch Rome burn. We voted these scumbags because blue no matter who right?! RIGHT?!

[hepcat]

Drazzil, please tell us what Bill Clinton could have done in 2000 after the decision in Bush v Gore that wouldn't have been a catastrophic constitutional crisis.

Yep. It would have been a huge constitutional crisis; but it was one we needed to have. Perhaps if then President Trump had stuck it out we would have had some sort of precedent that the SC keeps its dirty hands off our elections and related law. Think of how much trouble that would have saved us?

See, it works!

[dbt1949]

Once again we have people that want to force their beliefs on others and with Trump's picks in the Supreme Court it's all becoming laws. I have said how disappointed with people in general and this just reinforces my beliefs. It would be nice if they passed some law that said once the supreme court makes a decision it's that way for eternity.
Two things keep me from leaving this country.....1) I cant afford it and 2) There is no better country in the world. Countries that look appealing have their own sets of crappy laws. There is no winning solution except to work within the system and try to eject those we don't like. But right now the US has too many assholes.

[hepcat]

his just reinforces my beliefs. It would be nice if they passed some law that said once the supreme court makes a decision it's that way for eternity.
Two things keep me from leaving this country.....1) I cant afford it and 2) There is no better country in the world. Countries that look appealing have their own sets of crappy laws. There is no winning solution except to work within the system and try to eject those we don't like. But right now the US has too many assholes.

This is where I'm at too. Well said!

[Drazzil]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

You've been an asshole to me for like forever
Now from this moment forward; I'm callin out your bullshit in the most direct way possible. Stop following me around like a bad smell. You don't like me; I don't like you. Piss off and stay that way.

I spent years trying to help you, offering you advice, researching options, and have put in many, many hours on your behalf. You decided to ignore the advice of the entire community, and to embrace the insanity rather than deal with it, and now - yeah. I call bullshit when I see it, and suggesting that the government arm half of the country for the purpose of overthrowing the other half isn't just an extreme position, it's insanity, and I think if you cover up the names and scroll back, everyone else has responded in kind. So I guess that makes us all assholes - suggestion - if you want to avoid assholes, and we're all assholes, go somewhere else.

(I'm moving on.)

Spoilered for off topic

Spoiler:

Goddamnit. *shakes his head* You're more right then wrong. I'm melting down over this. I somehow thought if I could somehow convince someone *ANYONE* that I was right my worldview woule be validated. I was wrong. My stupid opinions don't matter. Things will unfold just the way they will . Also. You know. I could be kinder to EVERYONE here. Somewhere I found the idea that internet people don't have feelings or wants or needs and that everyone would be cool. I need to grow the fuck up.

I'm sorry to everyone here and if there is a future for me here I will change my behaviors going forward

[Drazzil]

Spoiler:

Ever since I turned my negative opinions positive IRL my life has opened up in a way that would have been ynimaginable 6 months ago. I'm about to make supervisor at work (as soon as the new system comes online) ALL BECAUSE OF MY GOOD ATTITUDE. I need to transfer some of that here

.

Spoilered for my bullshit

[Drazzil]

Drazzil, please tell us what Bill Clinton could have done in 2000 after the decision in Bush v Gore that wouldn't have been a catastrophic constitutional crisis.

Yep. It would have been a huge constitutional crisis; but it was one we needed to have. Perhaps if then President Trump had stuck it out we would have had some sort of precedent that the SC keeps its dirty hands off our elections and related law. Think of how much trouble that would have saved us?

See, it works!

Yeah it does. Fuck it.

[Roman]

I'm wasting my breath here. No one agrees with me, my powers of persuasion are not equal to the task; or frankly is my rhetoric or vocabulary. I'm out. Have fun all.

See this last line from your initial posting/rant? That is what pisses people off - you can't continue to be half pregnant. Either engage or leave and don't be pissed when people call you out on your bullshit. You're repeating the last several years all over again each month...... yawn.

[Zarathud]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

Drazzil is in fantasy land again.

Probably also fell off the wagon into a manic state, I guess.

[Pyperkub]

Roberts just confirmed it was a true leak and they are investigating. He says it won't change the operation of the Court. Good luck with that, Roberts.

Edit: In other news, Biden made a long extemporaneous statement today about this and it largely mirrors what I think. He actually said this is a ruling that would be word for word what Bork might have wrote.

(To paraphrase) "If this is the decision as it stands, then it is quite a radical ruling and changes jurisprudence dramatically in the United States". The key part is what is the voted on opinion and how it is actually drafted. We have time to wait for that to come but this is a pre-quake for potential radical change in our legal system. We don't know if it'll stand but there is a risk of massive consequences on the horizon if it happens and based on how it was accomplished. We were already burning down foundational stuff here, and it isn't hard to liken this to being like pouring gas on a flame.

One thing about it. I don't think that Roberts will allow Alito to write the (final) opinion. Even if Roberts was against using Dobbs to Overturn RvW, his pattern is that he would switch his vote and assign the opinion to himself (at least in my view).

A couple of other things I noticed. In looking at the Dobbs questions, ALL of the 'conservative' justices completely ignored Griswold in their questioning, and it appears (in the couple of pages I read, and the articles) that Alito's draft opinion completely ignores Griswold as well.

Given that RvW is based upon the right to privacy from the Gov't initially recognized in Griswold (about contraception), it is rather insane to try to argue that RvW is bad law without analyzing the foundations of the opinion in Griswold.

Though I have minimal doubts that this Court would have any compunction regarding also eventually banning contraception as well, etc.

[hitbyambulance]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

You've been an asshole to me for like forever
Now from this moment forward; I'm callin out your bullshit in the most direct way possible. Stop following me around like a bad smell. You don't like me; I don't like you. Piss off and stay that way.

I spent years trying to help you, offering you advice, researching options, and have put in many, many hours on your behalf. You decided to ignore the advice of the entire community, and to embrace the insanity rather than deal with it, and now - yeah. I call bullshit when I see it, and suggesting that the government arm half of the country for the purpose of overthrowing the other half isn't just an extreme position, it's insanity, and I think if you cover up the names and scroll back, everyone else has responded in kind. So I guess that makes us all assholes - suggestion - if you want to avoid assholes, and we're all assholes, go somewhere else.

(I'm moving on.)

Spoilered for off topic

Spoiler:

Goddamnit. *shakes his head* You're more right then wrong. I'm melting down over this. I somehow thought if I could somehow convince someone *ANYONE* that I was right my worldview woule be validated. I was wrong. My stupid opinions don't matter. Things will unfold just the way they will . Also. You know. I could be kinder to EVERYONE here. Somewhere I found the idea that internet people don't have feelings or wants or needs and that everyone would be cool. I need to grow the fuck up.

I'm sorry to everyone here and if there is a future for me here I will change my behaviors going forward

Spoiler:

i know what you're getting at - like Putin, there are bullying authoritarian gangster/cartel-thinking individuals who only understand the language of violence, and the only way to put them in their place is to beat them down good. that's not a tactic to be used lightly, however, or as the saying goes, you become no better than them.

[malchior]

Roberts just confirmed it was a true leak and they are investigating. He says it won't change the operation of the Court. Good luck with that, Roberts.

Edit: In other news, Biden made a long extemporaneous statement today about this and it largely mirrors what I think. He actually said this is a ruling that would be word for word what Bork might have wrote.

(To paraphrase) "If this is the decision as it stands, then it is quite a radical ruling and changes jurisprudence dramatically in the United States". The key part is what is the voted on opinion and how it is actually drafted. We have time to wait for that to come but this is a pre-quake for potential radical change in our legal system. We don't know if it'll stand but there is a risk of massive consequences on the horizon if it happens and based on how it was accomplished. We were already burning down foundational stuff here, and it isn't hard to liken this to being like pouring gas on a flame.

One thing about it. I don't think that Roberts will allow Alito to write the (final) opinion. Even if Roberts was against using Dobbs to Overturn RvW, his pattern is that he would switch his vote and assign the opinion to himself (at least in my view).

It won't be that easy. He needs to get them signed as a majority on his opinion. And it seems likely that the Alito draft is the view of that majority. I don't think that is anywhere close to where Roberts is. I could see Roberts doing is a Concurrence/Dissent of some sort though.

A couple of other things I noticed. In looking at the Dobbs questions, ALL of the 'conservative' justices completely ignored Griswold in their questioning, and it appears (in the couple of pages I read, and the articles) that Alito's draft opinion completely ignores Griswold as well.

It ignores it but Griswold would be signaled as possibly on the table. We'll see if a state decides to test it.

Given that RvW is based upon the right to privacy from the Gov't initially recognized in Griswold (about contraception), it is rather insane to try to argue that RvW is bad law without analyzing the foundations of the opinion in Griswold.

That is one of the ways this draft opinion is intellectually dishonest. One way he tries to avoid the Griswold analysis is that in a whiff of illogic and sophistry he waves a magic wand saying that this discussion is special to abortion. Bullshit. This court has been throwing out precedents for the last 2 years with caveats about how each of them were special cases. That is why this decision will be important. It'll be ripping the mask off and showing us the true face of their jurisprudence.

Though I have minimal doubts that this Court would have any compunction regarding also eventually banning contraception as well, etc.

Agreed.

[Drazzil]

What in the holy heck does that even mean? Tanks? Tigers? Ponies with lasers on their heads?

It means Drazzil. And for god's sake, everyone stop engaging.

You've been an asshole to me for like forever
Now from this moment forward; I'm callin out your bullshit in the most direct way possible. Stop following me around like a bad smell. You don't like me; I don't like you. Piss off and stay that way.

I spent years trying to help you, offering you advice, researching options, and have put in many, many hours on your behalf. You decided to ignore the advice of the entire community, and to embrace the insanity rather than deal with it, and now - yeah. I call bullshit when I see it, and suggesting that the government arm half of the country for the purpose of overthrowing the other half isn't just an extreme position, it's insanity, and I think if you cover up the names and scroll back, everyone else has responded in kind. So I guess that makes us all assholes - suggestion - if you want to avoid assholes, and we're all assholes, go somewhere else.

(I'm moving on.)

Spoilered for off topic

Spoiler:

Goddamnit. *shakes his head* You're more right then wrong. I'm melting down over this. I somehow thought if I could somehow convince someone *ANYONE* that I was right my worldview woule be validated. I was wrong. My stupid opinions don't matter. Things will unfold just the way they will . Also. You know. I could be kinder to EVERYONE here. Somewhere I found the idea that internet people don't have feelings or wants or needs and that everyone would be cool. I need to grow the fuck up.

I'm sorry to everyone here and if there is a future for me here I will change my behaviors going forward

Spoiler:

i know what you're getting at - like Putin, there are bullying authoritarian gangster/cartel-thinking individuals who only understand the language of violence, and the only way to put them in their place is to beat them down good. that's not a tactic to be used lightly, however, or as the saying goes, you become no better than them.

My enduring but oft disappointed hope is that this will be viscious slap in the face the American public needs to WAKE UP and realize that POLITICS MATTER!!!

[Dogstar]

Given that RvW is based upon the right to privacy from the Gov't initially recognized in Griswold (about contraception), it is rather insane to try to argue that RvW is bad law without analyzing the foundations of the opinion in Griswold.

That is one of the ways this draft opinion is intellectually dishonest. One way he tries to avoid the Griswold analysis is that in a whiff of illogic and sophistry he waves a magic wand saying that this discussion is special to abortion. Bullshit. This court has been throwing out precedents for the last 2 years with caveats about how each of them were special cases. That is why this decision will be important. It'll be ripping the mask off and showing us the true face of their jurisprudence.

Though I have minimal doubts that this Court would have any compunction regarding also eventually banning contraception as well, etc.

Agreed.

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

[gbasden]

The urge to fight back is warring with the urge to bunker down and hope they don't start issuing jackboots before I die.

Also, can I claim refugee status and get aid in leaving Indiana?

Those of us in California will help during the inevitable refugee crisis.

[El Guapo]

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

I think it's overstating things to say that this decision means that Obergefell and Lawrence will definitely be overturned. I will say that this decision moves those things from "almost unthinkable" to "a material danger", but at the same time I doubt that there's 5 votes currently for overturning Obergefell or Lawrence.

I am now nervous about it, though. And of course, god forbid President Trump or DeSantis get to nominate a new justice in 2025.

[stessier]

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

I think it's overstating things to say that this decision means that Obergefell and Lawrence will definitely be overturned. I will say that this decision moves those things from "almost unthinkable" to "a material danger", but at the same time I doubt that there's 5 votes currently for overturning Obergefell or Lawrence.

I am now nervous about it, though. And of course, god forbid President Trump or DeSantis get to nominate a new justice in 2025.

Do you doubt they have 4 though?

[Zarathud]

They just have to have state Republicans pass a bunch of unconstitutional laws to make the issues unsettled, then apply the analysis that the controversy makes it a legislative decision and not a constitutional issue. It’s a pathetic excuse to change decades of Roe v Wade precedent.

Rather than acknowledging the bad faith, irresponsible and unconstitutional state legislation, this decision would serve as a roadmap to further bad behavior designed to restrict freedom.

[malchior]

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

I think it's overstating things to say that this decision means that Obergefell and Lawrence will definitely be overturned. I will say that this decision moves those things from "almost unthinkable" to "a material danger", but at the same time I doubt that there's 5 votes currently for overturning Obergefell or Lawrence.

I am now nervous about it, though. And of course, god forbid President Trump or DeSantis get to nominate a new justice in 2025.

Right nothing is a fait accompli. Except Roe which we sort of expected but maybe not so nakedly. However, the larger pattern has been been pointed out by Kagan and Sotomayor in recent dissents. They have been writing consistently about how the majority has been throwing out settled law and I expect this dissent to again point this out. That puts a whole lot of case law in material danger. And they are showing they are not afraid of using their power. It is a matter of how much alignment they have on individual issues.

[malchior]

They just have to have state Republicans pass a bunch of unconstitutional laws to make the issues unsettled, then apply the analysis that the controversy makes it a legislative decision and not a constitutional issue. It’s a pathetic excuse to change decades of Roe v Wade precedent.

Rather than acknowledging the bad faith, irresponsible and unconstitutional state legislation, this decision would serve as a roadmap to further bad behavior designed to restrict freedom.

This has literally been their playbook for years. ALEC and the Koch network have a pipeline of laws that are meant to serve up test cases for SCOTUS. This has had results in the past. We are just seeing that trend accelerating and trending far more radical now.

[El Guapo]

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

I think it's overstating things to say that this decision means that Obergefell and Lawrence will definitely be overturned. I will say that this decision moves those things from "almost unthinkable" to "a material danger", but at the same time I doubt that there's 5 votes currently for overturning Obergefell or Lawrence.

I am now nervous about it, though. And of course, god forbid President Trump or DeSantis get to nominate a new justice in 2025.

Right nothing is a fait accompli. Except Roe which we sort of expected but maybe not so nakedly. However, the larger pattern has been been pointed out by Kagan and Sotomayor in recent dissents. They have been writing consistently about how the majority has been throwing out settled law and I expect this dissent to again point this out. That puts a whole lot of case law in material danger. And they are showing they are not afraid of using their power. It is a matter of how much alignment they have on individual issues.

Yeah, I guess the broader point is that a 6 justice conservative majority puts a lot of settled law in danger. We can never know which bombs are going to go off, but for sure some of them will.

Mainly I'm not totally freaked out about Obergefell because I don't think that overturning gay marriage is near the top of the conservative movement's overall agenda, and I don't *think* that Kavanaugh, Roberts, or Gorsuch are super bigoted on gay marriage (though I could be wrong).

[El Guapo]

"Yes, I'm stating that even though I spent a portion of this opinion attacking unenumerated rights not deeply rooted in tradition, we'll only apply that reasoning in just this one case."

Insert GIF of Lucy, football, Charley Brown...

I think it's overstating things to say that this decision means that Obergefell and Lawrence will definitely be overturned. I will say that this decision moves those things from "almost unthinkable" to "a material danger", but at the same time I doubt that there's 5 votes currently for overturning Obergefell or Lawrence.

I am now nervous about it, though. And of course, god forbid President Trump or DeSantis get to nominate a new justice in 2025.

Do you doubt they have 4 though?

I'm assuming that Thomas and Alito would be 100% on board. Barrett seems probable as well. I doubt Roberts would do it. So the questions would be mainly around Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Between the two of them Kavanaugh seems more reasonable and less hardcore, so I feel better about him, but I'd want to do more digging on the two of them on LGBT stuff to be more confident.

[malchior]

Mainly I'm not totally freaked out about Obergefell because I don't think that overturning gay marriage is near the top of the conservative movement's overall agenda, and I don't *think* that Kavanaugh, Roberts, or Gorsuch are super bigoted on gay marriage (though I could be wrong).

FWIW I don't think it'll be bigotry if it did happen. I think they are dead set on returning power to the states. There has always been an anti-Federal bent in modern Conservative thought that wishes it was 1859 again. It is ascendent now.

[El Guapo]

Mainly I'm not totally freaked out about Obergefell because I don't think that overturning gay marriage is near the top of the conservative movement's overall agenda, and I don't *think* that Kavanaugh, Roberts, or Gorsuch are super bigoted on gay marriage (though I could be wrong).

FWIW I don't think it'll be bigotry if it did happen. I think they are dead set on returning power to the states. There has always been an anti-Federal bent in modern Conservative thought that wishes it was 1859 again. It is ascendent now.

I know, but bigotry here can't help but influence one's thinking. Like, do you think of the issue as being the right to gay marriage, or the right to marriage for everyone?