SCOTUS Watch

[ImLawBoy]

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.

If I'm feeling generous, I'd say it's a mix of bigotry and true anti-Federalism. If I'm not feeling generous, I'd say it's bigotry cloaked in a mask of anti-federalism.

[Zaxxon]

True statement.

[malchior]

I love how people focus on her - "I feel rocked" statement when statement 1 out of her mouth was decrying the leak. Then she went on to talk about the leaked draft. One statement for Fox and one for the dupes in the MSM.

[Drazzil]

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.

Spoiler:

No. Still sober. Going on a month. Not that it matters for the purpose of this convo

.

[Drazzil]

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.

If I'm feeling generous, I'd say it's a mix of bigotry and true anti-Federalism. If I'm not feeling generous, I'd say it's bigotry cloaked in a mask of anti-federalism.

Psst... Someone should clue these "conservatives" about what happened in April of 65.

Although.... Well gosh does that mean they're gonna break up the banks and go back to the gold standard?

[malchior]

Thread here

He specifically talks through some of the issues including Alito's inaccurate review of colonial "pre-quickening" law.

[Drazzil]

Thread here

He specifically talks through some of the issues including Alito's inaccurate review of colonial "pre-quickening" law.

Yeeeah. You'd pretty much have to go back to colonial times to find people to agree with Alito. I wonder how far he'll have to search into legal precedent to support his batshit theories? Salem? The middle ages? Ancient Assyria? Its anyones guess.

[Exodor]

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?

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.

Because this finding doesn't just remove the right to abortion - Alito is effectively throwing out the entire idea of unenumerated rights, not just the right to privacy. That throws everything into question including gay marriage, integrated marriage, access to contraception and school desegregation. And of course you can expect Republicans to push for a national abortion ban the moment they have control of both houses and the presidency

I'm tired of having to live under the same flawed system as those who want to live in a Christian theocracy.

[Kurth]

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?

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.

Because this finding doesn't just remove the right to abortion - Alito is effectively throwing out the entire idea of unenumerated rights, not just the right to privacy. That throws everything into question including gay marriage, integrated marriage, access to contraception and school desegregation. And of course you can expect Republicans to push for a national abortion ban the moment they have control of both houses and the presidency

I'm tired of having to live under the same flawed system as those who want to live in a Christian theocracy.

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

[Exodor]

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

Yes I do - and a national ban on abortion or gay marriage effects Portland just as much as Alabama. That's the end-game. And it's only possible because our system of government is seemingly designed to allow a minority of voters to have outsized influence. This decision is only possible because Trump, who lost the popular vote, was able to appoint 3 to SCOTUS.

[Kurth]

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

Yes I do - and a national ban on abortion or gay marriage effects Portland just as much as Alabama. That's the end-game. And it's only possible because our system of government is seemingly designed to allow a minority of voters to have outsized influence. This decision is only possible because Trump, who lost the popular vote, was able to appoint 3 to SCOTUS.

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

[Kurth]

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.

I agree 100%. And I also agree with malchior's statements about societal and political realignment and this Supreme Court has nuked whatever brakes were holding those shifts back.

I'm just not sure what there is to do about these things. If the people in these states want so badly to live in a place where God is great, guns are plentiful and abortions are prohibited, are we going to break up the country over that? And if we did, to what end? The people in those states who want those things are still going to vote for them. I know this disproportionately impacts people who are not mobile enough to get out of those places, and that's terrible. But, again, I don't know that there's anything to be done about it at this point.

We are a nation divided. Maybe the best way to avoid a civil war is to just accept those divisions and try to find a way to live with them. I've never been a "states' rights" guy, but maybe the path forward, at least for now, is to focus on more limited federal powers. After all, there's a good chance that the GOP holds both houses of congress and the presidency in 2024. Maybe strong states' rights is something people in Blue states should be embracing right now.

I'm not committed to these ideas. Just thinking out-loud and in a very depressed state after reading the Alito draft opinion and then hearing Trump crow about his king-making abilities in connection with JD Vance's primary win in OH tonight.

[malchior]

I agree 100%. And I also agree with malchior's statements about societal and political realignment and this Supreme Court has nuked whatever brakes were holding those shifts back.

I'll also point out it is a realignment in a direction a vast majority don't want. Most people don't want to see abortion completely banned. I've seen figures at 30% for that. Yet it is going to happen in wide swaths of the country.

I'm just not sure what there is to do about these things. If the people in these states want so badly to live in a place where God is great, guns are plentiful and abortions are prohibited, are we going to break up the country over that? And if we did, to what end? The people in those states who want those things are still going to vote for them. I know this disproportionately impacts people who are not mobile enough to get out of those places, and that's terrible. But, again, I don't know that there's anything to be done about it at this point.

This is the rub for me. Even in the states that are supposedly "red" total bans on abortion aren't very popular. Like around 20% want that. Most people want restricted access. A lot of people are being disenfranchised and would be trapped behind "enemy lines" even if we were able to separate ourselves.

The root cause problem is our system is flat out broken. It depended on compromise and we rarely find areas of compromise. Mostly because the Republicans have radicalized and won't accept no or yes but as an answer. There doesn't seem to be any movement to moderate political conduct there. It's been a cold civil war right now and the ideas with majority support are consistently losing. IMO that is what has driven a good deal of the 'culture war'. Law and policy is completely disconnected with what people want. And because the right has the ability to obstruct or control it has created this intolerable pressure in our society.

In this scenario, one of the few ways they can continue to maintain control is authoritarianism unfortunately. How can they control the behavior of people otherwise? They may bring all the lessons they learned conducting the war on drugs to people's homes and bedrooms. The thought is chilling to me but it is a real possibility now.

We are a nation divided. Maybe the best way to avoid a civil war is to just accept those divisions and try to find a way to live with them. I've never been a "states' rights" guy, but maybe the path forward, at least for now, is to focus on more limited federal powers. After all, there's a good chance that the GOP holds both houses of congress and the presidency in 2024. Maybe strong states' rights is something people in Blue states should be embracing right now.

Sure until they decide that now they'll suddenly be for strong Federal control (of blue states). I still don't think people are getting that whatever plan you make - they'll just change the rules again. It isn't about honest discourse or rules anymore. It is about control and they'll have it. They have enough control even when Democrats control the Presidency and both chamber of Congress.

In the end, it comes down to the idea that they do not believe in the legitimacy of different ideas. They are authoritarians now. Call it Trumpism. Fascism. The New Right (more below). Still whatever it ends up being called we're in trouble. We need to start thinking about how we want to move forward as *individuals* because I have little doubt that they are going to continue to exercise raw power for whatever ends they choose. And *we the people* will not be in that conversation in a meaningful way.

I'm not committed to these ideas. Just thinking out-loud and in a very depressed state after reading the Alito draft opinion and then hearing Trump crow about his king-making abilities in connection with JD Vance's primary win in OH tonight.

What's more interesting (and far more depressing) is that the Thiel's of the world are hiding in plain sight using Trump to build right-wing street cred. However, the donors are the ones actually pulling the strings. JD Vance actually demonstrates the power of 'The New Right' which is just a code for autocratic plutocracy masquerading as populists.

Anyway, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's worse than Trump. Maybe much worse. JD Vance is more aligned with DeSantis than Trump in reality and they are the true ascending danger. That is why I've gotten even darker than usual because I think they'll ride Trump until they are ready to drop his bloated political corpse in the Gulf Stream. But they very well may be the autocrats we have been afraid were waiting in the wings. Tom Cotton and Hawley? They are all in the same mold. All are well-educated, amoral, and understand where power truly lies in the United States - with money. We're fucked.

If your interested in reading up on the ascending horror...

Good primer on the New Right

A good boil down on the Vance result in the context of the New Right

[Exodor]

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

Yes I do - and a national ban on abortion or gay marriage effects Portland just as much as Alabama. That's the end-game. And it's only possible because our system of government is seemingly designed to allow a minority of voters to have outsized influence. This decision is only possible because Trump, who lost the popular vote, was able to appoint 3 to SCOTUS.

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

Of course it's not - but it's the first step towards that goal. If what's released is the final ruling it makes clear that a national ban will pass constitutional muster. Do you think those who have been pushing against abortion rights for 50 years will hesitate to push for a national ban once they get a chance?

[El Guapo]

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

Yes I do - and a national ban on abortion or gay marriage effects Portland just as much as Alabama. That's the end-game. And it's only possible because our system of government is seemingly designed to allow a minority of voters to have outsized influence. This decision is only possible because Trump, who lost the popular vote, was able to appoint 3 to SCOTUS.

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

While Roe getting overturned doesn't automatically mean a national ban, I expect that there will be a push for a federal ban if the GOP controls the presidency + Congress in 2025. Probably will be like the ACA repeal in 2017 - the party leadership probably won't really want to do it but it'll be moved along by the extremists and no one will want to say no to them.

So while I wouldn't say that a national ban on abortion is inevitable, there is a very real chance of that happening this decade.

[Zaxxon]

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

That's... quite a charitable take, Kurth.

[Combustible Lemur]

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

That's... quite a charitable take, Kurth.

And naive. The trump base foot soldiers and some legislators are already saying out loud they ready to move on those other topics. Most of the legal criticism point out that the draft reasoning directly and intentionally negates a whole host of civil rights precedent.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Blackhawk]

I don't know that there will be an actual Federal "ban." As I understand it, the very core of the RvW decision prevents that on the basis that the government doesn't have the right to dictate those things.

What I expect is a de-facto ban. The government will make it as easy as possible for individual states to ban it, and put up all sorts of roadblocks to allowing it. For example, they can make gay marriage nearly meaningless (beyond the personal level) without banning it simply by allowing states, businesses, officials, and agencies to choose not to recognize it.

This results in, what, migrations of people with nontraditional lifestyles into a few states? I'm sure that will make places like Texas happy, but it will just increase the cultural divide and hinder rights.

If these social differences were more regional, I think we would have already split.

[Blackhawk]

Most of the legal criticism point out that the draft reasoning directly and intentionally negates a whole host of civil rights precedent.

That's pretty much the plan...

[geezer]

You live in Portland, OR, right? We've absolutely got our share of flaws in the system out here, but I'm not sure one of them is that it's a Christian theocracy.

Yes I do - and a national ban on abortion or gay marriage effects Portland just as much as Alabama. That's the end-game. And it's only possible because our system of government is seemingly designed to allow a minority of voters to have outsized influence. This decision is only possible because Trump, who lost the popular vote, was able to appoint 3 to SCOTUS.

This is NOT about a national ban on abortion, let alone gay marriage. There's a country mile between this decision and those outcomes.

While Roe getting overturned doesn't automatically mean a national ban, I expect that there will be a push for a federal ban if the GOP controls the presidency + Congress in 2025. Probably will be like the ACA repeal in 2017 - the party leadership probably won't really want to do it but it'll be moved along by the extremists and no one will want to say no to them.

So while I wouldn't say that a national ban on abortion is inevitable, there is a very real chance of that happening this decade.

There's also the reality - happening right now - of states trying to criminalize travel outside of state lines for access, which would effectively create a "national ban" for people who have the misfortune of living in certain geographic locations.

[Smoove_B]

That's... quite a charitable take, Kurth.

I dunno. These Christian Dominionists seem like reasonable folk. I'm sure they're going to stop after the abortion issue and totally not push their hate muppets towards other things at a local, regional and national scale.

RE: The possible "fracturing" of America. I will fully admit that perhaps my take isn't rooted in reality or a solid legal framework, but it strikes me as problematic when the Supreme Court is poised to remove an established liberty from ~50% of the population. If that isn't a society-level fracturing event, what would be?

[Dogstar]

I agree 100%. And I also agree with malchior's statements about societal and political realignment and this Supreme Court has nuked whatever brakes were holding those shifts back.

I'm just not sure what there is to do about these things. If the people in these states want so badly to live in a place where God is great, guns are plentiful and abortions are prohibited, are we going to break up the country over that? And if we did, to what end? The people in those states who want those things are still going to vote for them. I know this disproportionately impacts people who are not mobile enough to get out of those places, and that's terrible. But, again, I don't know that there's anything to be done about it at this point.

If we seek to hold onto the union, we accept that being a US citizen is going to look vastly different in Oklahoma as opposed to California and leave everything up to the states to decide. I feel deeply uncomfortable with that, but I'm not sure you hold the country together at this point without that approach. In a slightly better world, there would be mobility incentives and assistance for those who wanted to live in a different state that has a differing view on rights. I'm not holding my breath though.

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

[Blackhawk]

It is a fracturing event.

We just lack clear fault lines. It's hard to fracture a nation when the divide is between 3,000 counties, all mixed up together.

[Blackhawk]

Unless we're just talking about social fracturing. If that's the case, we're already in Humpty Dumpty territory.

[malchior]

There's also the reality - happening right now - of states trying to criminalize travel outside of state lines for access, which would effectively create a "national ban" for people who have the misfortune of living in certain geographic locations.

Which will in turn potentially make this a Federal issue and subject to legal review...

[Kurth]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

This is my take as well. We can survive returning abortion legislation to the states, but if the result of the Supreme Court rolling back unenumerated rights is the passage of federal legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, etc., then I think all bets are off.

[Little Raven]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

No. We settled this issue quite decisively in 1865. States don't get to leave. You can complain, you can work to change the system from within, but nobody gets to take their ball and go home. And nobody, even Texas or California, is going to try - if for no other reason than we no longer have state militias that can effectively function on the modern battlefield.

[ImLawBoy]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

No. We settled this issue quite decisively in 1865. States don't get to leave. You can complain, you can work to change the system from within, but nobody gets to take their ball and go home. And nobody, even Texas or California, is going to try - if for no other reason than we no longer have state militias that can effectively function on the modern battlefield.

Are you as sure on this point as you were that Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned and that people were overreacting to the right-leaning court?

In reality, I don't see a practical way for the union to dissolve or break into multiple regions. Despite all of our differences, we're still too tightly integrated and the potential physical fracture lines are too random to permit it.

[Little Raven]

Are you as sure on this point as you were that Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned and that people were overreacting to the right-leaning court?

Quite. I don't see Washington ever allowing a state to secede, regardless of which state it is or which party is in charge. Democrats would never let red states go and Republicans would never let blue states go....nor should they.

The Union is the most important thing we have. As long as we have that, things can always get better, no matter how bleak they are. If we ever balkanize, then we're truly lost. Anything is better than that.

[malchior]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

No. We settled this issue quite decisively in 1865. States don't get to leave. You can complain, you can work to change the system from within, but nobody gets to take their ball and go home. And nobody, even Texas or California, is going to try - if for no other reason than we no longer have state militias that can effectively function on the modern battlefield.

Like the many other things we think were settled? I don't think no is right but probably fair to say extremely unlikely. There is an implicit and erroneous assumption here that the only answer is via war.

[Zaxxon]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

No. We settled this issue quite decisively in 1865. States don't get to leave. You can complain, you can work to change the system from within, but nobody gets to take their ball and go home. And nobody, even Texas or California, is going to try - if for no other reason than we no longer have state militias that can effectively function on the modern battlefield.

Like the many other things we think were settled? I don't think no is right but probably fair to say extremely unlikely. There is an implicit and erroneous assumption here that the only answer is via war.

That last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

[Dogstar]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

No. We settled this issue quite decisively in 1865. States don't get to leave. You can complain, you can work to change the system from within, but nobody gets to take their ball and go home. And nobody, even Texas or California, is going to try - if for no other reason than we no longer have state militias that can effectively function on the modern battlefield.

I disagree. California is big enough to go it on their own, and it's not like I think this would happen tomorrow or even within five years. It's also not hard to imagine a coalition of states being thrilled with this idea and accepting negotiations for an exit, as it removes 50+ electoral votes and two Senators that would be opposing their agenda. Other states would see the writing on the wall with California gone, and start making their own plans...

More than that LR, is a union that seeks to ever increasingly deprive its own citizens of rights worthing fighting for? I suspect a large number of people, including myself, would answer "No." 1865 was fought about all men being equal. You really think there's a compelling cause for fighting for the union for the opposite of that depending on which state you're in? You think there's compelling logic to fight for being subject to 18th century interpretations of law in the 21st century? I could go on, but I suspect your viewpoint is going to increasingly become the minority if there would be a nationwide rollback of unenumerated rights.

[Little Raven]

That last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

[Little Raven]

I disagree. California is big enough to go it on their own, and it's not like I think this would happen tomorrow or even within five years. It's also not hard to imagine a coalition of states being thrilled with this idea and accepting negotiations for an exit, as it removes 50+ electoral votes and two Senators that would be opposing their agenda. Other states would see the writing on the wall with California gone, and start making their own plans...

It doesn't work that way. There is no clause in the Constitution that I'm aware of that says that California can "negotiate" with anyone to leave the Union. Who they be negotiating WITH? The Federal government literally does not have the authority to let States go even if they're somehow cool with it.

I guess maybe you could say this all takes places as part of Constitutional Convention where the Federal Government is literally dissolved and a new one formed? But at that point, California isn't leaving, the United States is literally ending, and no states are bound to each other in any form any more.

More than that LR, is a union that seeks to ever increasingly deprive its own citizens of rights worthing fighting for?

As I see it, absolutely, but that's because as long as there's a union, we have the potential to make things better. The great power of the United States, as opposed to pretty much every other place on Earth, is that we have the ability to marshal all the resources of a continent into a single national struggle. That's a truly mind-boggling advantage, and if we ever lose it, we'll never get it back. I'm willing to accept a great deal of temporary hardship in order to preserve that for our decedents. They will thank us.

[LordMortis]

The Union is the most important thing we have. As long as we have that, things can always get better, no matter how bleak they are. If we ever balkanize, then we're truly lost. Anything is better than that.

January 6th seen to fruition?

I guess I disagree. My state was nearly lost in 2020 and a coalition of other states tried to see that loss through. And now the courts are showing signs they are ready support that nonsense.

[Zaxxon]

That last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

[malchior]

That last line is the key. Do I think CA is readying to leave? No; I think it's very unlikely. But it's not a zero chance, and it's absolutely not the case that it'd inevitably lead to war.

Please point me to the Constitutional mechanism by which California can leave the Union. I am honestly at a loss.

If we were talking about a political solution, I can think of one off the top of my head. We can pass an amendment to allow it if it there was political will. This is once again extremely unlikely but it is silly to say impossible. Many impossible things become possible with the passage of time.

Edit: What Zaxxon said more succinctly!

[ImLawBoy]

Are you as sure on this point as you were that Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned and that people were overreacting to the right-leaning court?

Quite.

Got it. You're as sure that the union won't break up as you were that RvW wouldn't be overturned. Glad we dodged that bullet!

[Little Raven]

I think you might be confusing me with someone else. Did I actually say Roe wouldn't be overturned?

I mean, god knows I make tons of inaccurate predictions, so I'm not ruling it out, but I don't remember making THAT one.

[El Guapo]

If there are reversals on gay marriage, the right to privacy, the right to choose -- basically a reversal of unenumerated rights, imposed by national law, which I can't rule out the possibility -- then I think we're going to see parts of the country, starting with California, go their separate ways.

This is my take as well. We can survive returning abortion legislation to the states, but if the result of the Supreme Court rolling back unenumerated rights is the passage of federal legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, etc., then I think all bets are off.

The biggest issue (and the fundamental problem with relying on more devolution to the state level) is that our federal system disproportionately empowers a minority of the population (most heavily empowering the rural parts of the country which are disproportionately conservative). The worst offender here is the structure of the Senate, though the Electoral College and gerrymandering / inadequate numbers of representatives in the House also create issues). Also because Senate confirmation is required for SCOTUS justices that further compounds the democracy deficit in our political structures. And the problem with the Senate is only going to get worse, because population growth and migration trends are such that the percentage of the population located in a small number of states is expected to increase.

Now, *maybe* Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Donald Trump, and/or their successors will exercise restraint with the power that will be disproportionately handed to them over the next few decades and will let California, New York, and other blue states be as much as possible. BUT I am inclined to doubt it, both because of who they are and because of how people tend to exercise power in general.

Then the question is - how long will Californians allow their public policy to be set by Wyoming and Nebraska? And what does it look like when they and other disadvantaged states reach their breaking point? Intuitively I'm deeply skeptical about dissolution / secession and the like, and tend to think that the fight will be over the political structures that decide federal representation. But those structures aren't set up to be super amenable to change. So other than expecting this to get ugly, I don't have a great sense of how all this will shake out.