Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor

[Torie]

Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

Why the hell wouldn't it? Seriously.

There's a downright thugish element to such logic, that picking up a supreme court seat to reverse a law is no different than winning an open senate seat to reverse a law. It utterly and absolutely ignores the differing role of the judicial branch.

Though liberals can be said to feel the same way towards close conservative decisions like Citizens United.

Stare decisis is at its weakest when it comes to controversial decisions about the interpretation of Constitutional text. Having said that, buttressing it as time goes by, would be that a reversal could dissolve a lot of gay marriages, entered into on reliance on this decision, and obviously such a consequence would be even more problematical than the disruption of contracts involving mere money entered into on reliance on a SCOTUS decision. The ying and the yang. In this case, given public opinion, where it is  (majority support SSM), and where it is going (supra majority support SSM), there won't be an overturning anyway. It's not like the abortion decisions.

[Torie]

But Torie, you want a Republican President to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn this decision, if they got the chance.  No?

Oh, it is way more complicated than that for me.

1. I have not read the decision yet, and would need to do so, and closely, before deciding whether I think it is wrong, and if so, just how wrong, and just how mischievous the precedent is for other cases on other issues (e.g. the embracing of the "living Constitution" concept whole hog, hook, line and sinker).  As to the latter point, it may be that I would just want the rationale for the decision to be made on narrower grounds.

2. See my comment on stare decisis above. Dissolving a host of marriages is a real negative for overturning the decision.

3. If I had been on the Court, I might well have gone for a ruling that forced states to recognize out of state SSM but not forcing states to issue licenses for new marriages, based on the concept of right to travel, along with a concept analogous to the commerce clause ... that some state regulations place an undue burden on it, such as having unusual regulations for trucks, so that they cannot easily move across state lines.

4. Unlike a passel of Pub candidates, I am not much animated by the issue of this ruling creating the specter of infringement of religious expression. That issue can be resolved through other cases, that create the appropriate exceptions to protect such expression, which I have outlined in a post elsewhere. So that concern, should not preclude giving SSM marriages additional and appropriate Constitutional protection.

Hope that helps.

[Torie]

"You want a Supreme Court who would overturn this decision, even if you don't necessarily want them to overturn this decision."

That is not what I said, and I don't even understand your sentence. But I stand by what I wrote. I think it is clear enough, and that you disagree with it. That's hardly surprising.