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.
Hope that helps.
I don't think your darling Jeb Bush or Donald Trump or John Kasich are going to appoint you to the Supreme Court. They would appoint Paul Clement or Mike Lee or some other crazy conservative.
So, what you think doesn't actually matter to my original point. You want a Supreme Court who would overturn this decision, even if you don't necessarily want them to overturn this decision. You're that type of gay who is like a turkey that supports farmers with axes.
And, just, holy cow, you're so pedantic. If you're so against the living Constitution, you can't use trucks to ground your analysis of anything. They weren't invented way back when. Rather, you need to take your lawyer cap for a minute and think about why this decision happened.
Laws matter, but only so much. Remember, we had the 14th Amendment during Jim Crow. It didn't do anything to help black people. Instead, what we needed was a social evolution where we viewed black people as equal to white people and deserving of the same rights. That happened next for women. And, now, for gay people. We now view homosexuality as an immutable trait and homosexuality as a benign characteristic of a person, not a disease or a sin. That is a change in the social facts informing our legal system. Thus, this has nothing to do with a changing Constitution, it has to do with shifting social facts which inform the laws.
