States Introduce Bills to Ban Marriage Equality to Get It Back in Front of SCOTU

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

http://www.newnownext.com/north-carolina-tennessee-kansas-antigay-bills/02/2019/

These people are next level bigots. What are the chances any of these efforts succeed, and if so, do you think Roberts steps in to uphold Obergefell to protect the legacy of the court?

Obviously the best solution is either all these efforts failing in committee, — or being struck down easily by a district court and denied review by SCOTUS.

[7,052,770]

Bbbbut I read on the Atlas forum that this issue is settled and liberals need to stop emphasizing LGBTQ equality.

[JA]

The chances of it making it to the SCOTUS are small, but not zero. The greatest legacies of the Trump Administration will be its rightwing transformation of the courts (which will only get much worse if he wins a second term) and expansion of the Executive at the expense of the Congress. In the long-term, this will result in a strengthening of America’s least democratic institutions at the expense of its most democratic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any of those bills getting passed, if only because more mainstream Republicans see it as a waste of time.  After all, Roberts has shown himself to be somewhat concerned about precedent and there's no way he's going to be the deciding vote to overturn Obergefell.  Now if Trump gets to replace one of the four liberals with a conservative, then both Obergefell and Roe would be at risk with Roberts possibly joining in, but for now, both are safe, tho abortion rights may get some additional limits.

[CEO Mindset]

Democrats have been slowly trending towards moderate, pre-reagan style Republicanism for a while as is(Bernie and AOC aren't the future. Hillary/Romney types are). With the conservative niche filled, no room for the GOP to remain electorally relevant if they do manage to succeed and get roe watered down more/gay marriage tossed back to the states.

The question is what does the replacement party to oppose the democrats look like?

[T'Chenka]

Democrats have been slowly trending towards moderate, pre-reagan style Republicanism for a while as is(Bernie and AOC aren't the future. Hillary/Romney types are).

Bernie and AOC will 100% be the future, IF they can overcome the DNC out-spending them 10 to 1 and making every single primary a massive uphill battle for them. We all saw what they did to Bernie last time.

HI'm hping that this bill never even gets to the Supreme Court in the first place.

[CEO Mindset]

Democrats have been slowly trending towards moderate, pre-reagan style Republicanism for a while as is(Bernie and AOC aren't the future. Hillary/Romney types are).

Bernie and AOC will 100% be the future, IF they can overcome the DNC out-spending them 10 to 1 and making every single primary a massive uphill battle for them. We all saw what they did to Bernie last time.

HI'm hping that this bill never even gets to the Supreme Court in the first place.

The trend since Carter has been for ever freer trade, more corporate power and only doing social liberalism  if there's organized enough campaigns(gay marriage). Bernie/AOC and unfortunately even the best dem who could run, Gabbard are the past, not the future.

It's telling that both a vaguely paleoconservative blogger named agnostic/walley world pilgrim and the Jacobin magazine have both noted the Democrats' ongoing transition into something like the late 19th century GOP: moralistic, "pro-business" capitalists who do nothing for the poor despite being "woke".

[Brittain33]

This is scary, but NC and KS look likely to get vetoed, and noting that Tennessee's got killed last year, I would expect some business opposition if the bill started to get serious traction.

I'd expect something to come out of a state without any major cities / business hubs. Mississippi or Wyoming, for example.

[Big Abraham]

In the long-term, this will result in a strengthening of America’s least democratic institutions at the expense of its most democratic.

Yup.

That said though, there's hardly a chance this happens. Even if it makes it to the Court, they'll almost certainly fail to strike down Obergefell. The only saving grace is if Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Trump rushes a nomination through the Senate before his term is up.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't see any of those bills getting passed, if only because more mainstream Republicans see it as a waste of time.  After all, Roberts has shown himself to be somewhat concerned about precedent and there's no way he's going to be the deciding vote to overturn Obergefell.  Now if Trump gets to replace one of the four liberals with a conservative, then both Obergefell and Roe would be at risk with Roberts possibly joining in, but for now, both are safe, tho abortion rights may get some additional limits.

In the long-term, this will result in a strengthening of America’s least democratic institutions at the expense of its most democratic.

Yup.

That said though, there's hardly a chance this happens. Even if it makes it to the Court, they'll almost certainly fail to strike down Obergefell. The only saving grace is if Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Trump rushes a nomination through the Senate before his term is up.

Honestly, even in a situation where Roberts's vote can be overridden. Obergefell is likely still safe. I honestly think Gorsuch would vote to uphold it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's very hard for me to square the fact that Gorsuch attended an LGBT-Accepting Church when he lived in CO with him overturning Obergefell. The only way I personally see the precedent being at risk is if both Ginsburg and Breyer leave while Trump is still in office and he is able to replace both.

[Antonio the Sixth]

They're deluded if they think the Court will ever overturn its own precedent.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They're deluded if they think the Court will ever overturn its own precedent.

That's happened. Many times. The Janus decision is a recent example.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

They're deluded if they think the Court will ever overturn its own precedent.

We are extremely close to having a court that will never care about political correctness again. The entire future rests on the shoulders of two individuals.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

They're deluded if they think the Court will ever overturn its own precedent.

We are extremely close to having a court that will never care about people, the disadvantaged or civil liberties ever again. The entire future rests on the shoulders of two individuals.

[Antonio the Sixth]

They're deluded if they think the Court will ever overturn its own precedent.

That's happened. Many times. The Janus decision is a recent example.

I'm talking about this specific precedent, sorry. Of course they have done that before and will do it again, but obviously not with SSM (or Roe).

[pbrower2a]

Stare decisis (the legal doctrine that judicial decisions once made are not to be overturned except on some higher principle than those principles  considered in the decision) holds.

The decision is on par with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. It is set.

Yes, there was Plessy v. Ferguson that established the tolerance for "separate but equal" -- but such was proved in practice an oxymoron.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Sure, why not? Conservatives will never be happy until their will can be enforced on every American.

[T'Chenka]

Sure, why not? Conservatives will never be happy until their will can be enforced on every American.

IF it was somehow enforceable and not political suicide, they would 100% legislate that all able bodied men MUST pee standing up (even at home) and not wear lipstick in public. At least on a county or state level.

[Badger]

Sure, why not? Conservatives will never be happy until their will can be enforced on every American.

IF it was somehow enforceable and not political suicide, they would 100% legislate that all able bodied men MUST pee standing up (even at home) and not wear lipstick in public. At least on a county or state level.

There would be a substantial minority of states still willing to re-Outlaw same-sex marriage if Obergfell were reversed next year. Won't happen, but we must be vigilant of civil rights always.

[MarkD]

If there is any chance that the SCOTUS will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, then something must be done to preserve the legal status of SSM nationwide anyway. My idea for a constitutional amendment that rewrites the 14th Amendment could be a solution.

Getting something like a constitutional amendment passed that preserves Obergefell seems like an impossible task because of hyperpolarization. I've thought about that, and I thought of a way to propose such an amendment and give it bipartisan appeal: make sure that it is a compromise.

In the proposal I have drafted, we repeal the second sentence of the 14th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Replace it with a list of enumerated rights the states cannot violate: the rights in the Bill of Rights (the first eight amendments, sans the Grand Jury Clause, the Vicinage Clause, and the Seventh Amendment), the right to travel within the United States, and the right to vote (for citizens). The federal courts will no longer be able to impose on the states the requirement that states obey un-enumerated rights. The kinds of discrimination that states cannot engage in will also be enumerated: discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status. But any other kind of discrimination will be allowed. Redistricting of congressional districts and state legislative districts will be done by independent commissions.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. 
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen   

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated   

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

I think it's a good compromise. Do you think it has a chance of being passed?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its election time and SSM gives R's a leg up. TX, KS and NC have competetive Senate races and the R's dont want to lose them

[emailking]

Stare decisis (the legal doctrine that judicial decisions once made are not to be overturned except on some higher principle than those principles  considered in the decision) holds.

The decision is on par with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. It is set.

Yes, there was Plessy v. Ferguson that established the tolerance for "separate but equal" -- but such was proved in practice an oxymoron.

Brown didn't overturn Plessy. They ruled separate but equal was not realized in practice so the schools had to integrate. Courts are loathe to actually overturn precedent.

[pbrower2a]

Stare decisis (the legal doctrine that judicial decisions once made are not to be overturned except on some higher principle than those principles  considered in the decision) holds.

The decision is on par with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. It is set.

Yes, there was Plessy v. Ferguson that established the tolerance for "separate but equal" -- but such was proved in practice an oxymoron.

Brown didn't overturn Plessy. They ruled separate but equal was not realized in practice so the schools had to integrate. Courts are loathe to actually overturn precedent.

True. But "separate but equal" whose foundation is separation base upon race but in which those who enforce the separation have no responsibility to make good on equality always turns out badly.

There are states, including some in the last batch of states to have same-sex marriage legalized in accordance with Obergfell v. Hedges, that would formalize such through legislation or initiative.