SCOTUS to target Obergefell next

[Indus]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1548394433577508865

There it is. It's coming!

Gays for Trump woohoo.. time to be so happy!

 

[eelw]

Well some red neck has to dispute a gay marriage and it has to make its way through the lower courts. And most cases don’t get considered by SCOTUS until the following years term. So at least 2 years at the earliest.

 

[cytg111]

Of course they are. Should get it on record before midterms.

 

[K1052]

Well some red neck has to dispute a gay marriage and it has to make its way through the lower courts. And most cases don’t get considered by SCOTUS until the following years term. So at least 2 years at the earliest.

Nah they'll find a case they like and judge shop the 5th circuit as usual. Conservatives on the court just have to deny a stay.

 

[Moonbeam]

"How can I feel good about myself as a moral person if I don't make bad people pay for their sins? Does somebody seriously think I am going to question the fact that being gay is evil? I get into heaven if you go to hell, you commie gay loving liberal bastards."

 

[Zorba]

Nah they'll find a case they like and judge shop the 5th circuit as usual. Conservatives on the court just have to deny a stay.

Yeah, it's amazing how quickly they can get their bullshit cases through the system.

 

[Pens1566]

Well, duh ...

 

[Drach]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1548394433577508865

There it is. It's coming!

Gays for Trump woohoo.. time to be so happy!

Is it socially acceptable to stab him in the heart?
Just asking.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sorry, but the next USSC case that really matters is going to be about the Federal workforce.

The Battle for the Public Service Is Just Beginning

We are in the midst of a critical debate over the future of the federal workforce.

www.govexec.com

"We are in the midst of a critical debate over the future of the federal workforce—and with it, about the future role of the federal government. It is raising questions more fundamental than at any time since the passage of the Pendleton Act, which established the civil service system in 1883. The questions speak to the role of administrators in our constitutional system of governance and, indeed, the Constitution itself. The issues are gaining steam on the right, all but guaranteeing that the Trump executive order—or something like it—will continue to at the center of the debate over workforce policy in the public sector, not only at the federal level but in the states as well."

 

[brycejones]

Sorry, but the next USSC case that really matters is going to be about the Federal workforce.

The Battle for the Public Service Is Just Beginning

We are in the midst of a critical debate over the future of the federal workforce.

www.govexec.com

"We are in the midst of a critical debate over the future of the federal workforce—and with it, about the future role of the federal government. It is raising questions more fundamental than at any time since the passage of the Pendleton Act, which established the civil service system in 1883. The questions speak to the role of administrators in our constitutional system of governance and, indeed, the Constitution itself. The issues are gaining steam on the right, all but guaranteeing that the Trump executive order—or something like it—will continue to at the center of the debate over workforce policy in the public sector, not only at the federal level but in the states as well."

If you want to start a thread about that subject please do so. Don't deflect from the subject of this thread.

Also the spoils system was a shit show. Leave it up to conservatives to want to bring those good old days back.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If you want to start a thread about that subject please do so. Don't deflect from the subject of this thread.

Also the spoils system was a shit show. Leave it up to conservatives to want to bring those good old days back.

The OP is : SCOTUS to target Obergefell next. I disagree with the premise that it is next on the SCOTUS calendar and offered up one of my own.

I'm sorry if you have trouble reading, but it is not my problem and part of the reason i usually have you censored.

 

[brycejones]

The OP is : SCOTUS to target Obergefell next. I disagree with the premise that it is next on the SCOTUS calendar and offered up one of my own.

I'm sorry if you have trouble reading, but it is not my problem and part of the reason i usually have you censored.

Since the OP is clearly talking about cases involving civil rights your post was pretty far off the mark. Sorry you have difficulty understanding context.

 

[pmv]

Actually that's quite interesting. Sounds very much like the Republicans next aim is to take political control of the civil service. Did strike me that logically the thing one would expect them to prioritise, having gained control of the Supreme Court, is to segue that into complete control of the US political and electoral system.

That seems more important than going after culture-war things like gay marriage - which could always be rolled back again if the political tide turns - because it's potentially self-sustaining and irreversible. It would allow them to turn the US into the permanent-minority-rule fascist state they clearly want it to be.

 

[cytg111]

Manafort should be in gitmo being waterboarded for the rest of his natural life spitting all his treasonous dealings with foreign bodies.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually that's quite interesting. Sounds very much like the Republicans next aim is to take political control of the civil service. Did strike me that logically the thing one would expect them to prioritise, having gained control of the Supreme Court, is to segue that into complete control of the US political and electoral system.

That seems more important than going after culture-war things like gay marriage - which could always be rolled back again if the political tide turns - because it's potentially self-sustaining and irreversible. It would allow them to turn the US into the permanent-minority-rule fascist state they clearly want it to be.

What’s interesting/terrible about all this is that it’s just a law - when Republicans have controlled the federal government they could just change the law and remove those civil service protections. They don’t do that though because that would be horrifically unpopular and basically nobody supports it.

So much like with the EPA case they have decided to use the courts as a super legislature to pass laws they could never pass through the elected branches.

 

[Jaskalas]

There's some notion bouncing around Republican heads, that our government is way too large and is far past some unspecified constitutional bounds and limitations. As if the things it does on a daily basis are illegal. And things like the FCC even existing are unconstitutional. That it is Congress's job to write the rules and regulations of all the agencies themselves. As if Congress cannot delegate power.

If the SCOTUS pursues this notion, it would cripple if not destroy much of our federal government and its capacity to administer.

 

[brycejones]

And the last 3 posters fell into Taj's trap.

 

[Indus]

You think people care???

Look at these voters:

And that's how the conservaterrorists are winning.

 

[fskimospy]

There's some notion bouncing around Republican heads, that our government is way too large and is far past some unspecified constitutional bounds and limitations. As if the things it does on a daily basis are illegal. And things like the FCC even existing are unconstitutional. That it is Congress's job to write the rules and regulations of all the agencies themselves. As if Congress cannot delegate power.

If the SCOTUS pursues this notion, it would cripple if not destroy much of our federal government and its capacity to administer.

Yep - this is related to my previous comment. Conservatives don’t like the modern state but the voters love it. So when faced with the fact that what they want is at odds with what the citizens in a democracy want their answer is not to convince people of the rightness of their position, it’s to attempt to overthrow the will of the voters with unelected judges.

 

[Brovane]

As soon as I read what Thomas wrote I knew they were coming for this next. It is a little soon for them to go after contraception. Same Sex Marriage is a easier target. Let's get this all out in the open before Mid-terms so people can see what their agenda is.

 

[trenchfoot]

Now that the Repubs have successfully transformed the SCOTUS into an activist legislative branch of their party, it will take the Democrats to win the Executive and a clear majority of the Legislative branches to counter what McConnell has done toward thoroughly corrupting the SCOTUS in the Repub's favor and also counter how obstructionists Manchin and his sidekick Sinema are doing their very best to wreck the party's legislative efforts. It's either getting that done or suffer the consequences for decades to come.

Getting out the vote in large enough numbers by the Dems is for all practical purposes the only solution toward solving those problems. I'm just wondering why the Dems haven't done much more to rile up the party faithful and the independents in this regard.

The SCOTUS is now a clear and present danger to the majority of the people of the nation. Let's hope this fact is made so loud and clear that it results in critical wins for the Democrats, the majority party of the nation.

 

[Jaskalas]

As soon as I read what Thomas wrote I knew they were coming for this next. It is a little soon for them to go after contraception. Same Sex Marriage is a easier target. Let's get this all out in the open before Mid-terms so people can see what their agenda is.

If Democrats don't lose this November, I think it would be squarely based on a basklash to the SCOTUS.
Presidents usually don't like the results of the mid-terms. Anything else would be a strong statement by the voters.
I... am not getting my hopes up. Not after 2020 stung so bad.

 

[fskimospy]

As soon as I read what Thomas wrote I knew they were coming for this next. It is a little soon for them to go after contraception. Same Sex Marriage is a easier target. Let's get this all out in the open before Mid-terms so people can see what their agenda is.

You don't even need what Thomas wrote - it is the plain logic of the ruling, they just inserted some language saying 'but we swear this only applies to abortion because reasons'. That reason was of course that reversing all of those insanely popular civil rights might really have sparked enough backlash to have the court's power stripped from it so it's safer for them to do one at a time over the span of years.

As the dissent noted either this means same sex marriage goes, sodomy bans are constitutional, and contraception can be outlawed or the judges who wrote Dobbs didn't believe their own legal reasoning. Sadly I think it's the former.

 

[fskimospy]

If Democrats don't lose this November, I think it would be squarely based on a basklash to the SCOTUS.
Presidents usually don't like the results of the mid-terms. Anything else would be a strong statement by the voters.
I... am not getting my hopes up. Not after 2020 stung so bad.

2020 resulted in the Democrats winning control of every elected branch of government. That seems pretty okay to me.

I think it is entirely possible that this fall Democrats win the popular vote for both House and Senate and lose control of both chambers because our system is fucked.

Edit: and even worse if/when that happens the media and Republicans will portray it as the voters turning against the Democrats. Imagine a system where you get the most votes and the conclusion is the voters hate you.

 

[K1052]

Edit: and even worse if/when that happens the media and Republicans will portray it as the voters turning against the Democrats. Imagine a system where you get the most votes and the conclusion is the voters hate you.

Since the base position of the Republican Party is that votes for Democratic candidates are simply illegitimate I doubt this really troubles them.