Interestingly, justices tend to get more liberal over time.


You do need to worry. When I started college, abortion was illegal in most states, including mine. Then came Roe. Today, my granddaughter may well grow up in a country where she can not get an abortion and where religious zealots will define any kind of birth control as abortion and outlaw that as well.

None of us can trust that our rights will remain secure, well unless you happen to be a straight, white, cis male with money.


This is the problem with judicial rulings in a nutshell: unless Congress passes legislation or the country adopts a Constitutional amendment that permanently enshrines a particular policy, it's open to constant assault from opponents - including, as we see here, from the judicial branch itself.


My guess is that they likely wouldn't do a complete reversal. More likely, it could suffer death by a thousand cuts, like Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has never reversed Roe, but every couple of years, one state or another throws in some minor restriction, reducing access, making it harder to get an abortion, and the Supreme Court has upheld enough of those restrictions, that actually getting an abortion in many red states is a practical impossibility by many poor women (rich women, of course, have always been able to fly wherever they need to to get an abortion). Likewise, the Supreme Court could uphold all sorts of laws like allowing the cake decorator to refuse service. Like, extend that to civil servants. Then in many counties, it might be legal for a gay couple to get married, but good luck finding anyone to actually process the legal paperwork necessary. "Religious" judges or county clerks could refuse to perform the legal marriages, refuse to oversee gay divorce cases, refuse to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions, refuse to recognize adoptions, requiring extensive waiting periods or excessive fees or other bullshit roadblocks, etc, etc, etc. All because it goes against their deeply held religious fee-fees, so go find someone else to do it. Like abortions, poor gay couples in red states might have to travel hundreds of miles and jump through a dozen legal hoops to actually get married.

But your point stands. A significant shift on the Supreme Court definitely endangers legal marriage for same-sex couples as we currently enjoy.


Shorter Justice Thomas: I hate people calling me a bigot just because I want to strip them of the very same privileges I have!

His own inter-racial marriage exists, and is recognized in all fifty states, because of the 1967 Supreme Court case, beautifully named "Loving vs. Virginia." His opposition to gays getting the same privileges exactly the same way he did simply moves the irony goalposts further to the right.


To all those who bring up the founding fathers I say fuck those skeletons, this our country now.


@2 percysowner, @3 COMTE, and @5 tensor for the WIN.

@2: I feel sick for my nieces, both millennials, daughters of friends and relatives, and younger women and girls everywhere. I guess I picked the right year to get a hysterectomy.


Trump. Greatest President ever!


@ God Bless:
plus -- Best Pandemic EVER!
Go,* trumpfy!

*meetchyur maker

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.