General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat are we really losing? Kennedy was the most unreliable 'swing vote' in SCOTUS history.
Good riddance.
Squinch
(50,901 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,505 posts)J_William_Ryan
(1,748 posts)And thus ends our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, and the American Experiment, an experiment that was a dismal failure.
Nay
(12,051 posts)years of a retrograde, slimy, RW court.
And if they bribe Thomas to retire, there will be ANOTHER young RW asshole on the court.
We are so, so, so fucked, folks.
Squinch
(50,901 posts)unblock
(52,112 posts)well we don't know who it will be but the asshole part is a given. the "40s" and the "his" are just educated guesses.
Which means that we just lost 30+ years.
SCantiGOP
(13,862 posts)A swing vote replaced by another Gorsuch hard right wing vote? And you ask what are we losing?
Aristus
(66,275 posts)I'm not convinced things are going to get worse. They're just going to remain very bad...
spanone
(135,778 posts)won't get that out of a trump appointee
Coventina
(27,052 posts)Bettie
(16,058 posts)Well, we're losing a possibility. We're gaining a sure thing.
He and his republican thralls will find someone even worse than Gorsuck.
Think about that, they will turn over every rock they can find and get someone in there the day he leaves.
My hope is that Dems unite and refuse to vote for whatever trollish horror he chooses. But, there are a few who will smile as they install someone who will put the final nails in the coffin of our society.
Aristus
(66,275 posts)Filibuster until November?
that's why I'm so afraid for my kids.
We have no chance anymore. It is over. Done.
sinkingfeeling
(51,434 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I heard it was the end last week, and the week before, and the week before....
There is no end to this fight and there is a path forward. GOTV.
Aristus
(66,275 posts)Neither Hell nor high water will prevent me from voting in November. I'm in a blue state, though.
Everyone has got to get out and vote!
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,817 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But I expect minority voting rights to get absolutely killed. I expect labor rights to get killed. I expect more women's rights rollbacks, including more restrictions on abortion. Maybe this is a blessing in disquise, the Surburban women that vote republican are going to get hit in the face with some shit that they thought was settled law, some won't like it.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)On a case that I think originated in California. The ruling that one posted was on a state recognizing a gay marriage from another state, Roberts had a state's right issue with that one, but later erased that with the 6-3 ruling.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)BLAG petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, and the Court issued a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 54 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[8]:25
On the same day, the court also issued a separate 54 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perrya case related to California's constitutional amendment initiative barring same-sex marriage. The decision effectively allowed same-sex marriages in that state to resume after the court ruled that the proponents of the initiative lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court based on its established interpretation of the case or controversy clause.
READ THE FUCKING LINK
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The 6-3 was on the constitutional right of gay people to marry in any state.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 54 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.
The Obergefell v. Hodges decision came on the second anniversary of the United States v. Windsor ruling that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. It also came on the twelfth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in 13 states. The Obergefell decision was issued on the second-to-last decision day of the Court's term; and, as late as 9:59 a.m. in the morning of the decision, same sex couples were unable to marry in many states.[107]
The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent with their opinions in Windsor which rejected DOMA's recognition of only opposite-sex marriages for certain purposes under federal law.[108] In both cases, Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinions and was considered the "swing vote".[109]
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.[110][111]
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I won't insult you by calling you names. The case from the west, as it was being decided, a lot was written about Roberts having a gay female relative. The New York case was about one state accepting a gay marriage from another state for spousal rights to inheritances and benefits, Roberts felt that the issue was a state's rights issue, Kennedy didn't agree and wrote the majority opinion. The case from the West came later and codified gay marriage nationwide.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)READ THE FUCKING LINK.
ROBERTS WROTE THE DISSENT. ROBERTS WROTE THE DISSENT
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)It was 5-4, my recollection was wrong on the vote.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Only one that matters to people like me in states like Arizona.
Stop being so high and mighty and actually READ.
irisblue
(32,916 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The New York case was about one state recognizing a marriage from another state when doing probate proceedings, I think the issue there was that an inheritance was denied the surviving spouse in a gay marriage that took place outside of New York, New York ruled that the surviving spouse was not eligible for the inheritance. The case out of the West was about whether a gay person had the right to marry another gay person anywhere.
irisblue
(32,916 posts)Hollingsworth v Perry 2013- (California) was 5-4. It overturned prop8, i don't think it affected any other state directly but Cali. It did become a precideni in Obergefel & Windsor in 15.
I am not trying to bust your chops, but I really want to know that 6-3 case name. Thanks
Wait Romer vEvans, 1996 was 6-3, Roberts wasn't on SCOTUS then, but Kennedy was. Romer was about denial of civil rights protection in Colorado.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)but your information says otherwise. Thanks for presenting facts and avoiding name calling.
irisblue
(32,916 posts)From infoplease.com Important LGBT rights cases
Prop 8 case
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents in California did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling that overturned the state's ban, known as Proposition 8. The ruling will remove legal battles for same-sex couples wishing to marry in California. However, the ruling did not directly affect other states.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)irisblue
(32,916 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Sure. No better than the "No difference between Trump and Clinton" crowd.
irisblue
(32,916 posts)Showing a willingness to reexamine a statement when presented with evidence is a big thing. You & I have very legit reasons to worry about the LGBT issues. While you cited the Hollingsworth ruling in #64, you buried that fact under an angry reply. I missed it too the first 2 x I read your reply. We need ALL our allies, the fight is real and long and if we, the endangered fight with each other, we do ourselves and society and history no favors or good. I have respected your posts & threads over the years. I hope to continue to engage with you over the coming times. Kind regards
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)This particular poster made the same statement in multiple places, and I linked Obergefell - the only case that matters for Gay Marriage Nationwide.
The straight-washing of history, especially among allies, hurts.
J_William_Ryan
(1,748 posts)The states will again be allowed to compel women to give birth against their will and deny same-sex couples access to marriage law; indeed, states will be at liberty to criminalize homosexuality.
irisblue
(32,916 posts)While I think you're correct about voting& labor rights, you mention Roe v Wade as s being protected, , then say you expect more woman's rights rollbacks. Roe v Wade was a decision about woman's' control of her own fertility, that will be a major major rollback.
Across the US , Marriage equality & LGBT rights are are being limited &/or attempts to by state legislatures, the effort is there. Recall Pence & his attempts to do so in Indiana? There are attempts here in the Ohio State house now to do so this month. LGBT rights are under danger.
mvd
(65,155 posts)The travel ban, the labor ruling, and more. It leaves a bad taste. Still, we need to hold off this replacement for as long as we can. Really awful news.
herding cats
(19,558 posts)Imagine him replaces with another Gorsuch. That's where we are now.
Women's rights LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. They'll all be gutted now.
UTUSN
(70,640 posts)But, what did I say: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210790246
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)My guess is Roberts will hold Rie v Wade, he is smart enough to see getting rid of that is a red line that he should not cross. I do expect more restrictions on abortion rights though. Minorities and Muslims are going to get killed, along with immigrants.
hatrack
(59,566 posts)It's not what we're losing, it's what we stand to "gain", right?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)We are losing Roe v. Wade, for starters
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I think that he will also keep gay marriage. Where there will be problems are voting rights, minority rights, immigrant rights, religious minority rights (although a lot of Muslims in Michigan voted for Trump).
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)No evidence to think he will keep it. NONE.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Repeal of Roe v Wade is a redline that I don't see Roberts crossing.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)LeftInTX
(25,096 posts)I think he will keep same sex marriage. I say this because you can't force legally married people to get divorced.
An abortion is a medical procedure. It is not an ongoing relationship.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But I don't see him crossing the Roe v Wade redline.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)We are losing a little with an unreliable swing going hard right.
We are losing a TON with that seat going hard right with a young Justice who may serve 20+ years. Because thats 1 seat we wont get a fill in coming decades.
So with Gorsuch and now this seat there will be 2 hard right Justices out of 7 for decades to come.
Thats huge.
Short term, little difference had he held out two more years.
Long term? We are getting screwed.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Both became liberal lions. David Souter was put on as a conservative, voted very liberal. One thing about a man or woman in their forties is they have kids that are in or reaching their teens, that sometime changes how they view things, also a sick close relative changes how they view things.
RobinA
(9,884 posts)the possibility, but these are different times.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)what we lose most notably, is the opportunity to replace him in the next 4 years by a Democratic President. Now we'll have somebody much younger on the bench and not likely to leave it for what, decades?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)and have him (because it will be a white male) there for 25 years or more. The "swing" vote will now be Roberts, pretty much a wingnut himself. The wingnuts will be 50, 63, 68 and 70, plus the new guy. They will dominate the SC for at least 10 years. Even more, if they get another President in within that time.
DemocraticSocialist8
(396 posts)can get another right-winger in there before the Dems take back the House and maybe the Senate and obstruct on any future nominations until after 2020. The same way the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland. The timing of this can't possibly be an accident. You mean to tell me he retires 5 months before the 2018 midterms!!
Liberalhammer
(576 posts)Like all conservative justices are traitors and should be treated as such.
haele
(12,635 posts)Last month it was "He's hiring clerks for the next session".
But now, suddenly, after the GOP's Migrant/Immigration crisis, it's pretty obvious he's been convinced either by his fellow Supreme Court Conservatives Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas who are working the Evangelical Con, or his Federalist buddies who have such an investment in the "Conservative Oligarch" ideology that they're afraid of political fall-out the mid-terms to retire before Mueller's investigation neuters enough politicians who are running cover that they need a lock on the SCOTUS now to save their "progress".
It's obvious Kennedy's retirement is GOP/Conservative risk mitigation for the mid-terms. They are desperate to keep their smoke and mirrors productions going.
Haele
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)A lot of 5-4 rulings. I really thing that Roberts is invested in Gay Rights (relative is gay), so I don't see him voting to rollback that ruling. The people that will really get screwed? POC and religious minorities, expect to see a lot more rulings against their interests.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)The only chance will be that it is just too complex to wind back the clock especially given the full faith and credit between states. It very well could be that new marriage licenses won't be issued in certain states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Chief_Justice_Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[130] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[131] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[132] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[133]
More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[134] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[135] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[136] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[137] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[138] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[139]
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Aristus
(66,275 posts)I understand he has a relative who is gay. I hope it works out that way.
We're all frightened right now...
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Why would you think he is going to keep it.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Roberts and Kennedy came over to the majority.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The one out with the New York couple was about recognition of one state's grant of a marriage license, that was 5-4. The second ruling was on the subject of the pure constitutionality of gay marriage nationwide, that ruling was 6-3 on a case out of the West (I think California).
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2018, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)
Stop being all high and mighty. YOU ARE WRONG.
My marriage in Arizona is only guaranteed by the 5-4 ruling.
DOMA was 5-4, with dealt with Federal recognition of marriages from states that had legalized it.
LeftInTX
(25,096 posts)The reason: You can't force legally married people to get divorced. And it wouldn't make sense to put a moratorium on same sex marriage either. I think same sex marriage is here to say.
That does not mean he is LGBT friendly. It is just that same sex marriage is the law of the land.
Aristus
(66,275 posts)rather than force divorces?
LeftInTX
(25,096 posts)There are contracts involved, property, children etc etc.
Aristus
(66,275 posts)to do an actual repeal.
Social Security, for example. As much as the supporting cast of Deliverance hates anything that smacks of 'socialism', so many of them rely on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid that they (I hope) would at least pressure their Senators to vote against a repeal of these things.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Supreme Court doesn't make things like abortion or marriage equality illegal, when it comes to state law issues. What the Supreme Court does is to rule on whether a state ban of something - e.g. abortion or marriage equality - is or is not permissible under the US Constitution.
In other words, the Supreme Court can only say whether a state may refuse to recognize marriage equality. Whether any, some or most of the 50 states decide to do so, is up to them in that circumstance.
It has been legal in, for example, Massachusetts for decades. It would be legal, and remain legal, in Massachusetts no matter what the Supreme Court had ruled.
krawhitham
(4,637 posts)RockRaven
(14,886 posts)No decision going any way but how he wants it to be.
SubjectTrip
(79 posts)He will go down in history as the Paul von Hindenburg of our slide into fascism.
beaglelover
(3,459 posts)Liberalhammer
(576 posts)For the powerful. He was not a justice for the regular non wealthy American.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)but that the replacement will have another 30 or so years to do his (almost surely the replacement will be male) damage.
Freethinker65
(9,998 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,494 posts)dropout from "Liberty University" or some shit. Yeah I know, I know. But I've learned not to put anything past this grotesque bloated dick.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)They are given votes like this to make it seem as though they are fair and unbiased. The truth is that as long as it doesn't affect the bottom line of major conservative donors they can throw us a bone. Don't fool yourselves.
[link:https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights-abortion-democrats/index.html|]
Aristus
(66,275 posts)An illusory swing vote is as useful as no swing vote at all...
irisblue
(32,916 posts)His legacy is so mixed.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There will be a RW Supreme Court majority for at least the next two decades - probably longer.
pnwmom
(108,953 posts)You must be a straight male.
CrispyQ
(36,413 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)lost a lot other than the next Judge might be even worse. And, there is a chance trump will get AT LEAST one more pick before his reign of terror is over.
Azathoth
(4,607 posts)Those were the two wingnut causes that Kennedy consistently resisted.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)Kennedy sucked but I think people are fearful of who the SC pick will be with Trump and a republican controlled congress.
Many of our rights are at risk, especially a woman's right too choose.
It feels so strange our government has become uber conservative but it just doesn't seem to truly reflect the people's values.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)My daugher's access to health care
the right to an abortion
. . . just for starters.
KPN
(15,635 posts)the overall absurdity of the position we and this country is in. We arent losing anything much with Kennedys retirement, but the idea that this moronic asshole actually will retry much decide who we must live with over at least the next three decades is shocking to our systems.
Lets all stop crying in our beer about Kennedy and focus on pressuring our system to do the right thing instead. The right thing being postpone any Congressional action on the asshole illegitimate presidents nominee until the cloud of this investigation has been lifted. Allowing this incompetent person to make another SCOTUS appointment is the height of irresponsibility. Each of us needs to step up and be willing to commit whatever we can to APPLY PEOPLE PRESSURE on Congress and the system right now.
We won the 2016 presidential election. We won the 2000 and probably the 2004 presidential election as well! The system we are winning doesnt work. Our votes dont count in this system. We need to change that, and we need to change that right now with this SCOTUS vacancy before any hope of saving our democracy and Constitution is extinguished. We the PEOPLE need to assert outselves and, if need be, sacrifice our daily self interests right now before it is too late.
Does anyone know of any effort already on-going to organize the masses who won the 2016 election for HRC, the 2000 election for Gore and the 2004 election of Kerry against this treasonous take over of our Democracy? If so, please share this info with me I want to volunteer and engage, and pass this info along to others.
We can do this!