Supreme Court prepares to kill same sex marriage in America

Personally I am increasingly uncomfortable feeling the "need" to apologize to regressive people about feeling hurt or insulted. They are entirely responsible for their actions.

They are also not sorry that they are pushing the majority of people (women, LGBTQ+, basically anything non-cis-white-men) into a second class or even subhuman status.

I realize that most people are only open to changing themselves when their feelings are not threatened and when they're feeling understood. But what we're talking about here, I don't know the right word, but "accidental" or "unintentional" are not part of it. If regressive leaders like trump or desantis or whoever get elected then we're talking about borderline genocide done on purpose. I don't see how we can come back to acknowledging the feelings of bigots at that point.

You just described most of the major SCOTUS rulings over the last couple of decades, at least.

A judge can’t make rulings solely based on facts, because facts cannot provide a foundation for ethics. Facts can only tell you the way things are, not the way they should be. Rulings should be informed by facts and based on the values of society as a whole.

I agree that they shouldn’t be based on the judge’s personal beliefs. I suppose our judicial system kind of makes this inevitable, though…

IANAL, but I dare guess judges do need beliefs. In the beginning, people thought Black people were not humans, and so equality of people in constitution did not apply. I might be factually wrong on this, but let's assume it. To overcome this, some judges had to abandon their racism and understand black people are people.

And while some areas of human issues can be discussed scientifically, like racism being completely wrong, some are difficult.

And if science can't overcome an unjust law today, judges have to listen to their heart and do the right thing. Probably the left thing these days, though...

Fewer and fewer USians are capable of even considering the possibility that their government might say one thing but consistently do something else.

Don't worry, they're coming.

Maybe they do. If nothing else, that'll give the police an excuse to bust out all of their military surplus armaments for a play date.

The law will not, however, require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state laws.

That legislation ensures the federal government recognizes it and requires states to recognize marriages from other states. It does not prevent a state from banning it within that state. (Really shitty that NBC doesn’t link to the actual text so people can read it themselves)

If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it "goes against their religious beliefs", which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.

LMAO no. They absolutely cannot. The Repubs have basically deadlocked Congress now in their ideological war. Dems won't get any Repubs to join. But it's moot because Dems won't even bother. Even if they had a supermajority trifecta, they'd still kowtow and refuse to pass a bill without bipartisan support (like they always do). And we even have examples already. Congress knew for over a month that Roe was about to fall and did literally nothing to stop it. And in the time since, Dems haven't said a single word about it or done anything to codify reproductive rights at the federal level.

For all of our sakes I hope you're right.

Then again, underestimating regressive politicians leaves us with a massive blind spot. You can bet they're counting on that while they lie to literally anyone who will listen about how "evil" progressives are.

Regrettably, it seems like most mainstream Democrats are happy being the anti-Republican Party. They've been happy to try to play centrist or even center right for the last 30 years on a great many issues.

Are enough of them willing to step up on this issue? I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, it essentially makes it a state issue, and each state can ban, or not, and choose to recognize marriages from other states, or not. So if you got married in Washington that might allow same-sex marriage and respect marriages from other states, and then you move to e.g. Tennessee that banned it and didn't recognize out of state marriages, your marriage essentially wouldn't exist there. I also imagine for the case of emergencies and whatnot, if you were traveling through such a state, you wouldn't be recognized as spouses, making it literally a life or death issue for travel.

It's very, very bad.

Maybe even that depends on the judges.

If they controlled all three levels of government, they could enact Supreme Court reforms. Each appointee servers for life in an advisory capacity (to align with the Constitution), but only the 9 most recent appointees vote on rulings. Every odd-number year (non-election year), a new judge is appointed. If a judge needs to vacate while they still have a vote, then the most-recently removed judge that's still available regains the vote until the next appointment.

So they should usually just serve 18 years, but it could be 20-22 years if people die or retire. (The recent average is a whopping 28 years!)

I'm not even American, btw, but this seems like a very common-sense proposal, at least to an outsider. I just googled it and found a whole site explaining it in more detail:

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

Nah, that's rather what right wingers do.

If it really did, it would have happened by now.

Alito views those as the same thing, essentially.

So, before I begin, I want to bring back in some context that is important to the point I want to make. Alito made his statement in response to a juror fighting summary rejection from a case, in which the rejection was due to their belief that "homosexuality is a sin." The plaintiff, in this case, identified as a lesbian.

I think it is very important to point out that Alito is being very careful in picking his focus of concern from a constitutional perspective as, you have to remember, the sixth amendment garuntees "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". To put it another way, the court try to eliminate, from they jury, pool any individuals whose bias would negatively affect the outcome of a case in a way not congruent with the law. To me, it seems very intentional that he would champion one constitutional right and neglect another as Alito, a Supreme Court Justice, should be taking all angles of the constitution into question. He should not take into account just those parts that align with his held bias and beliefs.

Now, how should we as individuals, considering both the 1st and 6th ammendments, broach asituation in which two individuals right clash?

I have tried to look into if there was any precedent on determining what happens in the case of conflicting constitution rights, but I could not find anything. So, as to my limited knowledge, I can't really look to precedent (if someone knows anything about this, please share).

Personally, I would believe that since it could be the matter of someone's freedom on the line in the case of a trial, I lean in favor of the summary dismissal. Not being on a jury does not, in any way, amount to an injury to said individual that in anyway compares to the possible ramifications of allowing bias onto a case in which someone's life or property is on the line. The individual can continue to believe whatever regressive asinine dogma their religion subscribes to(and yes, I am showing my bias), while the case is decided by people more willing to only consider the law of this country and not some diety who has no authority here.