Euchrejack, I'm responding to this comment:
Also from what I've read they seem to have essentially used the argument that older legal precedent can invalidate newer legal precedent? Doesn't that basically lock all constitutional considerations into the social point of view of the 18th century? How can you say that applies to this, but not any legal precedents set by changes overtime to legal challenges to race rights?
According to Justice Thomas, we have the logical implication that the following things are permissible: take out abortion -> let's take out the rights of married couples to access contraception, the gays to marry, and the gays to have consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes.
The comment was, "doesn't historical precedent also mean that civil rights for Black people and other people of color can be rolled back?"
And I said: "Yeah, I don't know why anyone thinks that our politicians in general would consider that a negative."
Trying to go after queer people would have to start from essentially zero today.
The thing is, people in their 20s to 30s have seen big changes in the acceptance of homosexuality in their lifetimes. That means that everyone older than them has, too. Obergefell was decided in 2014, less than ten years ago. This is really not settled law when so many people are still viscerally disgusted by the existence of queer people in public spaces.
My mother, liberal Californian, has never met a homosexual she likes, believes gay teachers should not be in schools or allowed to raise children, and also doesn't think that gays should marry.
If you read the comments to the ~liberal newspaper, New York Times~ on pretty much any essay on women's rights or lgbtq issues, you can see that it's just walls and walls of only tangentially related negative comments about trans people, usually with explicit threats that the lgb needs to disavow the t's and q's or all five will be crushed out of existence. I want to reiterate that these are not "thoughtful" comments or "good faith" arguments. It is just walls and walls and walls of people expressing the same talking point: we conservatives are ok with the lgb so long as you kick the t and q out of the community.
(I hope that no one believes this devil's bargain is actually in good faith. They aren't going to stop after taking out all the gender nonconformists.)
Oh, either that, or logically incoherent comments about women's rights and the heroism of JK Rowling. There's maybe two supportive comments for roughly 100 bad ones.
This is
not zero, and we are
not starting from a position of "100" in terms of gay rights. Queers are a minority in this country and the overwhelming news I'm hearing over and over again is: "Give Up Gay Rights To Win Elections."
One can argue that substantive due process has always been on a shaky foundation since Lochner, the Fourth Amendment is more of a limit of the government's investigatory powers, and the Ninth Amendment is just one of the weakest Rational Basis Test requirements out there; but the fact that SCOTUS didn't recognize (assisted) abortion of life-threatening pregnancies as a right under the Due Process clause is sickening, incompetent, and a total failure.
The government is depriving patients of life-saving procedures. By implication, the government is depriving someone of their life without a trial--without due process of law. I can only hope that this is rectified in a future court case, by legislation, or by constitutional amendment.
As I've mentioned a few times here before, it also infringes on the religious liberty of Jews, who believe, and have written for centuries, that preserving the life of the mother is the most important thing. There is a challenge to the Florida ban on these grounds.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3593092 times)