Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest		 Greatest Threads
Greatest		 Lobby
Lobby		 Journals
Journals		 Search
Search		 Options
Options		 Help
Help		 Login
Login
Google

Silver lining regarding states enacting anti-marriage laws?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Wed Nov-04-09 03:03 PM
Original message
Silver lining regarding states enacting anti-marriage laws?
It seems like the more states that do it, the more likelihood that there will be a (SUCCESSFUL!) Supreme Court challenge. I mean, it only took one Roe v. Wade, right?

:shrug:

My optimistic nature requires that I try to see the good that can come out of this idiocy.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   Unlikely with the decades of a right-wing SCOTUS we are stuck with.  onehandle   Nov-04-09 03:23 PM   #1 
   Oops, meant to reply to you in my post below.  Vickers   Nov-04-09 03:27 PM   #3 
   But they have to have some CONSTITUTIONAL basis for their vote, right?  Vickers   Nov-04-09 03:26 PM   #2 
   The Constitution means whatever an individual Justice wants it to mean.  Ozymanithrax   Nov-04-09 03:47 PM   #5 
   The SCOTUS is conservative now and will remain conservative for a long time.  Ozymanithrax   Nov-04-09 03:45 PM   #4 
   Ever hear of Plessy v. Ferguson?  Freddie Stubbs   Nov-04-09 03:52 PM   #6 
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov-04-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unlikely with the decades of a right-wing SCOTUS we are stuck with.
As always, thanks Ralph!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Wed Nov-04-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oops, meant to reply to you in my post below.

:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Wed Nov-04-09 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. But they have to have some CONSTITUTIONAL basis for their vote, right?

I know the wording on some of the state referendums was misleading, but the SC has to have their ducks in a row (legally speaking).

I know, I know, this is (largely) the same crowd who put Idiot George at the helm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Wed Nov-04-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. The Constitution means whatever an individual Justice wants it to mean.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Donate to DU! Wed Nov-04-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. The SCOTUS is conservative now and will remain conservative for a long time.
You must have a court amenable to such a decision. Unless a bunch of conservtive supreme court justices decide to leave, it would take about 12 to 16 years at the normal rate of replacement to swing the court into line with such a decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov-04-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ever hear of Plessy v. Ferguson?
That ruling took over 50 years to be overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 24th 2009, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC