• solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        works.

        *worked

        everyone needs to stop assuming that anything regarding individual freedom is going to “work” the same way that they’ve grown accustomed to, moving forward

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      SCOTUS doesn’t write legislation, they interpret the Constitution to rule on existing cases. They couldn’t criminalize gay being gay on their own. If a new case on gay marriage were brought to SCOTUS, the most they could do is overturn US v. Windsor, removing federally recognized gay marriage and federally protected gay marriage benefits.

      Congress, however, could potentially criminalize being gay with legislation, unless vetoed by the President or challenged during SCOTUS’s judicial review.

      • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        interpret the Constitution

        you’re thinking in the past now. please stop assuming that the constitution is a thing anymore. the country chose fascism. they got everything they want, and if what they want is “illegal,” then it will soon be legal.

        if you are not a billionaire, then i’m sorry–you have no protections. legal or otherwise. i would say buy all the guns you can, while you can, but honestly that might not even make a difference

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      There’s a finite amount of political will. Expending effort to make a change, even a positive one, that doesn’t actually show a benefit takes more of it than something with perceived immediate benefits.

      For obvious reasons, codifying those protections feels less redundant at the moment.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        Codifying a right in the constitution when the case law making it legal has been explicitly name dropped as something to overturn by a supreme court justice is not in the least performative.

        Before Roe was overturned, it was understood that the supreme court didn’t flip precedent because it messed with too much stuff, removing legal assumptions that people have been relying on, like unconstitutional laws banning gay marriage or abortion being inapplicable.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not necessarily in this case I would think. If the supreme court got rid of the cases that make same sex marriage legal nationwide, and the republicans due to not doing away with filibuster or due to infighting among themselves don’t pass a law to ban it nationwide, it would revert to the state by state basis it used to have. In such a scenario, which isn’t that implausible, Cali probably wouldn’t want to still have old stuff banning it on the books

  • Nyciferi@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s a start.

    One huge missed opportunity that Obama had during his 2nd term, was not codifying it nation-wide when the landmark Supreme Court ruling happened in 2015.

    Codifying shit makes sure things won’t be fucked with and if it’s fucked with, it’s a hell of a battle. Instead of this see-saw shit where one party comes in, legalizes it, another comes in, bans it, another party comes in, legalizes it and so on.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Here’s what I think is going to happen:

    • someone’s going to bring a case to the SC that results in Obergefell v. Hodges getting overturned. That’s the one that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
    • this will be used as a test case to force the CA government to comply with something that openly conflicts with and violates the CA constitution.
    • CA will be legally forced to comply.
    • any civil disobedience or refusal from state officials spur more lawsuits to either strong arm or even straight up politically imprison CA state officials as punishment
    • CA maybe tries to secede

    Maybe that’s how CW2 starts, idk.

    Tbh, this could also be done in the context of abortion rights with the numerous states that have passed that, but I think whatever is going to be used as a “test case” for this is going to involve CA, because I’m kinda convinced at this point that Trump and the conservative sphere want to try to make an example of CA to attempt to scare everyone else into line. Who knows. They see CA as a threat, because as a state, it has the 5th largest economy in the world when compared to other whole-ass countries. They want to bring CA fully under their control.