• 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