Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.
The issue is that a state can. That's the issue. That a state can.
They’ve also proven they don’t care about what a large percentage of Americans want or support.
To Indy's point I think it unlikely any state will challenge interracial marriage, however the 3 cases specifically mentioned by Thomas are near certainties. The legal reasoning would hold for all, though. States are going to go after what they find icky, so a Loving challenge will not make it to SCOTUS. Yet.
It undermines the legitimacy of argument if the only thing that keeps a conclusion at bay is presentation.
Oh, I agree. Just speaking to the cherry picking nature of the whole thing.
If they use the same rationale for Dobbs then all 4 cases would be reversed.
I have no quarrel with the courts/congress doing things that are against what the population wants. That is the basis of our government, in many ways, avoiding the tyranny of the majority.
That said, if you are going to do it for one item, do it for all items, even ones you think are sacred cows. Don't cherry pick your application of the law.
interracial marriage, too.
Every damn thing.
Or do nothing.
I swear y'all are baiting me, but I will bite. I DO think you will see interracial marriage get invoked on some level within the religious sphere. And it will ironically have people of various racial identifications supporting it. Will it get to the point of actually being voted on? I don't know. But y'all just seriously underestimate how old ideas can become fresh again given the right angle.
I put NOTHING out of reach in the current environment.
How much of ending Jim Crow was legislated from the bench federally? Guess we're about to find out.
I feel confident that Tennessee does not have strong civil rights protections absent federal law.
IP, I think it will happen. I just belive it's lower on the totem pole. As we transition into theocracy, interracial marriage will definitely be challenged.
I'm sure there are people out there who think interracial marriage should be outlawed. I think the number of those people is infinitesimally small. I don't think there is any chance in hell that number ever grows to the point where it even comes close to being enough to lead to a state outlawing interracial marriage.
And that's not even to mention the tremendous push back you would see from the other side, which would be like, 99.75% of the population.
We are not talking about what states will do. But to the logic the courts are using to overturn previous rulings.
Apply to all or apply to none. Don't cherry pick. You know this, I think, but are arguing something no one else is arguing, imho.
He doesn't know this. The entirety of a states rights argument rests on the ability to cherry pick.
To support states rights, one has to support the states right to cherry pick. Period.
I'm not objecting to anything. You (and others) have brought up interracial marriage, as if it is in danger. I'm telling you why it's not.
Let the argument fail on all fronts. You are more likely to see interracial marriage enshrined as a Constitutional Amendment than you are to see it outlawed by any individual states. Because the American people widely agree that interracial marriage is an okay thing.
I am arguing that interracial marriage is in no danger of being outlawed. I fully understand the discussion.
If the only thing that prevents something is not reason, but existence, then there is a problem.
Reason should be the highest form of argument, not existence.
And you cannot cherry pick reason.
Which is not the argument. The argument is the conclusion that it can, and should, if the others are.
It does not matter about the numbers, as this decision has shown, it only matters who has the power and how much of a religious zealot they are.
Which numbers you talking about?
And it's a flawed argument. Because there is more than one way to protect something like this from being in danger. Interracial marriage has widespread support and virtually no opposition. If the Supreme Court's protection of it disappeared, it would immediately have legislative protection, if necessary. That's why it's not in danger in the same way that something like abortion is.
I get it. You expected the response to be "Oh no, we can't get rid of protections to interracial marriage. I must re-think my stance on this issue." Sorry.
Separate names with a comma.