That would violate the full faith and credit clause. Red states could ban the ceremonies and refuse to recognize some of the privileges, but couldn't make the marriages themselves illegal.
Roe v. Wade is going down
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
You must be confused. We're a republic, not a democracy. Republics don't hold individual freedoms granted by the Constitution to a popular vote.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Sure, that's always an option. But I'm looking for ways to fix this, so we don't have to toggle between generations of injustice and suffering because a handful of Republican presidents won the electoral college and a Senate majority leaders was unscrupulous enough to prevent the opening of one justice for a year. So I'd like to actually solve this problem by expanding the court, setting term limits, and change how cases are heard than kick the ball down the court.
What would be wrong with expanding the court to 15 or 21 justices, creating term limits (maybe 10 years? or 15? I'm not set on any particular number), and drawing names out of a hat (or doing some random 9 or 11 selection from the pool of justices)? What would be wrong with this? I think it solves a lot of problems and it diminishes that incentive that Republicans currently enjoy via legislating through the Judicial Branch.
As far as winning back the courts, that's one hell of an uphill battle. As you stated, Voters may not care. Also, the Federalist Society is so well funded and organized. The left doesn't have anything close to that. Then, there are the built-in advantages of the EC and Senate that Republicans currently enjoy.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Isn't that the entire point of Obergefell? The rights and privileges of straight marriage must be recognized by all 50 states to those of same-sex marriage? If this is returned to the states then wouldn't red states move to what they were doing prior to the 2015 ruling? I could be mistaken here but we almost had several types of civil unions and marriages going on prior to the 2015 ruling.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I think the debate for most non-rabid extremists begins with the question of whether the baby owns its body or not? When do rights begin for the infant? That is the crux of it. Some believe it doesn't carry any human rights until it is actually born. Others believe it has rights as soon as it is deemed to be "alive", but then that threshold is endlessly debated as well. But generally yes, this will be used as a way to continue exercising control on women by men. Of that there is no doubt.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Just curious, does anyone know of a similarly industrialized nation that had abortion as legalized as we did and has hit the reverse button? Like does one such country exist? Is France, Germany, or the UK looking at repealing abortion rights?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Correct and thank you for summing up the decision today. There is no individual freedom to abortion granted by the Constitution and so it is subject to popular vote.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I highly doubt anyone is going to be investigated for having a miscarriage. I think the anti-abortionists are happy enough to make it illegal so that a woman can't easily walk into a clinic and have an abortion. There were home abortions and black market abortions before it was legalized. So like drugs and prostitution it'll exist, it just won't be regulated or nearly as safe.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more with this. Since when have RW conservatives/Trumpers been satisfied with ANYTHING? The last decade has proven that these folks can get exactly what they want and still be angrier than ever and demand more.
I think you're being alarmist and taking focus away from the real issues here. What would an investigation into a possible miscarriage/abortion look like? Did that exist before? Is anyone talking about doing that. Would they force the woman to get a medical examination to maybe prove that it was an abortion? Are states abortion restrictions worded in such a way as to establish anything like this?