Overturning Roe v Wade will be a precedent, it can go in many different directions.

[Walt]

The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

[SmarterthanYou]

in what way do you see them reinterpreting the full faith and credit clause?

[Flash]

The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

How will a precedent that the right to privacy does not protect the right to have an abortion affect other issues? The draft clearly says it does not apply to the other privacy rights and nobody would be dumb enough to say you don't have the right to choose the education for your kids, use contraception, or live with relatives.

[Lionfish]

The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

Calm down Wally, read the actual draft.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How will a precedent that the right to privacy does not protect the right to have an abortion affect other issues? The draft clearly says it does not apply to the other privacy rights and nobody would be dumb enough to say you don't have the right to choose the education for your kids, use contraception, or live with relatives.

Except several Republicans seem to be that dumb.
https://news.yahoo.com/sen-marsha-bl...201727330.html

In fact, it was exactly 10 years ago next week when the Senate narrowly defeated a proposal, known as the Blunt Amendment, intended to allow all U.S. employers to deny contraception coverage to employees as part of the businesses’ health plans.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...swer-rcna17053

[Guno צְבִי]

The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

On the far right, Peter Brimelow, the founder of the VDare nativist website whom the New York Times has linked to the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, was reported to have greeted news of the draft Roe ruling by writing: “Next stop Brown vs Board!”

That was a reference to Brown v Board of Education, the 1954 case which ended racial segregation in public schools.

[Minister of Truth]

The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

The powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. The rights not enumerated are not automatically denied to the people.

[Flash]

Except several Republicans seem to be that dumb.

Because you can find a few dumb people does not mean a majority (or the Supreme Court) would go along. Serves no useful purpose. If they have no chance of achieving that goal it is not of major concern.

That bill did not ban people from getting contraceptives, it just said they don't have to be included in health care plans. That is a very different legal issue. I have the constitutional right of access to birth control, I don't have the right to make my employer provide that benefit.

[Flash]

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

The court has very strict standards for anything permitting racial differences.

[PostmodernProphet]

how many strawmen can a lib'rul dance on the head of a pin........

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.

except no one on the planet wants to do that.........

[Walt]

The powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. The rights not enumerated are not automatically denied to the people.

You see, Gin Sake is actually responding to what is happening. There is no explicitly enumerated right to an abortion, or to marriage, so does that make them states rights? The Supreme Court seems to be saying yes. So will same sex and interracial marriage be the next to be struck down?

Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) has only existed for 7 years, so it would probably be the easiest to reverse. You would think Loving v. Virginia which has existed for 55 years would be impossible to reverse, but Roe v. Wade had existed for nearly 50 years. These things can be reversed.

Two of the justices are in interracial marriage, which might make them think twice before reversing it. None are in same sex marriages.

[Walt]

except no one on the planet wants to do that.........

So rights are based on popularity, not on the Constitution?

There are definite some people who want to overturn interracial marriage... But far more people who want to overturn same sex marriage. I could easily see that being thrown back to the states. It could be like abortion will be. If you are gay in Texas, you can get married in a California vacation, and still be married in Texas. But even there, Texas is going to try to make it difficult.

[Walt]

The court has very strict standards for anything permitting racial differences.

It did, but it has a majority now who were against those decisions.

[Walt]

On the far right, Peter Brimelow, the founder of the VDare nativist website whom the New York Times has linked to the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, was reported to have greeted news of the draft Roe ruling by writing: “Next stop Brown vs Board!”

That was a reference to Brown v Board of Education, the 1954 case which ended racial segregation in public schools.

Yup, this opens up a whole can of worms.

Some states have been trying to indirectly regulating immigration by banning immigrants from marriage and other things. Those laws might end up being considered constitutional.