NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

San Lumen wrote:and how do you know?

Because I'm an originalist and I go out of my way to keep up with rumors on who could be appointed to the court?

wouldnt an originalist say the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people?

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Because I'm an originalist and I go out of my way to keep up with rumors on who could be appointed to the court?

wouldnt an originalist say the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people?

No. The Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear, and going back on the decision would require overturning precedent.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

San Lumen wrote:wouldnt an originalist say the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people?

No. The Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear, and going back on the decision would require overturning precedent.

What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
No. The Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear, and going back on the decision would require overturning precedent.

What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

I literally just told you. The only side lately that has been clamoring to overturn a recent decision has been the liberal side with Heller.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

I literally just told you. The only side lately that has been clamoring to overturn a recent decision has been the liberal side with Heller.

I could easily see an originalist argument that the constitution makes no mention of marriage and that therefore it isn't a right.

The Batorys wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I literally just told you. The only side lately that has been clamoring to overturn a recent decision has been the liberal side with Heller.

I could easily see an originalist argument that the constitution makes no mention of marriage and that therefore it isn't a right.

Yes exactly my point.

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
No. The Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear, and going back on the decision would require overturning precedent.

What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

A conservative filing a challenge against it. Conservatives aren't known for their legal challenges in the court system

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

A conservative filing a challenge against it. Conservatives aren't known for their legal challenges in the court system

So your saying they don't have much chance to overturn it? Thats comforting to know.

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What's to stop a conservative court from overturning it?

A conservative filing a challenge against it. Conservatives aren't known for their legal challenges in the court system

Must be why those religious exceptions to Obamacare never made it to the Supreme Court.

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:A conservative filing a challenge against it. Conservatives aren't known for their legal challenges in the court system

So your saying they don't have much chance to overturn it? Thats comforting to know.

Yes. Which is what WRA was saying. The courts cannot just declare laws or legal decisions null and void on their own. There has to be a legal process

Neutraligon wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:A conservative filing a challenge against it. Conservatives aren't known for their legal challenges in the court system

Must be why those religious exceptions to Obamacare never made it to the Supreme Court.

I should add that I'm talking about individuals and not corporations, and not many conservatives filed legal challenges to the extent of the LGBT rights groups did

Thermodolia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Must be why those religious exceptions to Obamacare never made it to the Supreme Court.

I should add that I'm talking about individuals and not corporations, and not many conservatives filed legal challenges to the extent of the LGBT rights groups did

Why should it matter who is bringing up the challenge?

Neutraligon wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I should add that I'm talking about individuals and not corporations, and not many conservatives filed legal challenges to the extent of the LGBT rights groups did

Why should it matter who is bringing up the challenge?

Well when it comes to fears such as gay marriage being overturned by the courts it matters. Basically its not going to happen because most conservatives tend to fight for their causes in the legislature.

Thermodolia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Why should it matter who is bringing up the challenge?

Well when it comes to fears such as gay marriage being overturned by the courts it matters. Basically its not going to happen because most conservatives tend to fight for their causes in the legislature.

Which once again is why the religious exemptions to Obamacare. Just because an individual does not bring it up does not mean that other conservatives or conservative groups will bring it up.

Neutraligon wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well when it comes to fears such as gay marriage being overturned by the courts it matters. Basically its not going to happen because most conservatives tend to fight for their causes in the legislature.

Which once again is why the religious exemptions to Obamacare. Just because an individual does not bring it up does not mean that other conservatives or conservative groups will bring it up.

Well they haven't exactly done it for Roe V Wade, so I highly doubt that they will do it with gay marriage.

Thermodolia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Which once again is why the religious exemptions to Obamacare. Just because an individual does not bring it up does not mean that other conservatives or conservative groups will bring it up.

Well they haven't exactly done it for Roe V Wade, so I highly doubt that they will do it with gay marriage.

...they have been trying, ever since Roe V Wade. In fact abortion was one of the reasons people were looking into who would be on the court and who would be president.

Neutraligon wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well they haven't exactly done it for Roe V Wade, so I highly doubt that they will do it with gay marriage.

...they have been trying, ever since Roe V Wade. In fact abortion was one of the reasons people were looking into who would be on the court and who would be president.

Well I stand corrected