American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[San Lumen]

If the court decided to overturn Roe which seems very possible and Ogberfell and Loving after a case was brought to them which is doubtful they would be so widely out of step with public opinion to be seen as illegitimate and out of touch.

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

[San Lumen]

I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

They could and nobody would be able to stop them short of laying siege to the SCOTUS building.

Tell me how.

[Hemakral]

Still waiting for your legal argument.

Lu, this is what you're not understanding.
There is no argument. There is no legal basis for removing the personhood of gay people, and it doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court could still do it if they wanted to. Power trumps legality.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality is illegal again?

They could and nobody would be able to stop them short of laying siege to the SCOTUS building.

Tell me how.

Because SCOTUS said make it so. Literally. That's it.

[Arlenton]

Oh you poor naïve child.

I’m not naive your comment was pure insanity. There is no legal or moral grounds for them to do so. The court is not not under circumstances going to declare themselves the sole branch of government.

Legal grounds can be made, especially by the group that plays a pretty big role in laying the legal groundwork of the country. And moral grounds are subjective.

[Comerciante]

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

Just like Hillary was waiti- oh.

Tell me how.

By putting it to a vote and a majority of them being perfectly okay with it because they'll suffer no legal or political repercussions for it because the court they'll have to answer to is Mr. Mcdoesntexist.

[Arlenton]

They can choose to ignore public opinion. They are unelected.

Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

We will have to wait and see.

[Comerciante]

Still waiting for your legal argument.

Lu, this is what you're not understanding.
There is no argument. There is no legal basis for removing the personhood of gay people, and it doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court could still do it if they wanted to. Power trumps legality.

Funny thing is that if no precedent exists one shall be made.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Ngl SCOTUS omnipotency should probs be seriously curtailed but Trump has a fatter chance of getting convicted for treason than constitutional reform ever happening.

[San Lumen]

Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality is illegal again?

Tell me how.

Because SCOTUS said make it so. Literally. That's it.

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

[Picairn]

Funny thing is that if no precedent exists one shall be made.

Judicial tyranny is a bitch.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality is illegal again?

Because SCOTUS said make it so. Literally. That's it.

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

Then it depends on where the closests states' national guards stands doesn't it? After all tanks > congressppl.

[San Lumen]

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

Then it depends on where the closests states' national guards stands doesn't it?

And they have what to do with this? They answer to the governor of that state.

[American Legionaries]

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality is illegal again?

Because SCOTUS said make it so. Literally. That's it.

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

Republicans who support gay marriage are unlikely to swap sides over gay marriage. They already vote Republican.

[Diahon]

i am amazed at those who look at the impending suffering of those they have no opinion about one way or another, see what's on their table, and go "not my problen! now where's my dibs?"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then it depends on where the closests states' national guards stands doesn't it?

And they have what to do with this? They answer to the governor of that state.

They'll have to decide who to support when both congress and scotus are ordering them to "defend the constitution". Oh and Jan 6 was the general rehearsal for this scenario and Virginia State Police got there before DC NG. Gl hf y'all.

[San Lumen]

And they have what to do with this? They answer to the governor of that state.

They'll have to decide who to support when both congress and scotus are ordering them to "defend the constitution".

SCOTUS cannot federalize the national guard. They would tell the court we do not answer to you. The Governor is our boss.

Your scenario is pure insanity and completely ludicrous.

[American Legionaries]

They'll have to decide who to support when both congress and scotus are ordering them to "defend the constitution".

SCOTUS cannot federalize the national guard. They would tell the court we do not answer to you. The Governor is our boss.

You do realize that people can do illegal stuff right?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They'll have to decide who to support when both congress and scotus are ordering them to "defend the constitution".

SCOTUS cannot federalize the national guard. They would tell the court we do not answer to you. The Governor is our boss.

You would bet on this in a scenario where the state has collapsed to such a degree that SCOTUS feels confident enough to finally declare themselves kings?

[Arlenton]

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality is illegal again?

Because SCOTUS said make it so. Literally. That's it.

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

[Comerciante]

I guess we can settle for a government shut down in the middle of a pandemic.

I mean it's not as cool as zombies, but it's just as heartbreaking.

[American Legionaries]

It would turn off many people giving an overwhelming majority supports it.

No they cannot just make it so. Judges cannot declare themselves the law as they are there to interpret the law not be dictators. There is zero legal basis they could use to outlaw congress and the president. Almost every member of the House would vote to impeach and you’d likely get unanimous support for conviction in the Senate.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has final say over any and all laws in the US. For all intents and purposes, they are the constitution.

Why does the Supreme Court have such power? Because they ruled that they do in Marbury v. Madison.

I am the Senate! SCOTUS!

[San Lumen]

SCOTUS cannot federalize the national guard. They would tell the court we do not answer to you. The Governor is our boss.

You would bet on this in a scenario where the state has collapsed to such a degree that SCOTUS feels confident enough to finally declare themselves kings?

They aren’t ever going too. This is pure fantasy.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You would bet on this in a scenario where the state has collapsed to such a degree that SCOTUS feels confident enough to finally declare themselves kings?

They aren’t ever going too. This is pure fantasy.

So are at least 90% of your posts but hey.

[Arlenton]

They'll have to decide who to support when both congress and scotus are ordering them to "defend the constitution".

SCOTUS cannot federalize the national guard. They would tell the court we do not answer to you. The Governor is our boss.

Your scenario is pure insanity and completely ludicrous.

A state ignoring the federal government? That sounds like states' rights. Wasn't this settled in 1865? Tell me, why do you hate black people so much?