Not sure why you decided to quote wikipedia at me when it literally says what I've already told you, and provided various articles for. What exactly are you trying to tell me with this and why do you think it upholds anything you've previously said?
That's not what you were claiming earlier. Earlier you were talking about how it's a right innately granted by the constitution and could never be touched by the supreme court.
What the supreme court did in Roe V Wade is return the ability to decide abortion issues to the states. If the supreme court chose to (which I don't think they would) they could do the same thing to a lot of other rights, under the pretext of constitutional originality, limited government, and states rights. Then you would have completely different rights depending on what state you are currently in, like what women are having to deal with now after the overturning of Roe V Wade, and what gay people have had to deal with for decades. You would have little democratic or republican kingdoms making whatever laws they want.
I understand that as a straight white man it's not something that you've ever had to think about or deal with, but I am trying to get you to understand that it's something that no one should have to deal with. The fact that you are so flippant about this is because it doesn't affect you personally, but the moment it will affect you it will be too late.
Just agreeing with your point.
I've said that for most of the discussion about this with you and Silvanus. They could rule anything they want but they don't. Why worry about stuff that isn't gonna happen? Like say Project 2025...
There's nothing in the constitution that protects abortion, it was a legal nonsense 50 years ago. Maybe you can make a different argument (other than the privacy argument that made no sense) that ties abortion to a constitutional right, but I'd doubt it. Hence, you can just make a law about abortion. Not everything is protected by the constitution and that's fine because you can legislate it if you want. Just like I think the government influences social media companies on what to censor is a freedom of speech issue, it sidesteps the 1st amendment and there's no protection there.
I am In Seattle, WA.
And given how insanely toxic the political opinions are here, and how much people seem to hate Republicans, I really am unsure if my vote will matter
Then, you can feel fine voting for a 3rd party (if you like a 3rd party candidate the most obviously) because if they get enough votes, they will then get a ton of government campaign funding for the next election.
RFMA simply factually doesn't do the same thing. It doesn't ensure that states cannot ban it, which is what Obergefell does. You can argue the different provisions in the RFMA are sufficient all you want, but that's not what we're discussing.
? I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here.
You tried to draw a parallel between same-sex marriage being overturned, and slavery being relegalised. I pointed out that very different factors are at play for those two issues. This waffle-sentence of yours doesn't address that.
It would just inconvenience some people by making them travel to a different state (if their state bans it) to get married. Gay people would still be able to get married.
Ok, say it's a really simple case like a traffic ticket or even murder. You have incontrovertible evidence that you were going say 34mph in a 35mph zone or for the murder, have incontrovertible evidence that you were on the other side of the country during the murder. Now let's say both of those cases, the judge says you're guilty. Wouldn't that make people/public very much doubt the credibility of the courts then? Wouldn't the Supreme Court reversing say slavery do the very same thing? It's a credibility issue if the SCOTUS rules against basic protections that are in the constitution.
