• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t doubt it. However if Trump’s team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he’d fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain’t.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t think they’ll send it down the pipe, or be successful if they try. The process tends to have to start at the lower courts and work their way up. In all likelihood, lower courts would simply strike it down, and the appeals court wouldn’t see any reason to change that.

        There are ways to skip those intermediate steps, and they could certainly try to invent a whole new process just for the case. But when one of their biggest allies on the court has a clear reason to be against it, why even try? They have a hundred other cases they’d rather do to hurt people. If you follow the domino metaphor in OP, then Loving is way towards the back.