Why Trump will win in 2024.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not? I'm sure they can find a dead british witchfinder to say so. Or maybe they'll yammer on about states rights. Or religious freedom. Or maybe just fuck you is why, because they're the black robed lords of the us accountable to no one and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it? We're well past the point of pretense when it comes to those assholes, aren't we?

I think we're going to have to wait for them to die, honestly, before we can feel comfortable about any laws contrary to their dominionist agenda being safe. They give even less shits about the majority views of republican demographics than the elected reps do.

[Dundee]

Even though he doesn't respect Democracy, others do, namely, those federal and state prosecutors who are investigating him.  They won't indict him until he is out of office and no longer a viable candidate, and by that time, he'll be dead.  To get the Republican nomination, he will play his classic game of chicken, "Nominate me or I will run as a 3rd party candidate and sink all of you", which will cause DeSantis to accept the VP slot.  Once they get the nomination, Trump will play the climate card, as he is already referring to climate scientists as being "idiots", promising to abandon the Kyoto Protocol once and for all.  Evangelicals will vote for him with his promise of a gravy train of conservative federal judges.  Many young blacks will be crossover votes due to Trump's macho image.  The battle will be fought in Georgia, which will decide the 2024 Presidential election; Trump will win by 3 percentage points.

Will he really win?
And not go to prison?

[The Grand Nudger]

He'll win the nomination, at least, if he seeks it. Not because any majority wants him to...not even a republican majority, but because the primary system is a strooooooong lever for the loons. Going to prison would have helped, he's just too much of a candy ass to spend a few months at club fed writing his triumphant manifesto.

I think his stupidity and cupidity probably saved american democracy for at least a few more years.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We all know we can count on Susan Collins, amiright?  

Honestly, with the clerics on the court, I don't see that happening.  They'll decide, as they have before, that the law is unconstitutional for reasons*.  That's assuming we even get to that point, but that org shutting down and it's list of members becoming anti-abortion advocates just doesn't paint a picture of republican officials changing in the direction required for that to happen.  They're all in, going the other way, at full speed.  I blame Bill Clinton.

And, so, you think that a federal bill protecting abortion rights will be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS?

I do, seeing as how they've determined that abortion itself is not Constitutionally protected, and six of them slant against the practice on personal/religious grounds.

[Jackalope]

Take out your crystal ball -- Do you think that Roe v. Wade will be codified come mid-January?

The chance of that happening is indistinguishable from zero.

[Jehanne]

And, so, you think that a federal bill protecting abortion rights will be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS?

I do, seeing as how they've determined that abortion itself is not Constitutionally protected, and six of them slant against the practice on personal/religious grounds.

Given the outcome of the Civil War, has there ever been a case of a state suppressing an individual right granted by federal law?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do, seeing as how they've determined that abortion itself is not Constitutionally protected, and six of them slant against the practice on personal/religious grounds.

Given the outcome of the Civil War, has there ever been a case of a state suppressing an individual right granted by federal law?

You're shifting goalposts here. If the SCOTUS says a Federal law is unconstitutional, it does not apply to any state at all. Any law passed by Congress is subject to SCOTUS review, and if it's struck down by SCOTUS, no state at all is subject to that law. So Congress can pass a law protecting abortion rights or gay marriage or whatever, and if SCOTUS strikes it down, it applies to zero-point-zero states.

But to answer your question directly, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all American citizens. Ask Jim Crow how that worked out for the next century. Or ask the Nisei who were incarcerated in WWII, American citizens imprisoned for being of Japanese descent.

So yes, there are historical examples of states and/or the Federal government itself suppressing individual rights that are technically guaranteed in the Constitution.

[Jehanne]

So yes, there are historical examples of states and/or the Federal government itself suppressing individual rights that are technically guaranteed in the Constitution.

Just to be clear, if SCOTUS overturns a law, such a law does not "disappear"; if SCOTUS would reverse itself in the future, that law would automatically "kick in" again. Still, I am trying to find an instance here in the last 50 years where SCOTUS overturned a federal law granting a civil right in favor of a state law that suppressed that right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So yes, there are historical examples of states and/or the Federal government itself suppressing individual rights that are technically guaranteed in the Constitution.

Just to be clear, if SCOTUS overturns a law, such a law does not "disappear"; if SCOTUS would reverse itself in the future, that law would automatically "kick in" again.  Still, I am trying to find an instance here in the last 50 years where SCOTUS overturned a federal law granting a civil right in favor of a state law that suppressed that right.

This is a distinction without a difference, especially when members of the current court have already made mention of going after Obergefehl. Do you think they'll care whether they're overturning their own case law or an act of Congress?

[Jehanne]

Just to be clear, if SCOTUS overturns a law, such a law does not "disappear"; if SCOTUS would reverse itself in the future, that law would automatically "kick in" again.  Still, I am trying to find an instance here in the last 50 years where SCOTUS overturned a federal law granting a civil right in favor of a state law that suppressed that right.

This is a distinction without a difference, especially when members of the current court have already made mention of going after Obergefehl. Do you think they'll care whether they're overturning their own case law or an act of Congress?

Excellent example! If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, the Respect for Marriage Act would still be the Law of the Land, and, so, some state (say, Arkansas) would need to challenge that. And, what would that say about federal powers? Basically, SCOTUS would be pushing United States case law back to antebellum America, where states were sovereign in their domains.