Gay marriage is here to stay because of a massive shift in public opinion on the issue which has been taking place over decades. None of that is going away.
History is pretty consistent that candidates actually do try to enact what they say during campaigns... Anyone expecting a suddenly different President Trump vs. Candidate Trump will likely be in for a surprise.
Trump has said many things that contradict reality. These are clearly lies. Trump has said many things that contradict other things that he has said. These indicate more lies. Trump has made many promises regarding policy. There is no reason to believe these to be lies. I am hopeful that they are, but it is just a hope.
Come on, be realistic. The guy would say anything to get votes. He is just like my Swedish politicians [0]. So what will the US and the rest of the world get? I don't know. You don't know. I'm not even certain that Trump knows.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
He said a lot of things which appealed to certain voters but pretty clearly aren't going to happen. His style is to overstate. People on the other side taking his words literally has led to a lot of fear.
Well most of the state and city bans to limit the 2nd amendment were struck down by the courts.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
Do you really not believe that these people will follow through with their campaign promises when they have the house, senate, and presidency? All it takes is a SCOTUS nominee, a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion, and a challenge to the law to get struck down in the Supreme Court, all of which are now in their grasp.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
"... a new law defunding planned parenthood and/or banning abortion"
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
I'm not sure I follow. Can't Congress just pass a law outlawing abortion, Trump signs, then it's the law? For the Supreme Court to overturn, there would have to a lawsuit to stop it.
No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
> No, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it wouldn't pass, because Democrats would vote 95% against and Republicans at most 75% for.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
In other words, you fear that Republicans might pull a trick similar to what Reid did 3 years ago in implementing the "nuclear option"[1]? Did you protest that at the time, or since?
Actually they can replace Roe V Wade because it's a ruling on the interpretation of laws that are amendable by the legislative branch.
I hope you are right about the courts laden with Obama appointees across the entire nation.
No, they can't. If you have any friends who went to law school, perhaps they could explain it to your satisfaction. Marbury v. Madison laid out these mechanisms over 210 years ago.
An an actual repeal of Roe v. Wade (or Casey v. Planned Parenthood) is unlikely. It's mainly red meat for the base. To actually do it would be political suicide of the type we saw when an unpopular ACA was passed.
All it will take is a reversion to "let the states decide", which may also be what we see with issues such as abortion. What scares me though, are the decisions like Citizens United, issues with privacy and regulatory oversight, and that kind of thing.
