www.npr.org
The logic the court used is that these things need to be made laws via Congress, not a Supreme Court decision.
They could, but they would need to show how it's unconstitutional. Nothing about this bill is unconstitutional.
I think you guys are forgetting the court, even a conservative one, doesn't just overrule law it feels like. Nothing in the Constitution even talks about how marriage is defined so why would it be found unconstitutional? This court, as terrible as they are, have consistently taken the opinion of "Is it in the Constitution/amendments? Okay, is it a federal law? Okay, then states have the power"
Yeah, I truly don't get the insistence of getting people on records. It won't affect anyone voting Republican. It'll actually only affect moderate Dems, so I guess it's a positive in that regard, but people who vote Republican aren't going to suddenly not do so
They like to use "state rights!" To shield their bigotry.
Except states granting marriage certificates isn't in the Constitution. The times the SC has ruled on marriage and granted it to States was in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act because it tried to define marriage as between a man and a woman, allow states to discriminate, and violated the Due Process Clause (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and 14th Amendment (equal protection). Nothing in the Constitution defines what marriage is so a federal law doing so would be extraordinarily hard to rule as unconstitutional unless they can point to a specific clause/amendment it violates
It would need 60 votes in the Senate to pass without eliminating the filibuster. It passing in the House is pretty much guaranteed
I guess it's not impossible, but this court really hasn't made anything up yet( to my knowledge, but I may be mistaken). As was stated by this post
From what I read, Obama tried to, but there was infighting amongst moderate and progressive Dems over how far to go (basically term limits) and that pretty much killed it
Well it'd require a Republican President AND the numbers in Congress, otherwise Trump would've overturned tons of laws. Instead he was left just overturning executive actions
I'm sorry, but there's no reason to believe Republican's care about this. They'll just rule it unconstitutional and that's it.
Because there's never been a filibuster proof majority to vote on it. I doubt there's a filibuster proof majority to pass this one
If they pass popular pieces of legislation then people will continue voting for them.
Yes these are the issue that Dems have been squeamish about for decades and republicans rightly identified them as weakness or potential wedge issues
Don't worry, they are "too busy" to vote on this stuff anyway...
It's a huge step from saying: This is not stated in the constitution (because it appears both, the right for abortion and for gay marriage as found by the court in the past relies on a pretty liberal interpretation of the wording) to going "this is unconstitutional". I doubt that the supreme court would be willing to go the latter route. Which is why I think the best approach is to codify explicitly all rights that are only derived from a liberal reading of the constition. It is of course a shame that making these rights into laws is such a difficult thing in the first place.
Sinema won't vote against it because it pertains to her, AND she knows her vote doesn't matter here.
So you think he'll actually bring this to a vote? And are there not at least 10 Rs in the Senate willing to pass this? Because that seems insane, even by their standards. This is a cut and dry situation. I understand, at least in theory, Rs voting against an abortion law. But voting against this is nonsense, especially since so many marriages have already been honored.
Did I read this incorrectly? It said both sections 2 and 3 (1 was simply naming it) were ruled as unconstitutional/unenforceable by rulings in cases that cited Due Process and Equal Protection
