• eronth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They’d just rule that you can’t retroactively kill marriages, but future ones could be banned. Or something similar.

    • madjo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      He’ll be asked (forced) to step down during this Republican’s President’s term, and he’ll be replaced by a christian nationalist white dude. And then they’ll overturn Loving v Virginia.

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Nah he’ll get declared an “Honorary Aryan” so the marriage remains legal.

        Then when the 2028 auto-coup happens, he’ll get purged like what happened with the Jewish Nazis.

        It will be known as the the Night of the Long Knives AR-15s

        Leopard… Face… ye know

        🤦‍♂️

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days 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.