Barrett would overturn Roe, Obergefell,

[edhopper]

Lawrence, Loving, Brown, Griswold and more.

[rso]

1. Barrett

The only remedy is to win the WH and Senate, eliminate the filibuster, and expand the size of SCOTUS and the rest of the Federal Judiciary. This would neutralize jurists like Barrett.

[Moostache]

2. Correction...she'll help push the decisions to 6-3 instead of 5-4

The pressure to maintain the court's independence is gone, that is what held Roberts in check on ACA and Roe and more recently. It does not matter if its ACB or another drone from the Federalist Society approved list of justices. Anyone else nominated by Trump and pimped by McConnell would be equally rank and equally destructive to the court.

Its time to face the facts here - the GOP turned the SCOTUS into a rightwing political hack arena and compromised the entirety of the concept of an independent judiciary in general and it was INTENTIONAL and as a last ditch effort to maintain power in the face of swelling demographic irrelevance and permanent minority status. Their ideas suck and people do not want them implemented, so they decided years ago to simply say 'fuck the will of the people, we have the power and its not going back'.

Without additional seats on the Court, additional States in the union and additional Senators to represent those states, this current government is politicized and illegitimate and will only get worse from here until it is dissolved by decree or by arms. The "United" States of America is an officially dead concept. We are living in its fetid corpse.

[jls4561]

3. Hell, she'll bring back Plessy vs. Ferguson

That would make the old, white, Rethug males sooo happy!

[edhopper]

5. That is what Brown overturned.

[jls4561]

7. I know. That is why I chose it to an example or reactionary thinking.

[greenjar_01]

4. I was about to say, Loving would be in the mix for sure

She's like a cursed relic they removed from a wooded graveyard in the 19th century.

Mid-nineteenth century!

Oooofah.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I want them to go hard-core originalist and overturn Marbury v. Madison,

the 1803 case that held the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review; that is, that it could decide whether a law was constitutional. But the power of judicial review does not appear anywhere in the Constitution; C.J. Marshall just figured somebody would have to do it and it might as well be them. But if the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize judicial review by the Supreme Court any more than it expressly provides for the right to privacy (Roe, Griswold), why, O originalists, is Marbury still followed while Roe can be overturned? And if Marbury goes, do the Supreme Court still have jobs?

[dalton99a]

8. +1

[GeorgeGist]

9. +2