Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lallo-the-Long t1_isszr13 wrote

Reply to comment by gorillatick in More Same-Sex Couples Eligible for Survivor Benefits After VA Policy Change by EssoEssex

>Both rulings are much stronger than Roe, but not as strong as an actual law passed by Congress.

That's not really accurate. Look at how much work Republicans put into overturning Roe (and threatening Loving and Obergefell). It wasn't just a matter of having control of the house and Senate. They had to control the Senate long enough to force their justice picks through. If Roe v Wade were just a law passed by Congress, it could also be overturned by Congress much easier than disrupting a supreme court ruling.

18

gorillatick t1_ist0axi wrote

I mean, we’re a representative democracy. Nothing is set in stone.

8

Lallo-the-Long t1_ist0yew wrote

Of course, but a supreme court ruling that the constitution protects lgbt people too is much stronger than a law passed by Congress. Same with Roe v Wade. That ruling was much stronger than any simple bill passed by Congress.

12

treefitty350 t1_istnyik wrote

You say that, but my state votes 55/45 Red/Blue and the representation we have is 75/25. This state is fucked, possibly forever. Republicans here would have to grow a conscience and willingly give up power to redraw district lines fairly, which will literally never happen.

6

P-W-L t1_isujph0 wrote

That's why for stuff that will be a new basis for all future laws to come you write them directly in the constitution.

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isukytg wrote

The supreme court is responsible for interpreting the constitution. Including the part of the constitution that talks about the unlisted freedoms that are guaranteed to citizens. Which is the basis for things like obergefell, loving, and roe.

1

P-W-L t1_isun7je wrote

But if you want to make double sure a constitutional right is respected, nothing stops you from marking it black on white in the constitution, something even disagreeing Justices could not interprete how they want.

You can always change the constitution back if there is a true political change wanted, it's just much, much harder to do. (makes sense it's not supposed to evolve at every law)

1

Lallo-the-Long t1_isunprf wrote

Lots of things prevent that, namely, the inane restrictions on making constitutional amendments combined with the wildly contentious climate of the political parties. Besides, you just said that we should make the basis of every law a constitutional amendment and then now you're saying that it's not supposed to do that.

1

P-W-L t1_isuss48 wrote

What I meant is that constitutional amendments are a big deal as you said. It's stronger than any supreme court ruling they can turn around as they want a few years later.

1