There's really no reason I can think of that the Dems would deem the Freedom of Choice Act "not a priority" other to play political games in future presidential races. I'm convinced they basically wanted to be able to continue to use the threat of a Roe overturn to steer swing voters to their side, but never actually believed it would happen.
That said, I highly doubt Loving would ever be overturned. It sits on very solid legal ground, and the most conservative judge on the court is in an interracial marriage. Obergefell is genuinely at risk though.
> I'm convinced they basically wanted to be able to continue to use the threat of a Roe overturn to steer swing voters to their side
i wouldn't be surprised, the dems leadership seems to play games like that a lot and constantly get burned (baiting trump to run etc)
> I highly doubt Loving would ever be overturned. It sits on very solid legal ground
thomas said "we should revisit all cases decided via the 14th amendment", and interracial marriage is one of them... just my opinion but i think we are past saying "it wont happen" anymore with regards to these things...
Calling brown skin black is... a weird place to start. Further, there is no legal definition of black person or white person. So, it would be hard to revisit, for instance, interracial marriage in a way that doesn't overlook the 14th amendment
just a few...
- long term planning of the gop vs short term tactics of dems
- justices staying on too long until it was too late
- bad (tone-deaf) campaigning for prez lost 3 seats on the sc
- ignoring rural and working-class (used to be the dems bread and butter) dissolved their base of support (clinton and the "new" dems)
- relying on the sc for too many rulings... next we loose gay marriage and probably interracial marriage in many states.....