What Social Conservative issues are still viable in the year 2014?

1. Abortion opposition? 40+ years since Roe, and we've had "pro-life" Congresses with "pro-life" Presidents (2003 to 2006)....the majority of the Supreme Court were nominated by "pro-life" Presidents...

and Roe still stands. And when Republicans pander to the "pro-life" vote with comments about how "in a legitimate rape, the female body shuts down" or "pregnancy from rape may be God's plan"....easy Republican victories are lost.


2. Abstinence-only sex education? Study after study shows it doesn't work. And more publicly, Sarah Palin's daughter showed that it doesn't work, even in a family of "strong, conservative, Christian values".


3. Gay marriage opposition? State-by-state bans are falling. The US Supreme Court (again majority Republican) made the "Windsor" decision. Support among younger REPUBLICANS for marriage equality is at 61%.


4. Calls for making divorce "less easy"? Difficult to take seriously when Rush Limbaugh is one of the leading spokesmen for the Right...and on this FOURTH marriage.


5. Calls for "promoting marriage" and opposition to single motherhood? Again, difficult with female conservatives like the, never married Ann Coulter (now in her 50s) ...or the single mother, no father in her children's lives, Laura Ingraham of radio and Fox News.


6. Prayer in schools or creationism taught with evolution? Non-starters for decades.


What's left?

 

Fear that The america you grew up in wont be there for your children because we put a black foreign born muslim in the white house.


Or so I have been told.

 

There's nothing left, really. Social conservatism is dead. It took social Conservatives nearly a quarter century to realize that Brown made it impossible to justify racial segregation. Warren saw to that when he made sure that the decision was 9-0, there was no dissenting opinion for those wanting segregation to hang their hats on. The only reason Roe hasn't had the same effect is because there was dissent on the case. Without there being precedent to hear her case in an exception to the Case or Controversy clause of Article III, those guidelines make it comparatively more difficult to establish justiciability in an abortion case than in another case

Social conservatives are swimming against the tide, and as a result, will die tired.

There are other issues to address with regards to abortion though that can make it more difficult. For example, TRAP laws will probably have to be challenged by an abortion provider, and are somewhat more difficult to litigate than outright bans.

As for same-sex marriage, unless there is some high-powered legalese, same-sex marriages will be legalized nationwide, but, depending on the scope of the ruling, there may need to be another case to ensure the rights of all same-sex couples transfer to all fifty states.

It's important to remember, never once has the Supreme Court outlawed prayer in schools. In fact, it has upheld the right of students to pray in schools. What they have outlawed is school-sanctioned prayer in schools.

Honestly, if the United States was run using socially conservative views, we would be in much worse a situation. Teen birth rates would be much higher, the poverty rate would be much higher, and the world view of the United States would be dropping like a stone. It'd be worth it just to sit back and watch the social conservatives deny the implosion of society they brought about.

Oh, there is one upside, social conservatism would lead to a popular uprising much like the French Revolution where all the social conservatives lose their heads, whether that be literally or figuratively, I am not going to say.

 

They're just a bunch of repressed passive aggressive prudes.

And that was what caused the 60's revolution.

If I had to listen to all these church lady types hypocritically preach to me about not having premarital sex, or how being gay is wrong, or how God doesn't like contraception........I'd probably snap like a dry twig, buy a hippie bus, and write all day like Ken Kesey.

I can see why they hate education, because if they were educated, they'd be unable to let themselves repeat historical mistakes. Then there are the really demented ones, that simply want to repress others because they never got laid enough when they were young. Or they were ugly guys who never got girls.

 

you left out drug prohibition and prostitution, as well as same sex adoptions

 

Your kids and grand kids will starve to death when our economy eventually collapses. I don't have any kids so I really don't give a crap.

 

Yes because the opposite of social oppression is clearly national poverty

 

No..............because..........

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Mar 2014 at 11:58:11 AM GMT is:



The estimated population of the United States is 317,820,927, so each citizen's share of this debt is $55,048.74.​

When the economy finally collapses under the weight of all that debt, that's when they will starve.



It's happened before.

 

Roe v. Wade has stood for 41 years.

Plessy v. Ferguson (the legal cover for Jim Crow) stood for 58 years until reversed by Brown v. Board of Education.

In both cases, the long-standing court decisions were never legally consolidated by legislation. They are prime example of naked case law. Case law has to be consolidated by legislation or it is vulnerable to being suddenly overturned. Brown was consolidated by legislation in the 50s and 60s.

So far, Roe has not been consolidated by legislation. I don't see enough political will out there to do so. A single decision could reverse Roe and return America to the status quo ante. Abortion is a classic example of government creep. Roe only dealt with first trimester abortion. Now we have partial birth and even postpartum abortion. It is entirely possible that the right case comes along and either completely reverses Roe or restricts abortion to the Roe scenario of early abortion only.

Another decision that is ripe to be overturned is the Bakke case which is the legal underpinning for Affirmative Action.

Both Roe and Bakke were made on grounds that are still debated in constitutional legal circles. Shaky case law made on narrow cases with unusual reasoning is always subject to reversal. It is a matter of time.

There are few cases like Marbury v.Madison which has stood for two centuries without legislative reinforcement.

 

Few. Social conservatism will die as millennials take over.

This is one case where I prefer Canadian politics vastly: we don't talk about these hot-button social issues anymore. We sorted it out a long time ago and lived with the decisions made. All we talk about now is where to spend money and how much - you know, the really important stuff that everyone in America claims they vote based on but just vote on social issues anyway.

 

I do agree that fiscal issues and the overarching question of just how big government should be is much more important than most social issues.

 

They're largely inextricable. Not just expanding the federal payroll for the military and contriving nation-building fiascos come at a huge economic and social cost. State womb intrusion, intense deportation policies, incarcerating an unprecedented number of Americans for longer sentences, and relegating to the taxpayer the medical costs for tens of millions of Americans are amongst the pricey items that conservatives insist be added to the national tab.

 

Plessy was only decided the way it was because, at the time, the Supreme Court was not as socially liberal as the later Warren court was for Brown. The Supreme Court has an innate talent to adapt to society at large. Plus, after fifty years, the lie of separate but equal was proven sufficiently. Schools for African-American students were of inferior quality and thus not equal.

The Supreme Court is the, well, supreme court, there's no higher body that can overturn their decision, and the Supreme Court is not going to reverse itself on issues like that. Furthermore, I Googled "naked case law", you made that up, likely to cover your own ignorance. The only way a Supreme Court case can be overturned is by Constitutional Amendment, a precedent set, not by the Court, but by the United States Constitution and accepted by the nation as a whole before the Constitution was a decade old.

Since the Constitution was ratified, there have only been twenty-seven amendments. The average time between amendments is around one every eight and a quarter years, however, two were adopted within a decade of the Constitution's ratification, and the next three were adopted within a span of five years, but were passed over sixty years after the last Amendment. The next amendment was not adopted until 1913.

There is a precedent for Amendments being passed to overturn a Supreme Court case. For example, Amendments XI, XVI, and XXVI were ratified in direct response to a Supreme Court decision. However, the widest margin between the case that nullified a law and the time when the Court decision was overturned by the Amendment was eighteen years. The other two amendments were adopted at a much more rapid pace. The Twenty-sixth was, in fact, the fastest adopted Amendment in history, it took less than four months to be ratified.

Furthermore, excluding the anomaly of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, the Constitution has only been amended twice in the fifty-five years since the Union expanded to 50 states. As the Union has grown in number of states, the pace of amendment to the Constitution has slowed.

A case decided by the Supreme Court does not need to be consolidated by legislation. The only action that can be taken is for the Supreme Court itself to overturn the case, which is not going to happen, or for the Constitution to be amended. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn a case decided on solid Fourteenth Amendment grounds. A Constitutional amendment is likewise out of the question, only 20% of the United States population oppose all forms of abortion per a Gallup poll from 2013. That number has been relatively consistent over the span Gallup has asked about the issue. The highest percentage of illegal under any circumstances is only 22%. Codifying exceptions into the Constitution is starting down a road you, as someone with a minority opinion, do not want to go down.

Bakke has been confirmed, albeit by a 5-4 decision, it was still upheld. I am busy, otherwise I might be inclined to examine both Bakke and Grutter, the case that affirmed the decision in Bakke.

The Fourteenth Amendment is not controversial, well not as controversial as you'd like it to be. The only debate about either case is how can those opposed to the cases conceive of a persuasive argument to overturn the case, which is a waste of time anyway.

Yeah, because the Supreme Court is going to declare a law constitutional that strips them of one of their most vital powers and then allows Congress to infringe on rights unchecked. Yet another classic Taxcutter comment! More conclusive proof too that an intelligence and rationality test as a requirement for membership of this board would be a damn fine idea in my opinion.

In order for Marbury to be overturned, you would have to rewrite Article III. The only way Article III would be rewritten nowadays is to incorporate Marbury into the Constitution. Without Judicial Review, there is nothing stopping Congress from passing blatantly unconstitutional laws.

Not all of that debt is the doing of social liberals. The United States has run a constant debt since 1835-36.

Depending on the source, Obama has added more to the debt than Bush, some sources though attribute debt from the last Bush budget that was executed before Obama's first budget was enacted. Percentage-wise, per about.com, Bush had a 101% increase in national debt over his term, while Obama has only had a 44% increase thus far per the same article. Reagan, on the other hand, added 186%, while Clinton added 32%, which is quite small percentage-wise.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

However, an objective analysis would reveal that Obama was dealing with a still-worsening economy thanks largely to Bush-era mismanagement. One of his largest expenditures in his first term, the ARRA stimulus, would not have been needed had Bush undertaken sensible management practices while occupying the Oval Office. Obama also has the cost of the Iraq War on his table, a Bush-era boondoggle whether or not Obama voted for any of it in the Senate or not. He would not have needed to had Bush not gone to war in Iraq in the first place.

 

Thats great but keeping the (*)(*)(*)(*) from getting married has nothing to do with the nations finances; in fact social conservatism has nothing to do with our nations finances. Social conservatism is, oddly enough, about social issues. You can still be a social conservative and not be fiscally sound; look at the Republican party. At the same time you can be fiscally sound yet socially liberal; look at Libertarians. There is no relation between keeping minority groups from social equality and keeping the nations finances on track.

 

Additionally, a CBO report from a Congress where both Houses were controlled by the GOP showed that elimination of same sex marriage bans would be fiscally beneficial to the federal government.

 

I don't have any kids either Pea, they're too expensive and time consuming.

 

Then why do congressional Republicans spend all their time opposing gay marriage, abortion, and thumping the bible?

Then try to obstruct everything meant to help the economy?

 

Almost nothing. We have thrown all our values in the trash, so there isn't much left.

 

Taxcutter asks:
Then how did Brown overturn Plessy? What Constitutional Amendment reversed Plessy?

Taxcutter says:
Then the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not needed.

 

Most Republicans in Washington are RINOs. You do realize that, right? They don't actually give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about any of the issues. They're only there to get paid and re-elected. That's why the Tea Party was so important. It actually produced candidates that were interested in making changes. Get a Tea Party congress and a Tea Party president and you'll see a lot of things change.

As for the "legitimate rape" comment, you also have to realize that at any given time, conservatives are fighting a ridiculously lopsided battle against not just liberalism but the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry who are all in bed together and who shape the social narrative of the country. So anything that a conservative says is virtually guaranteed to be taken out of context, twisted, skewed, distorted, and made into something 180 degrees removed from its actual message. The game is beyond rigged. But we take it in stride because these kinds of things are to be expected. Liberals are the bad guys. Bad guys lie, cheat, and defame. They're not supposed to be honest. If they had integrity and played by the rules, they wouldn't be bad guys. They would just be other people with a different point of view.

 

Taxcutter asks:
Like what? The House has passed literally dozens of bills designed to perk up the economy, but Dingy Harry let them die in the Senate.

 

The only relevant "social conservative" issues in politics I'd say is promoting stronger patriotism (since openly 'hating' your country or criticizing it destructively has become a trend), and countering the "feminization" of the American male - like it or not a lot of young men are growing up without strong male role models, to the point that there's a lot of confusion about what masculinity even is - and on top of that it's become politically incorrect to even talk about different gender traits - pretty much any discussion on these important subjects (especially with a liberal) will just lead to accusations of wanting to put women "back in the kitchen" or claims that it has something to do with "Christianity' or "religion" - when it really has more to do with nature.

A few other issues I'd say are relevent:

*Abortion rights - I'm fine with early term abortion, however there needs to be a concrete definition established at which point human life begins. I'd say that "women's rights" aren't a relevant factor in abortion since the definition of human life is more important - at the point in the pregnancy when the fetus has a brain, then it should be protected except to save the mother's life - prior to that abortion should be legal on demand (since it's not a human life issue, therefore it's the individual's business and not the govt's) - it's a much simpler solution then arguing rights

*Internet/media violence - I'm no prude but I'm a little uncomfortable with the ease of access to violent media online to young people, not to mention a lot of the violence in media (ex.video games) today is a lot more realistic than it was 10-20 years ago - I'm a little worried that too much exposure to violence in media could have bad psychological effects on young people

*Tabloid journalism/junk food media - I think this dumbs us down as a nation more than anything else does

Issues such as young earth creationism, pre-martial sex, "sodomy", etc aren't relevant to anyone important

 

Brown overturned Plessy because in Brown, the Supreme Court overturned the decision that separate but equal was adequate enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that equal protection be afforded to all American citizens. In Brown, the Warren Court held that separate institutions are inherently unequal by virtue that the two different institutions can be treated differently. Having one institution is thus the only way to ensure equality.

The Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act were not motivated by a Supreme Court decision. The Civil Rights Acts passed during Reconstruction were to codify the provisions of the Constitution into federal statute. Violation of a provision of the Constitution is not punishable, since the Constitution is not a book of laws, but a framework for laws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives codified federal statutory force to the provisions required by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Fourth Amendments. Without the Volstead Act, the Eighteenth Amendment would not have been in force within the United States.

I'll forgive you for not realizing that. It's a common misconception of many Americans that the Constitution is enforceable as statute.

Name five.

 

These kinds of threads honestly sound more like circle jerks than honest questions to me.

1. the pro-life cause isn't dead. It's actually gained ground since Roe v. Wade, as shown by this graph, but the underlying views haven't changed significantly. In 40 years the difference between the hardcore types (those thinking it should always be legal or illegal) has only grown by 3%.
just look for yourself

2. yay for straw men! No, social conservatives very rarely advocate for abstinence only education. They usually advocate for emphasizing abstinence, which is entirely different. I mean really, what is it with critiquing the extremes as if they're mainstream? I've heard a liberal say that we should actually teach kids sex-ed with a live demonstration - doesn't mean I'm going to treat that extremist view like it's what "the liberals" are saying like they're a monolithic group.

3. you should pay closer attention to the polls you read. Roughly 3/5 Americans support SOME legal recognition of homosexual unions. I've said this for years now, if gay marriage proponents really only cared about legal equality, they'd advocate civil unions now and push for gay marriage later, but that's not really the case sadly. Look at the polls again yourself - nationally, less than 40% support gay marriage, the others that the polls are drawing on to show a majority INCLUDE those that only support civil unions.

4. This isn't something most social conservatives care about. At all. Whatsoever. You're more likely to hear social conservatives advocating for gender equality in divorce court than for making divorce harder - really, it baffles me how lefties who think they've monopolized the word 'equality' don't give a rat's ass about the clear sexism against men in divorce court/child custody battles.

5. ^_- what are you talking about? Opposition to 'single motherhood'? Oh, you mean like how social conservatives have pointed out (accurately) how much better it is for a child to be raised in a stable home with two parents? Yes, conservatives think the state should not discourage stable homes. Don't know what the hell you're talking about with 'opposition to single motherhood'

6. Prayer in public schools: no, the conservatives actually won big on that in the 90s. Back then, some 80% of Americans supported prayer in public schools. part of why conservatives won big is because liberals then tried taking it too far, to suggest that the court ruling meant an all out ban on prayer in school. I went to a public school and a teacher forced me to eat lunch separately because I prayed before I ate. The kind of dumbass liberal who wants to take it that way will just give conservatives the red meat they need to whip up in a campaign.

The ruling was pretty clear, but let's be honest here, as far-out as you may think it is, it's not a losing issue. Polls have been oddly silent on it for a while, but Pew just had a poll on the court's decision, showing that views about the court's decision on school prayer have been pretty stable and unchanged. It's still unpopular. But what's interesting to note is that Pew's poll shows the stability of views on the issue. Other polls suggest that views are relatively stable, and that you can expect a vast majority of Americans still support prayer in schools.


^pew

^gallup
65% of American favor prayer in public schools
52% think "schools need more religion"

I'm not necessarily advocating that stuff - I'm just advocating awareness of gross errors and bias in Gorn Captain's analysis.

 

America does not want a Tea Party.