[IronJack]

I don't think the idea is that we can just discard every decision in which Kennedy had a major influence or cast the deciding vote. The thought is that any decision rendered in recent history that is the result of bad law, improper reading of the Constitution, or clearly partisan without foundation in logic can be overturned, regardless of how "settled" it is.

Roe is built on the fictional "penumbra" of a non-existent "right to privacy." No such thing even exists in the Constitution, so any precedent derived from it has no legal anchor. Brown rests on the nonsensical thesis that "separate is inherently unequal." That is clearly unsupportable by logic, since in every sense of the word, two different things can be equal even though they differ in virtually every aspect.

Obergfell was argued as a Constitutional issue centering around the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. While it can certainly be argued that "equal protection" of an individual's rights does NOT include the right to marry, at least the root has some claim to Constitutional authority, and can be argued within the bounds of reason. Unlike the other two cases.

It's not that I wouldn't like to see Obergfell overturned; it's just that I don't think this is the lever to do it.

[AmericanVictory]

Show me where in the extensive proceedings that accompanied the enactment of the 14th Amendment, there is any constitutional “intent” to establish a right of homosexual marriage.