[JCEccles]

Short of that, they want the Courts to ignore established precedent and allow one State to make public policy for the rest of the State via a faulty reading of the FF&C Clause.

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that.

That's the risk.

[LtdGovt]

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that. That's the risk.

Imagine if they do have five votes, and the precedent is overturned. What would prevent us from acting after the fact?

[ipwnedu50]

And they may very well have five votes on the SCOTUS to do just that.

I don't think they have 5, YET, but just the risk alone is enough to have the FMA.

Conservatives go the correct route, and follow the Constitution and work to amend it, leftists and homo-activists get the Court to do their work for them. That alone is enough justification for the FMA IMO.