I find it interesting that the OP goes on and on about how "crazy" college students are. So much contradiction. OP loves freedom of speech and freedom of opinion but hates that college students and professors at a public university speak their minds and have opinions he does not agree with.
I will say this. Everyone has a right to speak their mind. I have no issues with these people speaking their mind. I do have issues when these institutions do things that punish people they don't agree with for doing the same. Not allowing conservative speakers for example to speak, or grading a paper lower for taking a position that contradicts the professors personal beliefs. And don't get me started on the censorship that sometimes happens on youtube and facebook and similar sites.
I have heard of instructors lowering grades because of different opinions at Oral Roberts University, Liberty University, UC Santa Cruz, Columbia, so that point is moot.
College is a place for people to speak their minds. It is generally the first place people are free to express themselves openly. Especially public schools. Students are generally the ones leading protests against conservative speakers, not faculty. Some faculty may back the students, but it is the students leading the protests.
Which brings up another interesting point: If these kids protest against the conservative speakers but not progressive ones, why is that?
So, the courts are being stacked in favor of Biblical law over Constitutional law. Marriage equality, even though it has been ruled to be the law of the land, will be overturned. Abortions will be severely limited, redistricting to water down any vote other than right will be acceptable.
I wonder how often John Roberts will side with "liberals" in some of these cases. I know he leans more right but I can see him siding with RBG and Sotomayor on many cases and having a 5-4 majority for "liberals."
Here is what I don't get about the same sex marriage debate. The democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House after Obama was elected and they could have easily passed a law then to overturn the Defense of Marriage act. They didn't do it. Same Sex marriage is not defined in any legal document, all that is stated is that marriage is between a man and a woman. The 14th amendment can be interpreted in a number of ways. One way is that every man has the same opportunity to marry a woman and vice versa. Every individual has that equal right. If it is interpreted that way, then there is nothing unconstitutional about the defense of marriage act. The way that it was interpreted in the recent SCOTUS ruling was that because it didn't allow for same sex couples to enjoy the same marriage benefits as opposite sex couples it was unconstitutional. Where I think the court erred is that by that definition, the institution of marriage as defined by law at the time was unconstitutional. I believe the powers of the judiciary end there. However, instead of declaring marriage unconstitutional, they rewrote it from the bench. By doing so, they opened up the possibility of unelected judges in the future who have a different view of the constitution to rule differently. Every other country on the planet that has enacted same sex marriage has done so legislatively. We should do so in this country. If we did, there is no way that a conservative judge would ever vote against it. Same with other hot button issues like abortion, and Health Care. These are best left to the legislative process, and not the judicial process. Roberts recognized this and that's why Obamacare is still around. Abortion was never decided legislatively. And if you look at history, the right for blacks to vote, the right for women to vote, all came through the legislative process. The courts never decided any of these issues. I would have no issue with Same Sex marriage being passed legislatively, and I think it should be because its the only way to prevent judges from overturning Oberfell.
Maybe Democrats did not rush through a marriage equality bill because they did not want to piss off the evangelicals? Maybe they wanted airtight wording so evangelicals would not have much to complain about other than "Obama did this so it is bad"? I don't get why it is so bad to support two consenting adults signing a government contract? That is, essentially, what we are debating. That is, essentially, what LGBTQ want. To be able to sign the exact same legal contract with whomever they love. Just like tRump did three times.
I don't believe that the conservative justices practice Christian law, but I do believe they practice constitutional law. You and I can differ on what we believe that means. As far as redistricting goes, this is another area that Congress needs to address, because the constitution and federal law based on my limited knowledge dont seem to provide any firm rules on this, and it can be argued that the tenth amendment applies in this situation. Which leaves it up to the states.
Evangelical voters and law makers want justices to interpret the Constitution through the lens of the Bible. They have said this for years.
To summarize my thoughts. Laws should be passed to protect same sex couples rights period, rather than reliance on court rulings. Conservatives should not rely on courts overturning Roe V Wade to reduce abortions, but should be doing other things to actually help these women out. Kavanaugh is a judge who I believe will follow the constitution and will interpret the law and not make the law. And no American should every rely on a court to implement change or protect rights that arent clearly spelled out. Thats the job of Congress. And its a job they really need to actually start doing.
I have said it before and I will say it again: if it is not specifically written into law, conservatives will sue until groups are excluded from the law. Equal protection should apply equally, but certain words were not included in the Fourteenth Amendment. So, laws had to be passed, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to clarify what citizens can do. I wish I could say I was confident as you in this pick, but equal rights will be set back if he is confirmed.