Staver, the leader of the hate group Liberty Counsel, is no better historian than attorney. Dred Scott v. Sandford was not overturned by the Supreme Court. Dred Scott became the cause for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (along with the Civil War).
Staver offered no reason for overturning Obergefell other than the fact that he doesn't like same-sex marriage. We can reasonably infer that Staver has a religious objection. According to Staver (try to follow the bouncing bat-crap):
… If you nominate someone to the Supreme Court that has a judicial philosophy, not that they’re political pro-life vs. pro-abortion, but they’re pro-life in the sense of they know that the Constitution has no basis for abortion. That means that someone’s viewing the Constitution based upon the written text. They’re not activists.Voila! Of course a new case has to make its way to the Court and then the Court has to agree to hear the case. Who is going to allege what injury was caused by same-sex marriage in order to achieve Article III standing. The injury must be real, not hypothetical and not prospective.
So, if you have a person who is a pro-life justice, that’s a person who’s not going to be an activist justice or judge. If they’re not going to be activists on pro-life, then they’re not going to be activist on the issue of same-sex marriage because that’s even a further deviation from the Constitution beyond belief.
So, if you put someone in there to fill Scalia’s spot, we’re still at 5-4, right? So, we still have the same terrible decision on marriage. But it’s likely that one more, two more, three more possibilities will come open in the next four years. And all he [Trump] has to do is appoint another Scalia, another Justice Thomas, someone who will respect the Constitution and, therefore, guess what happens? 5-4, 6-3, depending on how many he appoints, the other way.
Perhaps Mr. Staver should stick to defending loons like Roy Moore.