[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

1515254565761

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    They accepted a case where Roberts gets to gut Section 2 of the VRA yesterday.

    Going to need to pass the John Lewis Memorial Voting Rights Act and dare Roberts to overturn it. If he does, I think support will build for court packing.

    It's not really a dare to ask someone to do the thing they want to do. You might as well dare me to eat pumpkin pie this month.

    BlackDragon480BrodyMartini_PhilosophershrykeNetscapeAistanOmnomnomPancakejdarksunzepherinNobeard
  • cncaudatacncaudata Registered User regular
    There isn't enough time to do that. Passing the law will take half the first year, it'll take another year to get it through the courts, and then you need to pack the courts and re-pass all the laws in the second half of the term (if you even still control congress after two years and still-fucked elections), which is never gonna happen.

    PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
    Phoenix-DMillOrcaMvrckMarty81ElvenshaeSpoit
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Pretty much, if you're gong to pack the court. Doing it the start of the term and justify as part of increasing the number of appellate courts, on top of the fact that republicans have made it unrepresentative. Pretty sure most of the public is going to back court packing if they do get their shitty racist, theocratic garbage fucker fascist member in. Most aren't going to give a fuck that it was before the lame duck session or not. Most remember that the GOP pulled shit with Obama well before the 2016 election and then that didn't matter for the shitheads of the GOP. Most are probably going to be pissed if the new shitty court kills ACA, Roe, Brown and other things that a vast majority felt were decided right.

    You don't need to risk not being able to fix the court by rolling up a law that takes a really fucking long time to roll through. People will be pissed and if you let the fucking authoritarian shits on the court slow roll that case, which they will. You run a real risk of not having the votes there because midterms hit and a ton of people stay home, since someone decided let's go with a process that will take a long time to playout, when people want quick results. The GOP knows this and they will take advantage. The play should be whether that seat is open or not, is "fuck you GOP, we're expanding the court because you fucking pieces of shit have destroyed it's credibility with your fucking games to steal as many seats as you can. Knowing full well that Donald Trump was compromised and that the federalist society is full of craven ratfucker hacks. Election have consequences, now get fucked and we put in place a court that let's us dismantle every shitty authoritarian and undemocratic thing you fuckers erected to steal power. Get fucked, get fucked. Don't worry fuckers, we've already called the whambulance, and to be clear get fucked."

    OrcaDarkPrimusBigJoeMNetscapeSpoit
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    More cynically, potential Democratic voters who are mad about the court packing will have lost most of their ire over it by midterms if you do it immediately.

    Kamar on
    MillOrcaJragghenSpecial KFencingsaxDarkPrimusHacksawTynnanShadowfireemp123Netscape
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    More cynically, potential Democratic voters who are mad about the court packing will have lost most of their ire over it by midterms if you do it immediately.

    Totally; especially, since we're dealing with the GOP and reality. People you lose forever for court packing, were never going to vote democratic ever and no guarantee that locks them in as a republican vote forever. You'll get people that will be made briefly and then just stop caring by midterms; especially, if you pair it up with expanding the number of courts to make it an easier sell. Throw in the fact that the GOP is likely to have a member that says or does things that are really shitty and you either have distractions to make people forget or if they don't forget, they feel that their outrage is better spent on being pissed about the GOP;s latest fuckery. Then this year, 2020, has reminded us that reality is plenty capable of throwing shit at us to make some things not really matter. Also a non-shit court striking down all the GOP's power stealing shit, would mean they'd have a harder time getting back in, even if people are still mad about the court packing because there are likely more people pissed at the fact that the GOP has stolen their rights to have a representative government.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    asur wrote: »
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    This makes the argument to expand the court much more palatable. It also would mean the new justice wouldn't rule on ACA though a tie would repeal the law.

    Really? I thought it was the "anti-ACA" fuckers that were losing court cases, and having it appealed to the next court, and so a tie would mean going back to the previous ruling which would be in favor of the ACA protectors?

    zepherin
  • MalyonsusMalyonsus Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    "Funniest" would be if scotus ties in differing cases resulted in effectively upholding a circuit split.

    Malyonsus on
  • asurasur Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    asur wrote: »
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    This makes the argument to expand the court much more palatable. It also would mean the new justice wouldn't rule on ACA though a tie would repeal the law.

    Really? I thought it was the "anti-ACA" fuckers that were losing court cases, and having it appealed to the next court, and so a tie would mean going back to the previous ruling which would be in favor of the ACA protectors?

    I might have overstated that. The Fifth Circuit found the mandate unconstitutional and remanded it back to the lower court for more analysis on the question of severability and the administration's changing positions. So if the Supreme Court upholds the circuit court then it would likely go through the whole process again as one side will appeal the remand decision. If the justices don't change it's likely to have the same outcome though as they could currently be ruling that it's severable and thus not an issue.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    Kamar wrote: »
    More cynically, potential Democratic voters who are mad about the court packing will have lost most of their ire over it by midterms if you do it immediately.

    This is true. I for one will be pretty goddamn furious about it, but not for 2 years. I know I'll eventually absorb it as status quo and begin to accept + defend it because I'm generally a structurally conservative, risk-averse person and once it's done, we shouldn't just revert. That's a lot of time to argue that some good shit is around the bend with another Dem Congress in 2023 while I cool off.

    spool32 on
    Netscapeelectricitylikesme
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    edited October 4
    If it were me the very first thing I'd do is have Kavanaugh arrested for lying to the Senate during his confirmation hearings and let the court deal with his absence. Either Roberts holds a vote to kick him off or does nothing. Which, to my mind, signals congress that they can impeach his ass. Which is step two of that process.

    From there it all depends on if this most recent nomination gets their hearing or not. Because if I were in Chuck Schumer's shoes, I'd be ready with all kinds of questions to get her to lie in the hearings. That lets me rinse and repeat the same process and gives me the two seat I want to rebalance the court without having to pack it.

    ed: Forgot a noun.

    Martini_Philosopher on
    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    Elvenshae
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    More cynically, potential Democratic voters who are mad about the court packing will have lost most of their ire over it by midterms if you do it immediately.

    It's less about the voters and more about the Senators themselves and to a lesser extent the media reaction. Voters don't give a shit about Senate procedure unless the media makes a stink about it and even then only if it takes.

    Fencingsaxmrondeau
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    If it were me the very first thing I'd do is have Kavanaugh arrested for lying to the Senate during his confirmation hearings and let the court deal with his absence. Either Roberts holds a vote to kick him off or does nothing. Which, to my mind, signals congress that they can impeach his ass. Which is step two of that process.

    From there it all depends on if this most recent nomination gets their hearing or not. Because if I were in Chuck Schumer's shoes, I'd be ready with all kinds of questions to get her to lie in the hearings. That lets me rinse and repeat the same process and gives me the two seat I want to rebalance the court without having to pack it.

    ed: Forgot a noun.

    Does not work. SCOTUS cannot kick off a member. Kavanaugh can be impeached and that is it

    wbBv3fj.png
    Netscapemonikerspool32Extreaminatus
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    If it were me the very first thing I'd do is have Kavanaugh arrested for lying to the Senate during his confirmation hearings and let the court deal with his absence. Either Roberts holds a vote to kick him off or does nothing. Which, to my mind, signals congress that they can impeach his ass. Which is step two of that process.

    From there it all depends on if this most recent nomination gets their hearing or not. Because if I were in Chuck Schumer's shoes, I'd be ready with all kinds of questions to get her to lie in the hearings. That lets me rinse and repeat the same process and gives me the two seat I want to rebalance the court without having to pack it.

    ed: Forgot a noun.

    Does not work. SCOTUS cannot kick off a member. Kavanaugh can be impeached and that is it

    I meant that Roberts can talk him into resigning if enough of the other judges feel it's in the best interests of the court. Who wants to go down in history as presiding over a SCOTUS that has a convicted criminal on it?

    But in looking into it, it might be that the court can police itself. Like good deal many things, the Constitution itself is silent on if the court can choose to kick people off it. Yes, Congress can impeach judges, but there's nothing in the law to stop the court from removing those it doesn't like.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Congress can kick out it’s own members because the constitution mentions it explicitly. The govt generally does not have powers not specifically enumerated.

    wbBv3fj.png
    ZonugalmonikerFencingsaxzepherin
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    SCOTUS can kick out members and when the lawsuit winds their way back up say fuck you, of course we can kick you out. Who you gonna appeal to?

    Not that it really matters because it will never come to that because for things to get there way too many things have broken down long past a random justice mattering.

    BigJoeMStarZapperCommander ZoomMartini_PhilosopherFencingsax
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited October 4
    I'm just a lay person, but from what I understand every branch is essentially responsible for policing themselves. For example, with Kavanaugh even though he was duly appointed, the Supreme Court itself could have chosen to reject him and not recognize him on the bench. The same thing with Congress, if a member in congress were say a convicted criminal or something Congress could simply refuse to recognize his standing and remove him. There may not be any precedent for it, but there's also never been an opportunity to justify a precedent. All rules can ultimately be manufactured if there's enough support.

    StarZapper on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    The Constitution specifies that:
    The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...

    That is generally understood to mean for Life, but does not explicitly state so. As with so many things, our governing documents rely on people not trying to break itself up.

    spool32BrodyCommander ZoomFencingsaxElvenshae
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Yes and if they’re not in good behavior the fix is impeachment. Not “scotus votes them out”. Congress is the only body that can vote out members and it’s because the constitution specifically mentions it

    wbBv3fj.png
    zepherin
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Yes and if they’re not in good behavior the fix is impeachment. Not “scotus votes them out”. Congress is the only body that can vote out members and it’s because the constitution specifically mentions it

    Right, but the rest of the court could just refuse to accept Kavanaugh's votes, and treat all rulings as N-1 sitting members, and it's not like the rest of the government has much recourse at that point, right?

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
    Martini_Philosopher
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    No. Because if his vote changes the outcome the govt would follow the majority... i mean. What SCOTUS says ultimately doesn’t matter it’s how the govt responds.

    wbBv3fj.png
    moniker
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    No. Because if his vote changes the outcome the govt would follow the majority... i mean. What SCOTUS says ultimately doesn’t matter it’s how the govt responds.

    How can he vote if he's in jail? He never heard the arguments of the case. Can't write an opinion or vote if you don't hear the arguments.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    All of this is moot (and a whole lot of wishful thinking) because even though his appointment was a travesty, they're not going to come up with some new theory to remove him. Either he's impeached, or he's on there for life, same as the rest.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    OrcaHappylilElfNetscapeChanusBullheadShadowfiremonikerzepherinSpoitMrMisterNobeard
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    All of this is moot (and a whole lot of wishful thinking) because even though his appointment was a travesty, they're not going to come up with some new theory to remove him. Either he's impeached, or he's on there for life, same as the rest.

    Which is the same thing as saying he's on there for life.

    Commander ZoomNetscapeChanusTetraNitroCubanemonikerzepherinSpoit
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular


    Amy Howe reports on the SCOTUS
    Thomas says that petition "provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell" v. Hodges, recognizing right to same-sex marriage, & says that "the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences.'"

    So, I can't imagine they'll summarily and simultaneously invalidate the hundreds of thousands of marriages and all the associated contracts that have resulted since Obergefell, but I can't see how they won't.

    nUzGRMY.gif
    twitch.tv/Taramoor
    @TaramoorPlays
    DoodmannmonikerArdolshrykeemp123Commander ZoomFencingsax
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    But remember the religion of a justice shouldn't ever be discussed even when they directly use it to overrule court rulings and deny rights to millions.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    monikerArdolDarkPrimusZonugalAngelHedgieMartini_PhilosopherJaysonFourN1tSt4lkeremp123YamiB.BullheadHacksawKamarStabbity StyleCommander ZoomFencingsaxCaptain InertiaSpoitMillNetscapepainfulPleasance
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Shadowfire
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    For now, but add the nutjob they want to and one like it will be back.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    monikerArdolAngelHedgieMartini_PhilosopherBigJoeMemp123Phoenix-DBlackDragon480BullheadQanamilHacksawStabbity StyleCommander ZoomFencingsaxsanstodoNetscapepainfulPleasance
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    PreachermonikerArdolJragghenAngelHedgieshrykeBigJoeMJaysonFouremp123Phoenix-DBlackDragon480YamiB.HacksawStabbity StyleCommander ZoomFencingsaxCaptain InertiaSpoitMillNetscapeNobeardpainfulPleasance
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    True, but at least they'll need to find some other patsy. Davis's path ends with the denial.

    zepherinN1tSt4lker
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Good thing there will never be a case questioning the humanity of gay people before the Court ever again for that 2/9ths opinion to attempt to hold sway.

    Just like black people never again had their fundamental human rights questioned after Brown, Cooper, Griffin, Loving, ... Shelby County

    ArdolPreacherOrcaAngelHedgieshrykeKetarJaysonFourGONG-00emp123Phoenix-DBlackDragon480YamiB.HacksawKamarStabbity StyleCommander ZoomFencingsaxMillNobeardElvenshaepainfulPleasance
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    True, but at least they'll need to find some other patsy. Davis's path ends with the denial.

    There are plenty more patsies in the sea.

    I think same sex marriage is honestly under greater real threat than abortion over the coming months. I can't see the court possibly imposing a federal ban on either, but, the lax attitude to anti abortion laws at the state level driven by religious hate and dogma has made abortion close to illegal for all poor people in many states. As such, if the states were to get their right to decide back, most states which would impose a ban have barely anything left to ban. Conversely, same sex marriage is much more crippled by a lack of national recognition, and I cant think of a state which has managed to impose a defacto ban on it in the same way they have abortion. If the Supreme Court allows states to choose on that, some will choose to ban it, creating a nightmarish patchwork of rules where same sex couples may be unable to live and work where they choose.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    spool32Netscape
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited October 5
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    It’s a clear demonstration that the Court is in actuality political. Nobody is forcing Alito and Thomas to make a hackneyed argument about why the case should have been heard. It’s obvious they see the Court as a venue for political change.

    joshofalltrades on
    Phoenix-DBullheadFencingsaxCaptain InertiaIncenjucarKruiteNobeardElvenshaepainfulPleasance
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    True, but at least they'll need to find some other patsy. Davis's path ends with the denial.

    There are plenty more patsies in the sea.

    I think same sex marriage is honestly under greater real threat than abortion over the coming months. I can't see the court possibly imposing a federal ban on either, but, the lax attitude to anti abortion laws at the state level driven by religious hate and dogma has made abortion close to illegal for all poor people in many states. As such, if the states were to get their right to decide back, most states which would impose a ban have barely anything left to ban. Conversely, same sex marriage is much more crippled by a lack of national recognition, and I cant think of a state which has managed to impose a defacto ban on it in the same way they have abortion. If the Supreme Court allows states to choose on that, some will choose to ban it, creating a nightmarish patchwork of rules where same sex couples may be unable to live and work where they choose.

    31 States ban same-sex marriage in their Constitutions. Eliminate the Federal Supremacy protection and it automatically becomes outlawed nearly everywhere but the Northeast and half the Midwest. The 2000's are an embarrassing chapter in American History.

    PreacherOrcaDoctorArchdestroyah87ToxshrykeBigJoeMJaysonFourGONG-00emp123Phoenix-DYamiB.HacksawStabbity StyleArdolFencingsaxCaptain InertiaIncenjucarShadowfireMillNobeardpainfulPleasance
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited October 5
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    True, but at least they'll need to find some other patsy. Davis's path ends with the denial.

    There are plenty more patsies in the sea.

    I think same sex marriage is honestly under greater real threat than abortion over the coming months. I can't see the court possibly imposing a federal ban on either, but, the lax attitude to anti abortion laws at the state level driven by religious hate and dogma has made abortion close to illegal for all poor people in many states. As such, if the states were to get their right to decide back, most states which would impose a ban have barely anything left to ban. Conversely, same sex marriage is much more crippled by a lack of national recognition, and I cant think of a state which has managed to impose a defacto ban on it in the same way they have abortion. If the Supreme Court allows states to choose on that, some will choose to ban it, creating a nightmarish patchwork of rules where same sex couples may be unable to live and work where they choose.
    In a weird twist the commerce clause applies in that instance. It's been a while since I took constitutional law, so a real lawyer might be able to correct me but, a legal document issued by one state (marriage license in this case) must be recognized by all states. That's why DOMA was a fucking travesty, because it functioned at the federal level. Once that was overturned, then while one state may refuse to issue a marriage license, that state doesn't have a choice about accepting a marriage license from another state. Like how I was married in Georgia, but I didn't need to get a separate Maryland marriage license when we got home.

    zepherin on
    emp123
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »


    Amy Howe reports on the SCOTUS
    Thomas says that petition "provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell" v. Hodges, recognizing right to same-sex marriage, & says that "the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences.'"

    So, I can't imagine they'll summarily and simultaneously invalidate the hundreds of thousands of marriages and all the associated contracts that have resulted since Obergefell, but I can't see how they won't.

    I'm confused. What was the "ruinous consequence"? That somebody had to give a marriage license to gay people?

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »


    Amy Howe reports on the SCOTUS
    Thomas says that petition "provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell" v. Hodges, recognizing right to same-sex marriage, & says that "the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences.'"

    So, I can't imagine they'll summarily and simultaneously invalidate the hundreds of thousands of marriages and all the associated contracts that have resulted since Obergefell, but I can't see how they won't.

    I'm confused. What was the "ruinous consequence"? That somebody had to give a marriage license to gay people?

    Nah, that's their fig leaf explanation for why it's bad ("People are having to go against their religious beliefs!") but the real issue they have is that they think gay love/sex is icky and nobody should be allowed to do it

    Phoenix-DBlackDragon480Rhesus PositivejdarksunNetscapeNobeardElvenshaepainfulPleasance
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Oh boy, can't wait for fuckin' Kavanaugh to be saying that Loving had unintended consequences in like a week or whatever.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Well, yes and no. The petition was denied. The intentionality to reverse Obergefell was penned in the brief. Right now only by the two most hack of our judges, but add in a third true believer and it becomes very real.

    True, but at least they'll need to find some other patsy. Davis's path ends with the denial.

    There are plenty more patsies in the sea.

    I think same sex marriage is honestly under greater real threat than abortion over the coming months. I can't see the court possibly imposing a federal ban on either, but, the lax attitude to anti abortion laws at the state level driven by religious hate and dogma has made abortion close to illegal for all poor people in many states. As such, if the states were to get their right to decide back, most states which would impose a ban have barely anything left to ban. Conversely, same sex marriage is much more crippled by a lack of national recognition, and I cant think of a state which has managed to impose a defacto ban on it in the same way they have abortion. If the Supreme Court allows states to choose on that, some will choose to ban it, creating a nightmarish patchwork of rules where same sex couples may be unable to live and work where they choose.
    In a weird twist the commerce clause applies in that instance. It's been a while since I took constitutional law, so a real lawyer might be able to correct me but, a legal document issued by one state (marriage license in this case) must be recognized by all states. That's why DOMA was a fucking travesty, because it functioned at the federal level. Once that was overturned, then while one state may refuse to issue a marriage license, that state doesn't have a choice about accepting a marriage license from another state. Like how I was married in Georgia, but I didn't need to get a separate Maryland marriage license when we got home.

    They would still be recognized, but it would mean any future marriages have to be destination weddings for the vast majority of people. Plus likely needing to carry a pocket sized marriage license card to ensure you don't get denied visitation and such in the 31 States that constitutionally deem marriage between a man and a woman.

    zepherin
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    that petition was denied, folks. Kim Davis's case is over.

    Good thing there will never be a case questioning the humanity of gay people before the Court ever again for that 2/9ths opinion to attempt to hold sway.

    Just like black people never again had their fundamental human rights questioned after Brown, Cooper, Griffin, Loving, ... Shelby County

    /stares at justice about to replace RBG

    Can easily be 3/9 by the end of the year.

    PreacherFleur de Alysemp123Stabbity StyleCommander ZoomjdarksunFencingsaxNetscapeNobeard
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    The 2000's are an embarrassing chapter in American History.

    Agree but also "embarrassing" was an improvement.

    BattleTech KS Thread! | Mech Trade List | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Fencingsax
Sign In or Register to comment.