Anonymous
11/15/2022 18:06
Subject: Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Is that bill saying that states can ban same sex marriages? That would be contrary to Obergefell.
The text above looks like it is limited to states and the feds must recognize marriages in other states.
The text above looks like it is limited to states and the feds must recognize marriages in other states.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 18:04
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's not fearmongering. It's a statement of fact. We are now living under the tyranny of an illegitimate activist right wing Supreme Court that has lied to the American people, and which CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. That was solidly PROVEN with the Dobbs decision. NOTHING can be left to precedent.
All the more reason to get the legislative branch to pass all the legislation you want instead of either side using the courts to do what might be unpopular with the public at a given time.
Which is EXACTLY what the current Dem-controlled Congress is trying to do. But as soon as they do, the Republican-controlled states will run whinging to the Supreme Court that marriage should be a local decision left to the States. And the Supreme Court will agree with them.
However, when Dem states try to pass reasonable gun control, the Republican gun nuts run to the Supreme Court yelling "Second Amendment" and the Supreme Court agrees with them. (Apparently that phrase "well-regulated" doesn't seem to mean anything any more . . .)
Bottom line is that this Court is SO politicized that they will twist themselves into illogical, precedent-severing knots in order to support whatever the far right wants.
What the Dems should do FIRST is pass Court reform. Terms of 18 years or age 72 whichever comes first. Clarify that when a president sends a nomination the Senate needs to vote it up or down in 45 days and a failure to act will be deemed approval. Create some recusal standards since it is obvious that scoundrels like Clarence Thomas won't self-police themselves.
If only a certain geriatric justice retired the last time there was a democrat in the presidency instead of making it all about her
If only the GOP didn’t keep stealing seats. If your busted down party had any decency at all, they wouldn’t have sat the handmaiden while people were actively voting. But you’re cheating sacks of crap who only “win” by cheating.
I’m a democrat and blame her. At least Breyer managed to not die. The republicans doing this was almost as obvious as democrats’ ineffectual response
It was not obvious that the Republicans were going to refuse to even hold a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court. That had never happened before.
Democrats announced that's what they would do before. These openings with opposite party control in an election year don't happen very often.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 18:01
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
I could not listen to that, but what's the story behind the weird sculpture of him wearing a diaper behind him?
Anonymous
11/15/2022 17:37
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
This is perfect. Let the extreme right tear the party apart. If they chase some of less extreme out of the party or out of supporting the MAGA movement, they will not have enough left to rule the party or either House. Even better yet, the division will weaken every MAGA candidate in 2024.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 17:31
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They can't. If SCOTUS decides that this lies in the purview of the States, there is nothing Congress can do about it.
At least five sitting activist Federalist Society justices would agree because they believe a clump of tissue has more rights than a woman. It’s not hard to come to terms with when you also believe in an immaculate conception and resurrection after being dead for three days.
But they don't believe it actually has rights, because as soon as it's born they don't care what happens to it. So it's not about that - they simply don't think women have the right to reproductive rights. Or any rights.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 17:30
Subject: Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Obama got 2 justices, Trump got 3, Biden will be lucky to get 2. McConnell is a much better politician than Schumer and RBG thought she was more indispensable.
You mean a much better liar.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 17:28
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's not fearmongering. It's a statement of fact. We are now living under the tyranny of an illegitimate activist right wing Supreme Court that has lied to the American people, and which CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. That was solidly PROVEN with the Dobbs decision. NOTHING can be left to precedent.
All the more reason to get the legislative branch to pass all the legislation you want instead of either side using the courts to do what might be unpopular with the public at a given time.
Which is EXACTLY what the current Dem-controlled Congress is trying to do. But as soon as they do, the Republican-controlled states will run whinging to the Supreme Court that marriage should be a local decision left to the States. And the Supreme Court will agree with them.
However, when Dem states try to pass reasonable gun control, the Republican gun nuts run to the Supreme Court yelling "Second Amendment" and the Supreme Court agrees with them. (Apparently that phrase "well-regulated" doesn't seem to mean anything any more . . .)
Bottom line is that this Court is SO politicized that they will twist themselves into illogical, precedent-severing knots in order to support whatever the far right wants.
What the Dems should do FIRST is pass Court reform. Terms of 18 years or age 72 whichever comes first. Clarify that when a president sends a nomination the Senate needs to vote it up or down in 45 days and a failure to act will be deemed approval. Create some recusal standards since it is obvious that scoundrels like Clarence Thomas won't self-police themselves.
If only a certain geriatric justice retired the last time there was a democrat in the presidency instead of making it all about her
If only the GOP didn’t keep stealing seats. If your busted down party had any decency at all, they wouldn’t have sat the handmaiden while people were actively voting. But you’re cheating sacks of crap who only “win” by cheating.
I’m a democrat and blame her. At least Breyer managed to not die. The republicans doing this was almost as obvious as democrats’ ineffectual response
Yeah, it was really hard to understand why she thought something different would happen. I think some of the justices were so used to seeing their right-wing colleagues in a weak position, that they didn't realize that all along they were just biding their time and would be absolutely ruthless and unethical as soon as the opportunity arose. You don't see them joking around with Thomas anymore like he's their best friend. So naive.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 17:25
Subject: Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
No, McConnell played dirty for YEARS
Anonymous
11/15/2022 16:49
Subject: Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Obama got 2 justices, Trump got 3, Biden will be lucky to get 2. McConnell is a much better politician than Schumer and RBG thought she was more indispensable.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 16:45
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:
They can't. If SCOTUS decides that this lies in the purview of the States, there is nothing Congress can do about it.
At least five sitting activist Federalist Society justices would agree because they believe a clump of tissue has more rights than a woman. It’s not hard to come to terms with when you also believe in an immaculate conception and resurrection after being dead for three days.
Anonymous
11/15/2022 15:45
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
They can't. If SCOTUS decides that this lies in the purview of the States, there is nothing Congress can do about it.
Anonymous
Anonymous
07/27/2022 19:57
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's not fearmongering. It's a statement of fact. We are now living under the tyranny of an illegitimate activist right wing Supreme Court that has lied to the American people, and which CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. That was solidly PROVEN with the Dobbs decision. NOTHING can be left to precedent.
All the more reason to get the legislative branch to pass all the legislation you want instead of either side using the courts to do what might be unpopular with the public at a given time.
Which is EXACTLY what the current Dem-controlled Congress is trying to do. But as soon as they do, the Republican-controlled states will run whinging to the Supreme Court that marriage should be a local decision left to the States. And the Supreme Court will agree with them.
However, when Dem states try to pass reasonable gun control, the Republican gun nuts run to the Supreme Court yelling "Second Amendment" and the Supreme Court agrees with them. (Apparently that phrase "well-regulated" doesn't seem to mean anything any more . . .)
Bottom line is that this Court is SO politicized that they will twist themselves into illogical, precedent-severing knots in order to support whatever the far right wants.
What the Dems should do FIRST is pass Court reform. Terms of 18 years or age 72 whichever comes first. Clarify that when a president sends a nomination the Senate needs to vote it up or down in 45 days and a failure to act will be deemed approval. Create some recusal standards since it is obvious that scoundrels like Clarence Thomas won't self-police themselves.
If only a certain geriatric justice retired the last time there was a democrat in the presidency instead of making it all about her
If only the GOP didn’t keep stealing seats. If your busted down party had any decency at all, they wouldn’t have sat the handmaiden while people were actively voting. But you’re cheating sacks of crap who only “win” by cheating.
I’m a democrat and blame her. At least Breyer managed to not die. The republicans doing this was almost as obvious as democrats’ ineffectual response
It was not obvious that the Republicans were going to refuse to even hold a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court. That had never happened before.
Anonymous
07/27/2022 18:12
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
It's not fearmongering. It's a statement of fact. We are now living under the tyranny of an illegitimate activist right wing Supreme Court that has lied to the American people, and which CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. That was solidly PROVEN with the Dobbs decision. NOTHING can be left to precedent.
All the more reason to get the legislative branch to pass all the legislation you want instead of either side using the courts to do what might be unpopular with the public at a given time.
Which is EXACTLY what the current Dem-controlled Congress is trying to do. But as soon as they do, the Republican-controlled states will run whinging to the Supreme Court that marriage should be a local decision left to the States. And the Supreme Court will agree with them.
However, when Dem states try to pass reasonable gun control, the Republican gun nuts run to the Supreme Court yelling "Second Amendment" and the Supreme Court agrees with them. (Apparently that phrase "well-regulated" doesn't seem to mean anything any more . . .)
Bottom line is that this Court is SO politicized that they will twist themselves into illogical, precedent-severing knots in order to support whatever the far right wants.
What the Dems should do FIRST is pass Court reform. Terms of 18 years or age 72 whichever comes first. Clarify that when a president sends a nomination the Senate needs to vote it up or down in 45 days and a failure to act will be deemed approval. Create some recusal standards since it is obvious that scoundrels like Clarence Thomas won't self-police themselves.
If only a certain geriatric justice retired the last time there was a democrat in the presidency instead of making it all about her
If only the GOP didn’t keep stealing seats. If your busted down party had any decency at all, they wouldn’t have sat the handmaiden while people were actively voting. But you’re cheating sacks of crap who only “win” by cheating.
I’m a democrat and blame her. At least Breyer managed to not die. The republicans doing this was almost as obvious as democrats’ ineffectual response
Anonymous
07/27/2022 17:57
Subject: Re:Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?
Anonymous wrote:
If only a certain geriatric justice retired the last time there was a democrat in the presidency instead of making it all about her
If only the GOP didn’t keep stealing seats. If your busted down party had any decency at all, they wouldn’t have sat the handmaiden while people were actively voting. But you’re cheating sacks of crap who only “win” by cheating.
And this entire exchange is exhibit A as to why Court Reform is necessary. We have required retirement ages in many, many fields---we should have one for judges. But because the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, instead of a limited term, a perverse "winner take all" mentality has taken hold. And the politicization is terrible. John Roberts was trying to preserve the legitimacy of the Court by coming up with the 15 week standard---which, BTW, is where there is the broadest degree of national consensus.