Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Espnthree]

You would have to be pretty stupid to read Thomas opinion, and hear speeches by Alito, and not be concerned ed for marriage equality.

Alito made no speeches or you would have cited them.

Federalist Society, November of 2020. But you knew that.

What he said was in his Dobbs majority opinion.
Rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution are  now in the hands of state legislatures and will rely much more heavily in the future on local democracy. Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights.

]QED

Dobbs rejects substantive due process in creating rights by judges.
Thomas wants to review some previous rulings to bring them into line with Dobbs.
No one else on the Court thinks that step is necessary.

No one but you thinks Thomas is alone in that opinion. We have an activist movement conservative Court and there is no reason why having taken an axe to Roe, with all of its prior rejected challenges and social order built around it, they would not do the same to Gay marriage. "Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights" is directly applicable to marriage equality.

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.
Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.
Now all 50 states regulate and allow same sex marriage.
As a practical matter any action seeking to federally ban it is a non starter.  Same Sex Marriage is now part of our culture, albeit a small one. 
There is no scenario imaginable where politicians would ever seek to change that.

[josh]

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.

Where in Dobbs did it say that?

And the dissent you cite is exactly why, with the addition of Barrett, it is imaginable that they would send this back to the states.

As for what the states do, they do what they are required to. Claiming that as proof that the decision is safe is stupid.

[Espnthree]

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.

Where in Dobbs did it say that?

Read what I wrote.

And the dissent you cite is exactly why, with the addition of Barrett, it is imaginable that they would send this back to the states.

As for what the states do, they do what they are required to. Claiming that as proof that the decision is safe is stupid.

Say goodnight Gracie

[josh]

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.

Where in Dobbs did it say that?

Read what I wrote.

And the dissent you cite is exactly why, with the addition of Barrett, it is imaginable that they would send this back to the states.

As for what the states do, they do what they are required to. Claiming that as proof that the decision is safe is stupid.

Say goodnight Gracie

I read what you wrote.

I also read the majority opinion, which attempted to distance that ruling from those other topics raised by Thomas.

But the red words do more to explain why the distancing is ineffective than effective.

Otherwise (again), they are simply hypocrites.

Like you.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/opinions/secret-service-texts-raise-questions-wierson/index.html

It sure does.

[kidcarter8]

Re:  site security

How is it this site is the only one that is "NOT SECURE" - of all the sites I use on this device?

[Hairy Lime]

You would have to be pretty stupid to read Thomas opinion, and hear speeches by Alito, and not be concerned ed for marriage equality.

Alito made no speeches or you would have cited them.

Federalist Society, November of 2020. But you knew that.

What he said was in his Dobbs majority opinion.
Rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution are  now in the hands of state legislatures and will rely much more heavily in the future on local democracy. Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights.

]QED

Dobbs rejects substantive due process in creating rights by judges.
Thomas wants to review some previous rulings to bring them into line with Dobbs.
No one else on the Court thinks that step is necessary.

No one but you thinks Thomas is alone in that opinion. We have an activist movement conservative Court and there is no reason why having taken an axe to Roe, with all of its prior rejected challenges and social order built around it, they would not do the same to Gay marriage. "Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights" is directly applicable to marriage equality.

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.
Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.
Now all 50 states regulate and allow same sex marriage.
As a practical matter any action seeking to federally ban it is a non starter.  Same Sex Marriage is now part of our culture, albeit a small one. 
There is no scenario imaginable where politicians would ever seek to change that.

If you think "Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights" does not directly implicate Obergefell you are either a special kind of stupid, bottomless in you naivety or intellectually dishonest - although in your case all three is a distinct possibility.  And the issue is not federal but State by State. If you do not think the legislature in Oklahoma would ban marriage equality and try to deny marriage rights to guys married outside of Oklahoma, you are an idiot. I would bet on it becoming an immediate issue here, despite being a purple state, due to the way state legislative districts are drawn and the current bent of the Repo party.

But you know all that. You are a Comically Transparent Partisan Hack. And, 8 sometimes forget to add, a proven liar.

[kidcarter8]

You are in AZ right?

Governor race is the key at this point.

Could building the wall be back?

[facilitatorn]

We can build a big wall out of republicans at the bottom of lake Mead. We can build it 12 idiots high and 8 fascists wide. It would go on for miles.

[Espnthree]

You would have to be pretty stupid to read Thomas opinion, and hear speeches by Alito, and not be concerned ed for marriage equality.

Alito made no speeches or you would have cited them.

Federalist Society, November of 2020. But you knew that.

What he said was in his Dobbs majority opinion.
Rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution are  now in the hands of state legislatures and will rely much more heavily in the future on local democracy. Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights.

]QED

Dobbs rejects substantive due process in creating rights by judges.
Thomas wants to review some previous rulings to bring them into line with Dobbs.
No one else on the Court thinks that step is necessary.

No one but you thinks Thomas is alone in that opinion. We have an activist movement conservative Court and there is no reason why having taken an axe to Roe, with all of its prior rejected challenges and social order built around it, they would not do the same to Gay marriage. "Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights" is directly applicable to marriage equality.

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.
Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.
Now all 50 states regulate and allow same sex marriage.
As a practical matter any action seeking to federally ban it is a non starter.  Same Sex Marriage is now part of our culture, albeit a small one. 
There is no scenario imaginable where politicians would ever seek to change that.

If you think "Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights" does not directly implicate Obergefell you are either a special kind of stupid, bottomless in you naivety or intellectually dishonest - although in your case all three is a distinct possibility.  And the issue is not federal but State by State. If you do not think the legislature in Oklahoma would ban marriage equality and try to deny marriage rights to guys married outside of Oklahoma, you are an idiot. I would bet on it becoming an immediate issue here, despite being a purple state, due to the way state legislative districts are drawn and the current bent of the Repo party.

Just how would a case involving a federal ban on same sex marriage get to SCOTUS?
Alito gave several reasons why it will not in his Dobbs opinion.

What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decision acknowledged Abortion destroys what those decisions call potential life and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an unborn human being None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.

Alito added another twist. When the Court determines whether to overturn precedent one factor to consider is whether very concrete reliance interests are at stake. In other words, how much has a person ordered their life and affairs around existing law? He highlights involving property and contract rights as particularly concrete.

If a contract is concrete, then that is doubly true for marriage. It represents two people ordering their lives, their property, and their finances around the existence of the legally recognized marriage relationship. This is profoundly different from abortion, which even Planned Parenthood v. Casey recognized as a generally unplanned activity. As the Casey Court stated, [R]eproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.

By contrast, there is no way to take virtually immediate account of a sudden, state ordered involuntary dissolution of a marriage. Such a ruling would instantly introduce personal and legal chaos into families across the nation.

It is clear you have not done much reading of the Alito opinion, if any at all.

[Yankguy1]

Serious question for you, Red. Without snark (I'm trying) Are you confident that if a state decides to ban gay marriage, if and when that state statue is brought to the Supreme Court the Court won't grant cert or will hear the case and declare the law unconstitutional? 

[facilitatorn]

As a death cultist, Ward lies to every living thing. First and foremost among them, he lies to himself.

As a result, I do not think you will get a real answer to your question.

[Espnthree]

Thomas is alone in his opinion. You must not have read the Dobbs decision which also said the abortion ruling would not affect same sex marriage, interracial marriage, or contraception.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts dissented in Oberkfell arguing the Majority went too far using substantive due process and the 14th Amendment.

Where in Dobbs did it say that?

Read what I wrote.

And the dissent you cite is exactly why, with the addition of Barrett, it is imaginable that they would send this back to the states.

As for what the states do, they do what they are required to. Claiming that as proof that the decision is safe is stupid.

Say goodnight Gracie

I read what you wrote.

I also read the majority opinion, which attempted to distance that ruling from those other topics raised by Thomas.

But the red words do more to explain why the distancing is ineffective than effective.

Y


[/quote]
Only the Court determines what is effective.
In Dobbs the majority explained the difference between Dobbs and the previous cases.

You may disagree.
But it is a dead end argument.

[Hairy Lime]

You are in AZ right?

Governor race is the key at this point.

The legislative districting has given us pretty much a permanent Repo majority, so, yes, the Dems need to win that position to have any impact statewide. And fortunately the Dems have a pretty good candidate and a decent chance that the Repos.will go full MAGA instead of the dull pro business person that normally wins statewide here.

Could building the wall be back?

All of the Repos running for Gov and AG have been doing so promising to finish building the wall. Without any consideration of the State imposing on a Federal prerogative or, even if they could build it, where the billions to do so is coming from. Or... what the AG office has to do with it. Of course, it has long been my experience that AG candidates in particular run on issues with little relation to the actual job.

But that happens. One of tne of the Repo candidates for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is running on stopping CRT which is odd because there is literally nothing the Superintendent can do to make that happen. Which he should know because he used to have the job.

[Espnthree]

Serious question for you, Red. Without snark (I'm trying) Are you confident that if a state decides to ban gay marriage, if and when that state statue is brought to the Supreme Court the Court won't grant cert or will hear the case and declare the law unconstitutional?

States can not ban same sex marriage. It is a Constitutionally protected right affirmed in 2015 by SCOTUS.
It would take a reversal of that ruling before States could act.
Alito has foreshadowed how SCOTUS would respond to any legal attempt to reverse the marriage ruling.
It would refuse to hear it.