• @AbidanYre
    link
    English
    412 months ago

    Fucking hell. I thought we were done with this bitch.

    • Billiam
      link
      61 month ago

      As long as Mat Stavrer can keep bilking her (and idiot Republican supporters) for more attorney’s fees, we’ll never be rid of her.

    • @jeffwOPM
      link
      41 month ago

      When I saw the headline I legit thought maybe the website had some crazy error and put a really old article on the homepage lol

  • Flying Squid
    link
    291 month ago

    They wrote that, “even if substantive due process is not itself overturned, Obergefell should be, because the right to same-sex marriage is neither carefully described nor deeply rooted in the nation’s history.”

    Where is marriage “carefully described?” As far as “deeply rooted in the nation’s history,” would that include the lifelong bachelor, president James Buchanan? How about Thomas Jefferson and his slave he was not married to, but took around publicly as his mistress? How about Ben Franklin fucking every woman, married or unmarried, that was willing?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      141 month ago

      Ben franklin was a champion cocksmith.

      The smile on the hundred dollar bill is in a completely different light if you understand that

      • Flying Squid
        link
        31 month ago

        Did you see the John Adams miniseries HBO did a few years ago? Tom Wilkinson as Franklin was hilarious.

    • HonkyTonkWoman
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      “Deeply Rooted”? This country isn’t even 4 Joe Bidens old, our deep roots are slavery & smallpox blankets.

      E: credit to Mark Agee for the 4 Bidens thing, I knew I’d heard it somewhere…

  • @testfactor
    link
    12
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.

    Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).

    Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.

    That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)

    So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      121 month ago

      I hope you’re right. Otherwise, it would leave the nation in a legal quagmire as marriage would be legally defined differently in different states. And I think that it could also usher in the re-introduction of anti-miscegination laws.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          51 month ago

          Which word, miscegination? Not a great word to learn.

          • Drusas
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            That’s the one. It’s a shame to have to know it, but I’m glad I do now.