Alito strikes

[GeorgiaDon 340]

41 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Don't forget we just had a GOP Neanderthal come out against Loving v. Virginia a few weeks ago, so that could be on their hit list:

Senator Says Legalizing Interracial Marriage Was a Mistake, Backtracks Unconvincingly

 

I fully expect a legislative attack on gay rights, including same-sex marriage, to follow in some especially conservative states.  Alito and Thomas have already signaled that they believe those cases were wrongly decided, and all but invited new challenges so they can get another bite at the apple.  I doubt that any state legislatures will risk a direct attack on interracial marriage, or on access to contraception.  That does not mean those things are in any way safe, though.  All it would take would be some conservative entity to file a lawsuit and then (if/when they lose) appeal it all the way to the SC.  Having already decided that there is no constitutional right to "privacy" (assuming this draft opinion makes it largely intact into the final ruling) there would be no basis left to rule that people have any right to interracial marriage or contraception.  Given that, and the current mood to throw everything back to the states to pass legislation, the SC could very well end up overruling Loving v Virginia and Griswold v Connecticut.  We could see sodomy laws and criminalization of gay sex being revived as well.  All it would take would be someone willing to initiate a lawsuit.  Of course that someone would have to establish standing, but if the SC continues its current path of extending religious freedom to include the freedom to never be offended by other people rejecting your religious preferences then standing might not be an obstacle. 

[wmw999 2,116]

3 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Of course that someone would have to establish standing, but if the SC continues its current path of extending religious freedom to include the freedom to never be offended by other people rejecting your religious preferences then standing might not be an obstacle. 

This.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I doubt that any state legislatures will risk a direct attack on interracial marriage, or on access to contraception.

I don't doubt that, but there are also workarounds that don't get the full legislature involved. I would not be at all surprised if soon after Roe is officially overturned the AG in Texas will indicate they feel they are no longer bound by Obergefell. Abbott can then issue an executive order instructing clerks to no longer issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Case will start and will end up in front of SCOTUS who have already indicated they feel Obergefell is on unconstitutional grounds.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

For anybody needing a reminder on where Republicans feel women stand:

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1521797001175834625?s=20&t=xsvlBeMsWAB532dogEBU0w

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by SkyDekker

[ryoder 1,381]

 

[ryoder 1,381]

[riggerrob 558]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Just another GOP 'Hey, look over here.'

You will notice he only is going after the messenger.

Jerry Baumchen

MASKirovka!

MASKirovka: a Russian word meaning "deception."

[riggerrob 558]

27 minutes ago, ryoder said:

 

Struth!

[riggerrob 558]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:28 AM, TriGirl said:

Alito has stated recently that it is an issue that needs to be legislated. Okay -- we need to have a massive overhaul of the US Congress so that the proposed legislation to codify the essence of Roe gets voted on and passed.  Federal law would supersede any of these horrible state restrictions, and we could stop having this nonsense discussion.

 

Edited to add:  and when I say "overhaul," I mean everyone get out and vote for congressional candidates who would support bodily autonomy.

This remind some of a similar debate in Canada a decade or so ago. I forget whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or ... but the key point was that it was far too much of a political hot-potato for elected Members of Parliament to openly vote their opinion on the floor of the House of Commons, so those elected "cowards" bumped the sensitive issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. Yes, I just called a bunch of dully-elected Members of the House of Commons "cowards." Members of Parliament should be obliged to vote in support of the majority of their constituents (voters).

This reminds me of a conversation that I had with our elected, Conservative, back-bencher. At the end of a town-hall meeting, he tossed out the concept of reviewing abortion legislation. I told him that the abortion boat sailed 30 years ago! After exhaustive court battles (Doctor Henry Morgenthaler et. al.) was legalized in Canada and the majority of Canadians were content with that decision. I told him that I considered a renewed public debate to be a waste of time and money. I also told him that I considered a renewed debate to be a distraction from more important issues. I concluded by telling him that I would not vote for him a second time if he wasted time on a renewed abortion debate.

As an aside, I grew up in Quebec during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when Dr. Henry Morgenthaler was repeatedly arrested and tried for performing illegal abortions. Eventually Canadian courts concluded that it was easier to legalize abortions than to re-try Morgenthaler AGAIN!

The 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were the era of the "Quiet Revolution" that saw Quebec transform from the most conservative and most catholic part of North America to the least religious part of North America. It was a single-generation transformation from a pseudo-feudal society to the hippy generation.

[TriGirl 268]

2 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Having already decided that there is no constitutional right to "privacy" (assuming this draft opinion makes it largely intact into the final ruling) there would be no basis left to rule that people have any right to interracial marriage or contraception.

Marriage statutes can be argued on contract law, IMHO.  Equal opportunity to enter business contracts.  Government definition of marriage legitimacy has not stood on sexual consummation as a legal requirement in at least the last half century, as I recall. That's only a consideration of religious doctrine and the standing of a marriage in the eyes of church establishments.  Nor does government restrict access to the civil marriage contract to those who cannot have, or choose not to have children. Therefore, they can't restrict access to this civil contract arrangement based on the genders of the two consenting adults.   

At least, that's how I would argue it.

[TriGirl 268]

9 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Members of Parliament should be obliged to vote in support of the majority of their constituents (voters).

This is one reason we have gerrymandering in the US.  The elected officials claim that they ARE voting in support of the majority of their constituents.

[riggerrob 558]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:27 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe, ... And, with modern medicine, there is still the Morning After pill. ....

Jerry Baumchen ....

 

This just means that criminals will make huge profits importing MAP.

Wealthy women will get genuine MAP, but only God knows what sort of adulterated MAP poor women will be able to afford.

In the worst case scenario, the low-grade MAP only half-kills the fetus and the poor woman is forced to birth and raise a deformed child that she cannot afford.

This reminds me of a recent conversation with a street-dwelling addict. She was keeping an eye on another street-level addict who was semi-conscious in a coffee shop. She called for a Narcan anti-dote, but in her second sentence questioned the validity of Narcan considered how adulterated street drugs are these days: amphetamine, fentanol, ketamine, heroine, horse-tranquilizer, morphine, methadone, methamphetamines, cocaine, baking soda, opium, rat poison, speed, etc.

Edited May 4, 2022 by riggerrob
add a sentence

[GeorgiaDon 340]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I don't doubt that, but there are also workarounds that don't get the full legislature involved. I would not be at all surprised if soon after Roe is officially overturned the AG in Texas will indicate they feel they are no longer bound by Obergefell. Abbott can then issue an executive order instructing clerks to no longer issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Case will start and will end up in front of SCOTUS who have already indicated they feel Obergefell is on unconstitutional grounds.

I believe I said in the first sentence of my post that I expect attacks on same sex marriage to begin as soon as the SC issue their ruling.  Why are you responding to my comment on interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia) and contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) by discussing Obergefell, which concerned same-sex marriage?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I believe I said in the first sentence of my post that I expect attacks on same sex marriage to begin as soon as the SC issue their ruling.  Why are you responding to my comment on interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia) and contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) by discussing Obergefell, which concerned same-sex marriage?

I can see contraception taking the same route....after Obergefell. I don't think interracial marriage is an issue that will be attacked.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

27 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

Marriage statutes can be argued on contract law, IMHO.  Equal opportunity to enter business contracts.  Government definition of marriage legitimacy has not stood on sexual consummation as a legal requirement in at least the last half century, as I recall. That's only a consideration of religious doctrine and the standing of a marriage in the eyes of church establishments.  Nor does government restrict access to the civil marriage contract to those who cannot have, or choose not to have children. Therefore, they can't restrict access to this civil contract arrangement based on the genders of the two consenting adults.   

At least, that's how I would argue it.

I agree with all this.  I remember years ago when same sex marriage was being discussed here in speakers corner, someone pointed out that the Scandanavian countries include marriage under contract law.  That seemed like a great approach that highlights the distinction between the legal and the religious  aspects of marriage.  Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction, so they interpret same sex marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs.

[headoverheels 291]

32 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I can see contraception taking the same route....after Obergefell. I don't think interracial marriage is an issue that will be attacked.

Well, it would be interesting to see Thomas being the only one in favor of overturning Loving.

[Bigfalls 110]

A large percentage of Senators and Congressmen are men, and old. 

How would they like it if there was a law prohibiting the removal of their prostate if they got cancer.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

47 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I agree with all this.  I remember years ago when same sex marriage was being discussed here in speakers corner, someone pointed out that the Scandanavian countries include marriage under contract law.  That seemed like a great approach that highlights the distinction between the legal and the religious  aspects of marriage.  Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction, so they interpret same sex marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs.

Hi Don,

Re:  Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction

Once they go thru a divorce, they will see the distinction.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,381]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I agree with all this.  I remember years ago when same sex marriage was being discussed here in speakers corner, someone pointed out that the Scandanavian countries include marriage under contract law.  That seemed like a great approach that highlights the distinction between the legal and the religious  aspects of marriage.  Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction, so they interpret same sex marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs.

A former co-workers thoughts on this in a discusssion years go:

The government made a mistake when it recognized "marriage", (a religious construct), when it should have recognized "civil union", since the govts only concern is that 2 unrelated people are effectively becoming a family with merged property, contract obligations, and the ability to make medical decisions for each other.

His solution: The govt would simply recognize civil unions. Anyone getting married would only need enter into a civil union. If they wanted to get the blessings of a religion as well, they could also choose a church to get married in, but the marriage performed by the church would have no legal meaning.

Edited May 4, 2022 by ryoder

[wmw999 2,116]

That happens in plenty of other countries. We were founded by religious people.

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,621]

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

 We were founded by religious people.

Wendy P. 

And slaveowners.  And tax dodgers.

[wmw999 2,116]

38 minutes ago, kallend said:

And slaveowners.  And tax dodgers.

Well, it's not like England was sending us their best...

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,381]

Colbert spent his entire opening monologue on the topic, complete with clips of the liars lying at confirmation hearings:

 

[headoverheels 291]

22 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Timing could suggest it was done to shore up support from the justices themselves to secure a majority. It also ensures that the outrage has likely passed by mid-terms.

The likely release in late June would also have resulted in the outrage passing by mid-terms.  The leak now can affect the primaries, which will be over before the official release.

So, who are we guessing?   Breyer, who is retiring?  Roberts, who is pretending outrage at the leak?   Seems more likely to be someone clerking for a justice, or maybe Ginni Thomas. 

[ryoder 1,381]

2 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

The likely release in late June would also have resulted in the outrage passing by mid-terms.  The leak now can affect the primaries, which will be over before the official release.

So, who are we guessing?   Breyer, who is retiring?  Roberts, who is pretending outrage at the leak?   Seems more likely to be someone clerking for a justice, or maybe Ginni Thomas. 

LOL! Just saw this an hour ago: