Anyone think the Log Cabin Republicans are smart enough to see where this is headed?
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
142 points (99.3% liked)
News
23259 readers
3386 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
... Republicans ... smart enough ...
The two are mutually exclusive at this point.
Don't sleep on Kentucky Republicans. Horse thieves and swindlers extra-ordinaire, the lot of 'em.
Source: my in-laws
No.
Are you serious?
🤣
I know, I know
Fucking hell. I thought we were done with this bitch.
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.
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
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?
Ben franklin was a champion cocksmith.
The smile on the hundred dollar bill is in a completely different light if you understand that
Did you see the John Adams miniseries HBO did a few years ago? Tom Wilkinson as Franklin was hilarious.
“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…
Ah ha, there it is.
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.
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.
Thanks for teaching me a new word today!
Which word, miscegination? Not a great word to learn.
That's the one. It's a shame to have to know it, but I'm glad I do now.
Which, of all people, Thomas would gleefully allow
Ugh, this horrible woman again?