Supreme Court Watch

[Getting tard comed]

I haven't read Obergefell since '08 but I had a distinct issue with it due it being based on the pursuit of happiness clause that doesn't exist in the constitution. I dont believe you have a right to happiness or a right to marriage anywhere in the constitution. That's my issue with Obergefell even if I believe any two adults should be able to engage in any contract they want. If I'm wrong in my assessment though, please lmk.

 

[Manimal House]

If I was an incel, I'd be doctoring up some bullshit medical paperwork to claim that I'm sterile.

 

[Absolutego]

I haven't read Obergefell since '08 but I had a distinct issue with it due it being based on the pursuit of happiness clause that doesn't exist in the constitution. I dont believe you have a right to happiness or a right to marriage anywhere in the constitution. That's my issue with Obergefell even if I believe any two adults should be able to engage in any contract they want. If I'm wrong in my assessment though, please lmk.

How did you read a Supreme Court decision that was made in 2015 way back in 2008?
Not even touching on how "right to happiness" never made it into the decision in any way

 

[Random Internet Person]

Wont happen, if it did get overturned it would be one of the most flagrantly contrived rulings SCOTUS ever put out. Obergefell is put under solid ground with the Equal Protection Clause. The sole argument against gay marriage more or less devolves into "ITS FUCKING GROSS!" I find the modern gay community to be insufferable, but I don't find any legal reason to deny them the same rights and privileges as any other citizen. The problem is when they start trying to exceed such things to the detriment of other citizens, such as the trannies in women's sports.

It's really funny how conservatives allowing civil unions as some kind of compromise just completely and totally revealed how arbitrary the distinction was. It probably accelerated the rate that the public became in favor of gay marriage.

It’s kind of funny how most pro gay marriage arguments just amount to “eh, just let them get married and have the same issues straights have.” What was distinct about civil unions anyway? Was it taxes and inheritance dealings?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Sources to back up what claim?

I'm just stating what already happened. RvW is already repealed. States can already make their own laws about abortion based on what the majority of people in the state want. Democracy has won, pleb.

You claimed the majority are anti-abortion, while I showed you that's the opposite. You just used your own brain for a source, instead of a real one. So again, tell me when you have a source to back up your claims.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

It’s kind of funny how most pro gay marriage arguments just amount to “eh, just let them get married and have the same issues straights have.” What was distinct about civil unions anyway? Was it taxes and inheritance dealings?

Tbf if two grown men actively want to get married, it proves they really are gay

 

[Matt Damon]

It’s kind of funny how most pro gay marriage arguments just amount to “eh, just let them get married and have the same issues straights have.”

I could be totally wrong, but I suspect most of the fags bothering to get married don't have a ton of overlap with the troons and the pedos and the various other degenerates who've come from this all-too-real slippery slope, so I'm inclined toward that "eh, whatever" position.

 

[Ancient Pioneer]

It's really funny how conservatives allowing civil unions as some kind of compromise just completely and totally revealed how arbitrary the distinction was. It probably accelerated the rate that the public became in favor of gay marriage.

The Supreme Court "conservatives" are not "conservative" they're Federalist society members and they have a literalist take on Constitutional issues. A lot of people get caught flat footed by this and are extremely surprised when the "conservative" Justice Roberts sides with the "liberals." SCOTUS didn't want to take on gay marriage because they wanted the country to resolve the issue legislatively, but eventually the gridlock becomes so bad that they just have to force the issue, lately SCOTUS has been warning the Federal government that it needs to shit or get off the pot, they can't punish people for financial transactions or deny employment regarding marijuana usage when its ignoring the consumption of marijuana in states that legalized it. You can legally consume it in California but if you have it in your house and the ATF raids you suddenly its illegal again, these contradictory stances are pissing SCOTUS off badly.

 

[Absolutego]

The Supreme Court "conservatives" are not "conservative" they're Federalist society members and they have a literalist take on Constitutional issues. A lot of people get caught flat footed by this and are extremely surprised when the "conservative" Justice Roberts sides with the "liberals." SCOTUS didn't want to take on gay marriage because they wanted the country to resolve the issue legislatively, but eventually the gridlock becomes so bad that they just have to force the issue, lately SCOTUS has been warning the Federal government that it needs to shit or get off the pot, they can't punish people for financial transactions or deny employment regarding marijuana usage when its ignoring the consumption of marijuana in states that legalized it. You can legally consume it in California but if you have it in your house and the ATF raids you suddenly its illegal again, these contradictory stances are pissing SCOTUS off badly.

I was talking more about conservative politicians operating at the state level, not the Justices themselves.
But yeah, the biggest impact I see of this being a 6-3 court is a LOT more issues are left up to the states and majority opinions start becoming increasingly caustic about the legislature being good for nothing.

 

[FightenGnome]

View attachment 3431662

Men unable to get hard while looking at her is her method of birth control.

 

[Getting tard comed]

How did you read a Supreme Court decision that was made in 2015 way back in 2008?
Not even touching on how "right to happiness" never made it into the decision in any way

Oops my bad, got the date wrong. I'll go read it now to figure out what I meant.

 

[AnOminous]

>government argued for objective, not subjective standard
Oh so now they want objectivity. Only when they're putting you in jail.

A criminal conviction based on an objective standard is almost presumptively unconstitutional, because due process should require a state of mind more culpable than negligence.

 

[Jeff Gazetti]

That's not including the Overtown window of 2010-2012 change of civil discourse of talking out issues & listening to each other point of view.
I fully believe the reason clarence thomas over/turned Roe was people being idiots crossing the bridge of my body my choice not applying to covid.
The slippery slope of Roe being overturned is that we might be required to get regular shots & id for vac status.
The worst could be requiring men vasectomy at a certain age.
can't wait for Monday to find out if EPA can do green new duel under their authority or guidance authority that can be ignored.

That is an excellent point. The “My body, my choice” argument can go both ways.

As much as I’m against this, I must admit, seeing a video of an Anon getting pinned down by cops and administered a booster shot like a fucking wild animal would make me giggle.

Seriously, I won’t be a hypocrite. We can’t have that.

 

[marvlouslie]

Ain't it funny how no one could "identify" what being a woman was a year ago, but now people are suddenly wanting to protect "women's rights" ?

 

[Blake Chortles]

Wont happen, if it did get overturned it would be one of the most flagrantly contrived rulings SCOTUS ever put out. Obergefell is put under solid ground with the Equal Protection Clause. The sole argument against gay marriage more or less devolves into "ITS FUCKING GROSS!" I find the modern gay community to be insufferable, but I don't find any legal reason to deny them the same rights and privileges as any other citizen. The problem is when they start trying to exceed such things to the detriment of other citizens, such as the trannies in women's sports.

Theres two problems with this line of thought.

1. You arent a 14th amendment special class of person because of who you choose to fuck
2. No one was being discriminated against as anyone can marry the opposite sex.

I could theoretically now sue to receive any benefit earmarked towards a specific group or behavior. Like electric car factory tax breaks even if I make shoelaces.

 

[chiobu]

Hiring women I get but enbies?



https://twitter.com/camillafsphoto/status/1541122021630828545 (A)

 

[Matt Damon]

Ain't it funny how no one could "identify" what being a woman was a year ago, but now people are suddenly wanting to protect "women's rights" ?

There are no real principles among these people. Words are merely a game played in order to gain and wield power.

The sooner you stop believing they're shamed by hypocrisy or care about intellectual consistency, the easier things will be for you.

 

[draggs]

That sure was one short "work call"

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Hiring women I get but enbies?

View attachment 3432481

https://twitter.com/camillafsphoto/status/1541122021630828545 (A)

Wh*te men just can't stop winning.

Preferential treatment isn't enough, actively hobbling the opposition isn't enough - the Wh*te Devil has to actively stop playing in order to ( maybe ) provide a level playing field

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

You claimed the majority are anti-abortion, while I showed you that's the opposite. You just used your own brain for a source, instead of a real one. So again, tell me when you have a source to back up your claims.

Your source is shit. As it was pointed out, it only polled Democrats, and it had a statistically insignificant sample size.

I don't claim anything that hasn't already happened. The facts are rather simple, most American states already have laws against abortion on the books because the majority of people in those states support anti-abortion laws. RvW being repealed simply allowed those states to exercise those laws as is their democratic right. That is what you are seeing right now.

Can seethe as much as you want, but it won't change what already happened.