Supreme Court Watch

[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

Ok, so reskimming it now my "right to happiness" comes from the reasoning "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person" which I'm not sure where that is, except I'm told it's in the 14th amendment.

In the 14th the best applicable part is "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now I don't see marriage as a liberty or a privilege but obviously im wrong due to Loving. Which makes Thomas' concurring opinion really interesting because whether he mentioned it or not, his line of reasoning undermines Loving. Which is funny.

Also, I think there's a difference in a law saying one cannot do something vs a law saying you can. I'm not aware if all 50 states had laws saying gay marriage was illegal. I can see how that violates the 14th given the suppositions accepted. But if states were passing laws, 36 of them at the time, saying gay marriage was legal, why was the ruling necessary?


Also, I agree with Scalia. Everything he said was correct.

 

[TJT]

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.

Not likely.

Not even California was able to keep gay marriage as state law. It had to be legislated from the bench because there is, even today, zero chance of it passing through Congress and becoming a national law. The compromise was reasonable because it allowed both parties to have a piece of their cake and have the state recognize their union for the purposes of HIPAA/Taxes/Inheritance and what have you.

However, the slippery slope held true once again and the moment this shaky ruling became a thing they immediately went to attack private enterprises (but only Christian ones) for not baking their cakes and other cry-bullying. But as you can see hundreds of examples on YouTube to this day never went after Muslim-owned businesses that outright refused to serve gays period.

 

[Certified_Autist]

Eventually we're going to find out that there was a Zoomer equivalent of lead paint making them literally retarded like the boomers. Not sure what it is, but this is a level of retardation beyond being caused purely by social influences.

Microplastics, estrogen in water, and social media algorithims

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Ok, so reskimming it now my "right to happiness" comes from the reasoning "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person" which I'm not sure where that is, except I'm told it's in the 14th amendment.

In the 14th the best applicable part is "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now I don't see marriage as a liberty or a privilege but obviously im wrong due to Loving. Which makes Thomas' concurring opinion really interesting because whether he mentioned it or not, his line of reasoning undermines Loving. Which is funny.

Also, I think there's a difference in a law saying one cannot do something vs a law saying you can. I'm not aware if all 50 states had laws saying gay marriage was illegal. I can see how that violates the 14th given the suppositions accepted. But if states were passing laws, 36 of them at the time, saying gay marriage was legal, why was the ruling necessary?


Also, I agree with Scalia. Everything he said was correct.

It helps to think of marriage as a simple contract. Married couples enjoy rights/privileges that unmarried couples do not so it shouldn't be constitutional to discriminate against one group by denying them that contract.

 

[Some Badger]

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 only way I can see it happening is if you strip all the financial, property and insurance-related benefits of marriage and make it a strictly cultural institution, and that’s a big IF. I certainly welcome the attempt though.

 

[Getting tard comed]

It helps to think of marriage as a simple contract. Married couples enjoy rights/privileges that unmarried couples do not so it shouldn't be constitutional to discriminate against one group by denying them that contract.

I mean... I think all those rights/privileges shouldn't exist.... but that's a different convo. Bus as someone already mentioned. You could always marry someone of the opposite sex and recieve those benefits.

Anyway, the point is moot since whether I agree with the interpretation of the 14th amendment used, that is the one used and if all the Justices except Thomas share that interpretation it has no shot of being overturned.

 

[theshitposter]

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.

how are these two mutually exclusive? identify as a woman AND have your rights protected

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.

elections don't happen over a single issue. even poor veterans had to vote for a draft dodger because mUh CuLtuRe wAr.
and it may appear jarring to you but minorities, which might not have electoral mandate in a particular state yet, still have rights and aren't subjects of a cult of a failed carpenter

 

[FeatherPlucker]

The absolute state of the left:

Random thought:

The rise of twerking is an example of the normalization of unhealthy lifestyles and obesity.
It's kinda hard to make your ass jiggle independently without a ton of flub attached to it.

Just when I think the internet couldnt suprise me anymore. This is from a pro choice rally or maybe a Pride parade. I can't tell the difference anymore.

Spoiler: Suffer with me

View attachment 3432376

That becomes more and more repulsive the more often I see it.
I thought this was a young woman at first, but I can't figure it out. When I get to the end, it looks as if this might be a young teenaged boy who hasn't completed puberty yet- the flat chest with no breasts, nipples still intact, thin arms and delicate hands.

 

[NyQuilninja]

1.) religious fundies are going after that next.
2.) condoms suck if you’re with the same woman
3.) very unreliable and adverse reactions
4.) same as 1.
5.) people are going to fuck. You’re asking the sky not to rain anymore.

None of those are reasonable and or valid here's a picture book version of my response so you'll better understand

 

[Matt Damon]

None of those are reasonable and or valid here's a picture book version of my response so you'll better understand
View attachment 3432591

Ha, shows what you know, dumbass - I'm a complete failure and it's entirely my fault!

 

[theshitposter]

None of those are reasonable and or valid here's a picture book version of my response so you'll better understand
View attachment 3432591

then accept who lost the 2020 election

plus, slippery slope is not a fallacy

 

[Fapcop]

Ever wonder why abortion is such a Big deal in America and not in Europe?

Because an activist, braindead SCOTUS basically allowed abortions any time because “Muh bodily autonomy!” rather than letting Congress and states figure this shit out.

In Europe abortion laws were codified by legislatures, and are in general much stricter than in the US.

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.

I think it’s safe to say that a majority of Americans are opposed to “free” (as in no limits) abortion, just like a majority opposes a blanket abortion ban.


The reason Europe doesn’t have these huge cultural battles around abortion, is because European abortion laws are far stricter than Roe vs Wade, and because Eurofags settled on a compromise a long time ago: A compromise that depends on the country but roughly can be summed up as: Abortion up to the first semester is legal, but outlawed or with restrictions past the first trimester.

Something like that would be what a majority of Americans could accept as a reasonable compromise in an imperfect world, but nope: You gotta have far left lunatics screaming about how they NEED to have the right to abort in the 8th month because it’s HER body.

It helps to think of marriage as a simple contract. Married couples enjoy rights/privileges that unmarried couples do not so it shouldn't be constitutional to discriminate against one group by denying them that contract.

That’s literally just begging to codify polyamorous marriage, or some batshit insanity like people marrying their horses, cars, adult children or sexdolls.


“REEE!!! I find emotional fulfillment and happiness in my relationship with my body pillow. STOP SHAMING AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME by denying me marriage!”

But as you can see hundreds of examples on YouTube to this day never went after Muslim-owned businesses that outright refused to serve gays period.

So what you’re saying is… We need to import more Muslims to tip the shitlord/based balance and counter far left lunacy and faggots?

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

5.) people are going to fuck. You’re asking the sky not to rain anymore.

Do you really not comprehend the difference between telling people "not to fuck" and telling people not to have abortions? If so, this isn't an insult, you are literally mentally retarded.

 

[TJT]

That’s literally just begging to codify polyamorous marriage, or some batshit insanity like people marrying their horses, cars, adult children or sexdolls.


“REEE!!! I find emotional fulfillment and happiness in my relationship with my body pillow. STOP SHAMING AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME by denying me marriage!”




So what you’re saying is… We need to import more Muslims to tip the shitlord/based balance and counter far left lunacy and faggots?

It goes without saying that the promotion of heterosexual marriage and thus procreation in stable, healthy relationships are extremely desirable for society. The state incentivizing both marriage and procreation in this way is a means to invest in the next generation. Something that deadends like homos are not. See Hungary where the state lets a woman be exempt from various taxation forever after she has 4 kids or something.

 

[Matt Damon]

That’s literally just begging to codify polyamorous marriage, or some batshit insanity like people marrying their horses, cars, adult children or sexdolls.

Polyamory or incestuous marriages, sure, but you've never been able to enter into any kind of contract with an animal or inanimate object and contract law has effectively existed for thousands of years.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Sorry if someone else already mentioned it but the WSJ said the Supreme Court still has some big rulings. Prepare for more "RRReee" coming.

https://archive.ph/cOdpt

The Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion on Monday as it closes out one of its most contentious sessions in recent years, including its overturning on Friday of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing the right to an abortion.
The court has seven cases remaining from this term on which it still has to issue opinions, a process it normally concludes by early July. Here are four of the most important ones.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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.

It didn't poll only democrats. They literally showed the numbers for each political party. Is reading my source that difficult for you? Apparently it is. Either that your overactive imagination has got you confused again.

And no, the majority don't support anti-abortion laws. As I've mentioned many times, gerrymandering exists. And a lot of states are gerrymandered out the ass in favor of Republicans

Again, come back when you have an actual source to back up your claims

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

It goes without saying that the promotion of heterosexual marriage and thus procreation in stable, healthy relationships are extremely desirable for society. The state incentivizing both marriage and procreation in this way is a means to invest in the next generation. Something that deadends like homos are not. See Hungary where the state lets a woman be exempt from various taxation forever after she has 4 kids or something.

We could even take it a step further and go back to awarding military decorations to women based on how many children they have!

Spoiler

 

[TJT]

We could even take it a step further and go back to awarding military decorations to women based on how many children they have!

Spoiler

View attachment 3432685

I see nothing negative about such a thing despite which less tasteful previous governments enacted such policies.

 

[Blobby's Murder Knife]

The reason Europe doesn’t have these huge cultural battles around abortion, is because European abortion laws are far stricter than Roe vs Wade, and because Eurofags settled on a compromise a long time ago: A compromise that depends on the country but roughly can be summed up as: Abortion up to the first semester is legal, but outlawed or with restrictions past the first trimester.

I too want to abort some college students in the first semester.