- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alito & Thomas wish to review Obergefell v. Hodges
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:23 pm to Flats
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:23 pm to Flats
quote:
Kennedy did exactly what Scalia predicted he would do when he (Scalia) wrote the dissent for DOMA.
After the opinion came out, there were many scholarly articles discussing the ramifications of Obergefell. As many of these articles pointed out, If you follow the reasoning of the opinion, states wouldn’t be allowed to put any limitations on marriage. If first cousins wanted to marry, Obergefell's reasoning would require istates to recognize it. If a polygamist, wanted to marry seven different wives, the reasoning of Obergefell would require it.
Of course, we know that the Supreme Court would come up with some bullsh!t reasoning to “distinguish" these cases, but that just shows you how truly fricked up the reasoning of Obergefell is.
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 2:50 pm
0
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:24 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
2) I am now stunned that of all people, you seem to think court decisions should be based on public opinion, and not precedent
He never argued that at all. He was asked about the public opinion of the issue and answered it.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:24 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Overturning Obergfell puts Loving in jeopardy.
I forgot about that one, but yeah, when I mentioned Griswold, you have to include Loving, too. They're all based in the same reasoning and just built off each other.
Griswold begat Loving, which begat Obergfell.
You try to make the argument we need reverse Loving or Griswold and you're going to lose a lot of elections.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:25 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Obergfell isn’t just based on Roe. It’s also based in Loving.
Obergefell is based on "5 people wanted gay marriage to be the law of the land". It's not any more complicated than that, and it's exactly what Scalia predicted.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
If all the stupid people in the world got together and elected a f*cking king, you would be a f*cking shoo-in.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What really raised eyebrows was Thomas saying GRISWOLD needed to be revisited. You're going to need an actual Handmaiden's Tale society to support that one.
Why? Privacy via substantive due process is obviously the thorn for Thomas rather than any particular outcome for contraceptives.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:26 pm to MMauler
quote:
If all the stupid people in the world got together and elected a f*cking king, you would be a f*cking shoo-in.
When SFP is proven right, the ad homs begin
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:27 pm to TriStateAreaFootball
quote:Being gay is not a perversion or make a gay person a pervert. It's the gay culture that so many of them subscribe to that's the issue, Same as it is in the black community. The culture is ruinous.
You cannot separate the Gay and Transgender issues. It cannot be done
Perversion is Perversion. This a morality issue.
Bring Trans, however, is a perversion. It's an idea, a fixation, a kink, an identity issue, however you want to describe them, they're obsessing over their femininity to the point of believing they're female and what's even more perverted is that a certain subset of soy drinkers believe them. These people need help.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:27 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Why? Privacy via substantive due process is obviously the thorn for Thomas rather than any particular outcome for contraceptives.
You can't separate privacy from government intrusion from Griswold (outside of direct LEO interactions and the 4th Amendment).
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:28 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Obergfell isn’t just based on Roe. It’s also based in Loving. Overturning Obergfell puts Loving in jeopardy.
I almost mentioned Loving as well. I believe Justice Thomas referenced it the same time he referenced Obergfell (which is crazy coming from him).
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody touched that version of marriage.
Smfh. Bull...shite. If not they would have been happy by calling it civil unions, not marriage. Not have faux religious ceremonies mocking Christians.
quote:
The marriage being discussed is the governmental, bureaucratic version of marriage.
The govt version of marriage was the recognition of the religious version, because it benifits society/govt. Gays couldn't leave it be, and just push for their own gay govt version via civil unions. Which has no benefit to society/govt.
This post was edited on 2/7/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:29 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
He was asked about the public opinion of the issue and answered it.
He could have also said that it didnt matter, because public opinion should never drive a legal decision
Yet he didnt
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:29 pm to Seldom Seen
Let 'em do their partnerships but stop calling or marriage.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
I can definitely see how someone as f*cking retarded as you could come to that conclusion. The fact that you think you’ve been “proven” right simply indicates that you need some serious f*cking professional help – up to and including a complete f*cking lobotomy. It definitely couldn’t hurt.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:31 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Let the gays get married and ruin their lives with divorces.
Totally agree, who cares move on and don’t waste time and capital on trying to invade people’s personal lives.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:35 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
He could have also said that it didnt matter, because public opinion should never drive a legal decision
Yet he didnt
We weren't discussing the legal decision, Mr. Illiterate. That digression had nothing to do with the legal merits or justifications of the ruling.
Did you even look at the quote to which I replied? I'll post it for you:
quote:
What were the polling numbers throughout the 2000s and 2010s nation wide? Do they support this?
So what did I respond with? Polling data.
You jumped in and tried to snipe and looked retarded as usual.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can't separate privacy from government intrusion from Griswold (outside of direct LEO interactions and the 4th Amendment).
Sure you can, by about 60 years.
Thomas thinks privacy via substantive due process is untethered, incomprehensible fairy dust, which it obviously is
Now I don't expect the unhinged component of the country who views women's sexual lib and love for abortion as the state religion to approach it with reason or nuance, but nonetheless, I don't think revisiting it is a sign of some major cultural backslide. I also don't think anyone other than Thomas is devoted to it, and I expect he'll be replaced with a conservative jurist without that particular obsession anyway.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:36 pm to MMauler
quote:
I can definitely see how someone as f*cking retarded as you could come to that conclusion. The fact that you think you’ve been “proven” right simply indicates that you need some serious f*cking professional help – up to and including a complete f*cking lobotomy. It definitely couldn’t hurt.
Posted on 2/7/25 at 2:38 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
This is where I think conservatives go too far. Let the gays get married and ruin their lives with divorces.
Yes. Don’t give the left a winning issue with this.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News