Obergefell v. Hodges

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Pooooor Kim. On the bright side, she's got bartending offers from three different Louisville bars: Headhunters, The Tool Shed, and The White Swallow.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

AFAIK, there was no opinion stated. Just the refusal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

A bridge too far, as it would seem even this Bench won't rule that Kim Davis shouldn't be held liable for not enforcing the recent Supreme Court decision. This doesn't mean Obergefell is remotely safe. This case wasn't about gay marriage, it was about a sitting elected government official enforcing their religious beliefs on their constituents.

The only way this goes to Supreme Court is Texas or a deep red state passes a gay marriage ban.

 

[Politesse]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

Refused to provide even that. My assumption would be that the Court doesn't feel they have their "golden case" yet, but who knows why they do what they do, anymore? They seldom write meaningful opinions even for the cases they accept and rule on, these past three years or so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

Refused to provide even that. My assumption would be that the Court doesn't feel they have their "golden case" yet, but who knows why they do what they do, anymore? They seldom write meaningful opinions even for the cases they accept and rule on, these past three years or so.

Because this case was about continence objectors. They rule in Davis's favor, that pretty much means anyone in an elected position can choose anything and apply their personal standard. That would bite them in the ass down the road. They simply need what happened with abortion to happen with gay marriage. Why it hasn't yet, I'm uncertain.

 

[southernhybrid]

I had read numerous articles and opinions by legal experts that said the court would turn down this case. It was surprising but some of the justices said that all citizens are entitled to the same marital rights. If you've read anything about the A Gay Guys, a bunch of wealthy white gay guys who have powerful positions and influences in the MAGA cult, maybe they had an influence. That may be crazy, but I guess if you're a rich, white male, you can be gay and still be a beloved MAGA who Trump adores. I'm talking about people like the disgusting Peter Thiel for example.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.pride.com/culture/trump-a-gays-explained#rebelltitem2

There was a similar article in the NYT about these guys. Hard to understand but I guess if you're wealthy, all you care about are things like tax breaks. The A Gay Guys claims that other gay guys are their biggest enemies. Go figure.

Charles Moran took over the Log Cabin Republicans in 2019, and drove the gay Republican group further to the right, aligning it with the MAGA movement.

He stepped down in January and was gifted a position with the Trump administration. He is now the associate administrator for external affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

​

Tech billionaire and venture capitalist Peter Thiel helped to finance Trump’s 2016 run for president. He also spoke at 2016 Republican National Convention, where he said “I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all I am proud to be an American.” Since 2000, he has contributed $50 million to various candidates, including to Vice President JD Vance’s 2022 run for the U.S. Senate, and has been a powerful fixture in Republican politics ever since.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

Refused to provide even that. My assumption would be that the Court doesn't feel they have their "golden case" yet, but who knows why they do what they do, anymore? They seldom write meaningful opinions even for the cases they accept and rule on, these past three years or so.

Because this case was about continence objectors. They rule in Davis's favor, that pretty much means anyone in an elected position can choose anything and apply their personal standard. That would bite them in the ass down the road. They simply need what happened with abortion to happen with gay marriage. Why it hasn't yet, I'm uncertain.

Well, because it takes fishing for exactly the right circumstances with which to spring the bad logic. To get these circumstances, Roberts has been known to offer opinions describing exactly the case that would let them apply whatever argument they would accept with a narrow but useful precedent to set for them.

This has been going on for a while and I'm pretty sure Roberts was clear about the case he wanted.

I do not know when and where precisely he indicated this with respect to Lawrence or Griswold. I do not know if any opinion at all was published, here, in fact.

What I do know is that you need enough people in the right place with the right sort of circumstances and exactly the right sort of case.

Personally, I think Roberts is a stain upon his own robes, a thing contemptuous to the idea of a court, not a kangaroo, but a pile of kangaroo excrement.

But he can't do what he wants until the rule of large numbers delivers.

 

[Politesse]

I do not know when and where precisely he indicated this with respect to Lawrence or Griswold. I do not know if any opinion at all was published, here, in fact.

Not by Roberts, the threat to go after the three precedents in question next, gay sex, gay marriage, and access to contraceptives, was made in Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson (2021):

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application inother, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut,Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3THOMAS, J., concurring381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (rightto engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases areunique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party hasasked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agreethat “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider allof this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Supreme Court has refused to take the case so we're safe for now.

What was Roberts' opinion on the matter? Did he conveniently indicate what the next challenge needs to be shaped like for a rat to adequately fuck it?

Refused to provide even that. My assumption would be that the Court doesn't feel they have their "golden case" yet, but who knows why they do what they do, anymore? They seldom write meaningful opinions even for the cases they accept and rule on, these past three years or so.

There's a difference. For the things they rule on with respect to allowing the administration to act unchecked, these are when we see the shadow docket: stripping us of the fruits of our collective direction of some things.

The places where Roberts provided opinions were places where he intended to revisit that later and claim prior precedent or opinion.

They want something they can just say "these opinions say I should rule this way" and pretend like it wasn't his own manufacturing, or perhaps even stepping down, Trump replacing him, him taking a position in the administration or just flying to Argentina or whatever it is that all the kids are doing these days.

Regardless, if he didn't, I assume it's because he already did the last time he ruled with an opinion containing text about Obergefell v Hodges.

I don't care what bullshit he argued would settle the matter as he wishes. I would enjoy very much someone reliable quoting the text and making an attempt to interpret it? But it's not something I'm going to spend my afternoon on looking up and wading through it to get 2 paragraphs out of a mountain of paper.

It would also help to read the dissents at Obergefell and Lawrence as were published to understand exactly what their line of reasoning is so as to actually form constructive arguments against that line of corrupted reasoning.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because this case was about continence objectors.

Who would ever object to that?

 

[TomC]

Because this case was about continence objectors.

Who would ever object to that?

It didn't take me two seconds to autocorrect his autocarrot, but I got a grin out of it.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Because this case was about continence objectors.

Who would ever object to that?

Do you really want an answer to that question?

Because there's an answer to that question.

 

[Toni]

They truly believe that no man has a right to decide where to put or not put his own penis: making that call is the sole province of their state government, each according to its interpretation of the Bible. They call this "liberty".

Why should men have any more choices than women? We get to die of sepsis if a miscarriage isn’t complete and be prosecuted for murder if we survive the sepsis.

 

[Politesse]

They truly believe that no man has a right to decide where to put or not put his own penis: making that call is the sole province of their state government, each according to its interpretation of the Bible. They call this "liberty".

Why should men have any more choices than women? We get to die of sepsis if a miscarriage isn’t complete and be prosecuted for murder if we survive the sepsis.

I emphasize men and penises not because I consider men mor important, but because male homosexual relationships are the target of most anti-gay legislation and rhetoric, and punishing or preventing mtf gender transitions are likewise nearly the exclusive target of anti-trans legislation. This is, in its own way, an indication of the deep sexism that suffuses our society with a careless and cruel misogyny. Women are not targeted, because they are not valued. Even in the dismantling Roe, the goal is to punish the woman for having had sex, not to actually help her or the child. They have no plan or intention for the wellbeing of either. The Bible doesn't actually bother to condemn female homosexuality at all, but it has been used to persecute lesbians for the last three centuries regardless, without mercy or recourse.

 

[Toni]

They truly believe that no man has a right to decide where to put or not put his own penis: making that call is the sole province of their state government, each according to its interpretation of the Bible. They call this "liberty".

Why should men have any more choices than women? We get to die of sepsis if a miscarriage isn’t complete and be prosecuted for murder if we survive the sepsis.

I emphasize men and penises not because I consider men mor important, but because male homosexual relationships are the target of most anti-gay legislation and rhetoric, and punishing or preventing mtf gender transitions are likewise nearly the exclusive target of anti-trans legislation. This is, in its own way, an indication of the deep sexism that suffuses our society with a careless and cruel misogyny. Women are not targeted, because they are not valued. Even in the dismantling Roe, the goal is to punish the woman for having had sex, not to actually help her or the child. They have no plan or intention for the wellbeing of either. The Bible doesn't actually bother to condemn female homosexuality at all, but it has been used to persecute lesbians for the last three centuries regardless, without mercy or recourse.

I was being ironic. Or something.
So much horror and rage is difficult to describe/control/frame/live with. Stuff bubbles out sometimes.