That’s very droll, but it misses the point that in the term “puppy dog,” “dog” is a noun. In contrast, in the term “Attorney General,” “General” is an adjective. We don’t use plural forms for adjectives in the English language.
This thread is not the place to deal with your issues grammatical.
The evidence is to the contrary, like it or not. 
Yes, sometimes people make mistakes. However, I think the only cases where adjectives take a plural form in English are in phrases that are not fully naturalised into English, e.g. “beaux arts” and “concerti grossi”.
And sometimes “mistakes” become so common that they become the standard.
You seem like someone still fighting the good fight for *whom *and against the singular they. Good luck with that.
Who are you talking about? I’m a person who’s happy to use both those themself.
You’re on the list too! :mad:
Also supporting the brief: the two Doctors Dre.
Pointless grammar Nazism outnumber actual pertinent replies 3:1!
Yes, and?
My contribution: Eggs benedict.
I don’t agree with Roberts. His dissent in Windsor is instructive in that he argued that the majority didn’t approve SSM as a requirement of states, and that he specifically didn’t believe it was a requirement of states.
The lines are pretty well drawn:
Will hold a constitutional right to SSM: Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor.
Will not find a constitutional right to SSM: Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia.
That leaves Kennedy and his sweet mystery of life, and the final decision-maker on this issue barring a SCOTUS shakeup.
I’m happy to see so many Attorneys General pushing for SCOTUS to see these cases, and it seems to me that they have little choice but to hear it soon, whether it’s this year or in the next couple. And while I do support marriage equality, I have concerns about exactly what their ruling might be and how it would play out.
It seems to me that most people seem to think that the case would either find for a constitutional right or not, but are those the only two options? Might they, perhaps, find that a state may allow for SSM if they so choose or not, but that all states must recognize a legal marriage? Even if they do find that it’s a constitutional right, might states still find ways to either limit access to SSM marriage or otherwise limit the rights granted?
For instance, I live in Virginia, and I remember the ballot initiative a few years ago for an amendment to our state constitution about this that, unfortunately, passed and now only allows for and only recognizes a marriage between one man and one woman. So, in the best case scenario that marriage is found to be a constitutional right, what might this mean here? Would the legislature be able to drag their feet on passing new laws or updating laws? Might they be able to find other ways of limiting access akin to some of the anti-abortion laws that have recently been passed? Or, perhaps like abortion, might it end up forcing couples who want to get married to go to DC or Maryland?
What if they do some sort of intermediate ruling, like not forcing states to perform them but forcing them to recognize. For a state like Virginia, where it’s in the same constitutional amendment, would it strike down the whole thing or just that specific part? Assuming that most anti-SSM states in this case would still choose not to perform them even if forced to recognize, what sort of efforts might they be able to do to limit couples from going to other states or in limiting the rights afforded to them even if they have to recognize it?
Do any legal types have opinions on likelihoods of various rulings? And how they might play out, since it seems quite unlikely that even if SCOTUS finds the right, that a gay couple could just go get married the next day after the ruling in a state that currently has it banned.
If (or when?) that guy in Louisiana is overruled, we’ll be back to unanimity, and no split that would force SC to take the matter up again.
I’m not a legal type, but I can tell you that in Massachusetts the SJC decision was announced in November with the provision that marriages would start the following May, which is what happened. I had a six month engagement for this reason 
The Louisiana guy is a federal judge. That’s why its’ a big deal that he broke with the other federal judges.
I know, but there are higher federal judges even before you get to the SC.
I’m not familiar with the federal rules on stays, but if the Supreme Court refuses cert on the 4th or 10th Circuit Cases, then those stays are automatically lifted, and the refusal of cert would mean that swaths of the country would have to recognize SSM while other swaths that didn’t reach the final appellate level in time could continue to ban SSM.
I don’t think that is a result that the Court would think to be appropriate. I think that they almost have to grant cert this next term.