Damn, your victory laps are longer than your races.
What the hell are you going on about?
This unworthy one cringes, and asks only how he has offended.
I don’t see why he’d feel any pressure to abstain. It would be the last vote he ever casts as a Senator, and then he’s off to a lifetime appointment. No need to ever face voters again. And it’s not like his voters would care if he voted “yes” when all the Dems voted “no” for no good reason.
Is it possible that Cruz was alluding to the rule where a Senator shall not impute to another Senator, by any form of words, any conduct or motive that is unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator? Such that, even if the vote goes the same as it would for anyone else with Lee’s mindset, the talky-tally part that precedes said vote would need to involve politely refraining from casting various aspersions?
Ted Cruz. Civility and decorum. For sure. Hugh Betcha.
Well, let me rephrase: Ted Cruz, rules lawyer who wants to shut down criticism?
You’re missing the point. Obergefell went on about how even though marriage was thought for centuries to require opposite sex partners, in modern times “we” have decided that such a view is outdated. “We” have determined that homosexuality is an accepted practice and that “we” should grant those relationships the legal status of marriage.
Much like the death penalty dissents, the Court fails to back up its assertion that “we” have decided that. Indeed when the federal government has passed DOMA (and not repealed it) and the citizens of thirty states banned same sex marriage in their own constitutions, with many other states having laws against SSM, the Court is simply wrong when it says that “we” have decided such things.
And the “thirty states,” under present discussion passed constitutional amendments, which were essentially immune to state court decisions overturning them. Nor am I aware of any of those thirty being overturned by federal court decisions apart from Obergefell and its sister cases.
Hmm, changing tack somewhat, Bricker, I’d love to hear your opinion on this CurrentAffairs piece about how the supreme court is quite clearly ideologically motivated and contradictory in several recent cases. It sounds convincing to me, but I’m not the kind of legal expert really able to evaluate the claims, and the article threw up a pretty huge red flag in this paragraph, which also serves nicely as a thesis statement for the whole article:
(In general, attempts to remove nuance and detail, particularly in a field where such nuances are so important seem #problematic.)
Your thoughts?
Oh. So, they weren’t really overturned, but just sorta kinda overturned? Or what?
I don’t know of them being overturned in any permanent way, shape, manner, or form, except by Obergefell and its sister cases.
By “sister cases,” I mean the cases that created circuit splits and were decided at roughly the same time in the federal system. For example, Henry v. Wymyslo was an Ohio case concerning same-sex marriage recognition by Ohio of legal marriages from other states. The voters of Ohio had adopted an amendment to the Ohio constitution which provided, “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
A suit challenging the validity of that state constitutional amendment won at the federal district court level, so I suppose you might say that Ohio’s law was kinda sorta overturned – but then the Sixth Circuit reversed Judge Black’s decision. So that decision had no permanent effect. But when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell, the basis for the Sixth Circuit’s decision vanished.
So I guess I should ask you what you’re talking about, exactly? Specifically?
Oh, I’m gonna come play precise legalistic definitions and case law with you? No, you’ll just have to go find a puppy to kick. (You fish like that, all hook and no bait?)
My only point was noting that the cite of all these proceedings had a final column, that noted roughly half with the appellation “Overturned”. Gosh, I thought and said, kinda dumb to pass shit thats likely to get overturned. These guys are lawyers or at least know a couple dozen on a first name basis, they don’t know this stuff?
But, upon reflection, it makes perfect sense. They pass it, their base are belong to them. Overturned, their base are still belong to them, but now he can throw a conniption for more campaign contributions to fight! Looked at in that light, overturned is even better!
Thank you notes can be cherished, campaign checks can be cashed.
Kavanaugh it is.
A report says Kennedy agreed to retire when Trump agreed to pick Kavanaugh , sounds a bit far fetched to be true.
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050?s=19
"Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp "
This is the sort of prediction that (if made in advance) has some credibility when it comes true.
When the “prediction,” is made after the fact, I don’t find it particularly persuasive.
Yeah. After a Justice retires what possible hold could he/she have over the President?
People really think Kennedy is that stupid?
It seems that this is the kind of thing that if were true, NBC News would put on their website. If they have, I can’t find it.