Why is it that it is ‘settled law’ for the entire country when they redefine marriage, but not ‘settled law’ for the entire country when they uphold concealed carry?
Then leave them hanging until they rot off the noose. That will allow time to have law students parade past to temper any ideas in their heads of future judicial activism.
Can someone tell me if the reasoning used in minority opinions issued in such cases can be used as support in future cases, or does the majority opinion eclipse their arguments?
I’m asking because there were powerful, excellent points made by the 4 justices in the minority, points which it would be a shame to waste.
Just keep voting.
Finally, some courage.
These folks ought to be out stumping for Trump big time
If you want more such decisions vote hillary
If Hillary wins, everyone who signed this document will be targeted by the THUG ARMIES that she will be forming!!!!
For those who doubt that Hillary intends to rule vis thug armies, see here:
The only way to stop this is to ELECT TRUMP!!!!
I question the sophistry in the OP which condems the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell. In fact, grade school children should be able to argue the following constitutional point against gay “marriage.”
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues, not the business of the feds.
Also, with all due respect to the family and supporters of the late Terri Shiavo, why didn’t the Court refuse to hear gay “marriage” issues in the name of state sovereignty like it argued in Terri’s case?
`