Posted on 09/22/2020 10:37:26 AM PDT by C19fan
She’s Joan Ruth Bader. At birth.
That irony would be too thick for me. Would Alyssa Milano reward him with a Lewiskey?
For what it's worth, there was virtually no conservative opposition to Gorsuch, although a handful of Trump fans had reservations about Kav. I thought that was a bit odd -- I felt (and still feel) that Gorsuch is clearly the more liberal of the two
Gorsuch is more a civil libertarian. But a true Constitutionalist.
Kav more authoritarian. But A Kennedy clerk and sworn in by Kennedy. That meant something.
I don’t know how gay marriage can be overturned. It’s not something that lends itself to incrementalism. Where’s the opposition?
Gorsuch is a Sandra Day O'Connor type judge -- he has a lifetime career track record showing he is the GOP's "side" and clearly has some solid conservative rulings and does the right thing maybe 80% of the time (though I'm being generous there), but he ALSO has a weird liberal streak on a handful of issues, and is simply NOT a social conservative. He would likely vote to uphold Roe simply because he sympathizes with the basic arguments that abortion should be legal for some reasons, even if he has qualms about the overall decision and is not a fan of abortion on demand. Years of listening to insane rantings from his SJW feminazi pastor have made this guy's brain mushy, just like Obama listening to "America sucks because of whitey" sermons from Jeremiah Wright all day but pretending he didn't notice them and it didn't affect his worldview.
>> Kav more authoritarian. <<
Well, I agree Kav would likely vote to uphold Roe, but for different reasons than Gorsuch. As the article notes, Kav is more of a "Don't rock the boat", keep the status quo guy, who is extremely hesitant to overturn SCOTUS decisions that been woven into the fabric of American society for decades, even if he personally dislikes them. Kav's gut feeling is probably that Roe was a bad decision, but overturning it as this stage (almost 50 years later) would cause chaos and undermine the Supreme Court's role as being "above" partisan politics, blah blah blah, so he can't just strike it down in its entirety, and blah blah blah. He'd probably write some "concurrence" agreeing to uphold Roe along those lines, stressing he's doing it for different reasons than the commie RAT judges, but the end result would be the same.
>> A Kennedy clerk and sworn in by Kennedy. That meant something. <<
Ummm, you realize Gorsuch was a Kennedy clerk TOO, right? In fact, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh served in that role simultaneously and got to know each other back then. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were part of a group of five law clerks assigned that year. Kavanaugh described him as: "He fit into the place very easily. He's just an easy guy to get along with."
As I note, its ironic the AlwaysTrumpers on here give Bush hell for appointing Roberts. Roberts was a Rehnquist clerk, and his wife was a card-carrying member of a pro-life organization, there was far more evidence he'd be conservative than either of Trump's picks.
>> I don’t know how gay marriage can be overturned. It’s not something that lends itself to incrementalism. Where’s the opposition? <<
Huh?
It certainly can and DOES lend itself to incrementalism. Are you seriously buying the liberal arguments that the only result would be gay people can now get married?
We're much worse off now than it when it was legalized in 2015. Liberals have gone off the deep end and now insist you use "(he/him)" pronouns in your online profile if you're a biological male from birth (cuz you know, NOT all biological males from birth "identify" that way) and have made Drag Queen Storytime a thing for preschoolers. This crap didn't even exist 5 years ago when homo marriage was legalized.
The latest incrementalism from just a few WEEKS ago is they are now demanding transgender characters on TV are played by ACTUAL real-life transgender people, or it doesn't "count" towards "representation" in society. It's gotten insane, and this crap shows no signs of ending or even slowing down.
Now that the standard is that "marriage" simply means "any two consenting adults who love one another", the opposition has nothing to stand on if an incestuous couple or some polygamist with 27 wives came forward with a lawsuit demanding the government accept and celebrate his "loving union", and mark my words, that day is coming.
Some FReepers and conservaitves on the internet are even claiming the latest Netflix embararssment, a movie called "Cuties", about 11 year old girls "twerking", is merely the first step towards the normalization and mainstreaming of pedophilia next. I wouldn't go that far (you'll get flamed on the internet if you don't agree with them that 'Cuties' is the worst thing ever and we should all cancel our Netflix subscriptions over it), but there is little doubt that the "prevailing moral standards" are sliding LEFTWARD due to crap like that now being "acceptable"
do the Cubs want #3 and face #6 Marlins/Philly
or would they rather
#2 and face #7 Brewers/Cincy ???
If I knew that, I had forgotten.
i dont know how one would incrementally reverse Obergefell.
what state legislatures are resisting it?
"Separate but equal" was the "law of the land" for many decades, and states just rolled over and accepted segregated facilities as a way of life.
I agree. I don’t see a court case overturning homosexual marriage.
A Constitutional Amendment could do it. But I won’t hold my breath.
I do expect polygamy to be sanctioned before long. The court seems to have decided that if people love each other, they can marry. No number of participants was stipulated, so I think the door is wide open. Maybe that’s the sort of thing that would create interest in an Amendment to put the genie back in the bottle.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Monday that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in state in National Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol.
...
Pelosi wanted to honor RBG’s long career as a legislator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.