News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I'm sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.
My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what's one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.
Except they had the opportunity to do just that and refused. So obviously they have some kind of problem with it.
I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn't find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they've had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there's basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can't rationalize it.
And yet we have a case right here that suggests they don't have a way to do that. There are too many gay couples who got married, and nobody wants to sort out the mess of them suddenly losing that.
They may not have felt that this was a good case for their purposes. Or enough of them may have felt that this was a bad time for it. Hell, maybe a couple of the conservative justices just don't care enough to want to revisit the issue.
But respect for the law, the constitution, and the rights and wellbeing of the people hasn't been evident in many of their recent opinions. Letting half the states pretend a fraction of marriages never happened wouldn't even be the most disruptive thing they've done. They endorsed racial profiling, made racial gerrymandering presumptively legal, made prosecuting bribery essentially impossible, overturned abortion rights, and crowned Trump as king and gave him a license to kill. And that's ignoring all the shenanigans happening on the shadow docket where they don't even bother justifying their decisions. That they've at least drawn something of a line against the Trump administration trying to eliminate due process altogether makes sense only because letting go of due process would mean giving up some of their own influence.
If they want to rule arbitrarily on this, then there's no reason to avoid this particular case. If they don't want to rule arbitrarily, then they need to think through the implications, and there is no getting around some major practical issues.
Thomas has explicitly signalled that he wants to revisit Obergefell, and Barrett probably would, too. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, though, probably want to leave it alone, and combined with the three liberal justices, they ended it all right here.