Sessions Spox: Obergefell Is Settled Law [VIDEO]

This morning Sarah Flores, the spokesperson for Jeff Sessions, appeared on CNN to declare that despite his history of loudly opposing same-sex marriage, Obergefell is “settled law at this point” and unlike his predecessor, Sessions will “enforce the laws as they’re written, not as the Justice Department wishes they were.” Flores added that Sessions will make the DOJ “an enforcement mechanism for the law, whether you agree with those laws or not.” Watch below.

  • olandp

    Ok, Mr. Sessions, I’ll take that in writing. Actually I’ll take a formal letter of resignation to be used in the event that it becomes apparent this this is a lie.

  • Rex

    There are those that will be pissed upon hearing this, I’m just not sure who they are yet.

  • pch1013

    Except the many, many, many, many laws that Mafia Don will be breaking every single day.

  • JoeMyGod

    The key words in her message might be “at this point”……

    • Ninja0980

      Clarence Thomas (yes he talks) made it clear he’ll have no qualms overturning Obergefell.
      Safe bet the rest of the conservatives sans Kennedy feel the same way.

      • Chucktech

        Pity one of them lay a-moldering in the grave…

        • WitlessProtection

          LOL – I love my people!!!

    • crewman

      Coming soon: a new definition for “settled law” meaning issues once settled should be revisited if the GOP has control of all branches of government.

    • Kim K’s Kute Koochy✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      true. His view will be “evolve” in a few months & back to hating gays

    • The Return of Traxley

      But of course.

      Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education are settled at this point, also.

      Nothing to see here folks. Everyone can go home now.

      • Acronym Jim

        Don’t forget Loving v. Virginia. Sessions probably isn’t fond of that ruling either.

        • The Return of Traxley

          Probably not a fan of the 14th amendment either.

          • Nic Peterson

            He would argue that one was the ‘slippery slope’.

      • JCF

        Like the Voting Rights Act (“pre-clearance”) WAS settled law…

    • Acronym Jim

      Exactly. Loving is also probably considered by Sessions as settled law “at this point.”

  • Michael R

    Settled law ” at this point ”

    Obama is president ” at this point “

  • Tiny Hands Trump

    And how about Roe?

    • S1AMER

      Obergefell will outlast Roe. But probably not for long.

    • grindstone

      My thoughts exactly. If my reproductive rights can be chipped away relentlessly, so can your marriage rights. Don’t turn your backs for a minute.

    • GayOldLady

      Roe is target 1 at SCOTUS. After they get that done they’ll go straight after Obergefell.

    • Chucktech

      The hope I have for Roe is that if the SCOTUS era of Scalia couldn’t do it, it won’t happen.

      • Strepsi

        The danger is not that the Supreme Court will outright overturn it, it’s that it will rule in favour of “States rights” to gut it at every local level.

        • Chucktech

          Roe determined a woman’s right to chose was constitutionally guaranteed. All states have to abide by the Constitution, so if Roe stands, there’d have to be a Constitutional Amendment to fix it. Ain’t gonna happen. Ergo, Roe would have to go.

    • Todd20036

      I prefer salmon roe

  • …at this point.
    yea ok…sure…
    (OT, but how would Sessions deal with all the states that have approved recreational pot…hell, medical pot for that matter…)

  • Uncle Mark

    “Unlike his predecessor, Sessions will make the DOJ “an enforcement mechanism for the law, whether you agree with those laws or not.”

    1. Which laws did your predecessor allegedly fail to uphold or prosecute for violations?

    2. How soon can we expect your “enforcement mechanism” to prosecute Trump?

    • Chucktech

      1. Legal weed springs to mind.

      2. Like, never!

      • Tiger Quinn

        Yeah, legal weed is really going to take a hit.

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Things his spox says are meaningless and care no force of law. Even if Sessions says it himself during confirmation hearings. If he acts differently when in office, there is zero chance of consequences.

    • Rex

      “Things his spox says” could be a $100,000 Pyramid category.

      • Todd20036

        And…. NOW I’m old.

  • Gustav2

    It is not just about Obergefell, sure you will ‘allow’ us to get married. But you want to be able to fire us on Monday.

    • Todd20036

      Or not serve us in a store because we are married/gay/have children/have HIV….

      • Ninja0980

        Or treat us in a doctor’s office etc.

        • Todd20036

          Yup, or even an emergency room. Or a paramedic can let you die on the street.

          Fun, no?

    • Jerry

      If Obergefell is revisited, Lawrence v. TX can’t be far behind.

  • Silver Badger

    The only things that come to mind are the marijuana laws and immigration laws. He sounds like a roundup of illegal immigrants is in the wings.

    • Chucktech

      With legal pot following up closely behind.

  • S1AMER

    Be warned: The Republicans will very likely pass some sort of “license to discriminate” law (FADA has or will be reintroduced, but other bills seem likely) that lets people nationwide discriminate against us in any way so long as they claim to be acting on their “religious” or “moral” beliefs. And, yes, this law would supersede any state or local non-discrimination laws and ordinances.

    So, even if you live in one of the states with legal protection, you could in the future still be fired on Monday if the boss found out you got married on Saturday, you could get kicked out of your apartment, and you could be discriminated against in any other way (just as in the 28 states where there are currently no protections).

    And, of course, we will very likely have a Supreme Court in the future that will give precedence to those deeply held “religious” and “moral” beliefs.

    • Michael White

      If they do, I hope they put signs in their windows. If you don’t want my business and the business of my family and friends. Fine be honest about it. I will pass by, open to door and say fuck you and your religion

      • Exactly.

      • Frostbite

        Of course they won’t, that would be repressing their belief to discriminate without repercussions.

      • seththayer

        I have always thought this and I think we need to have this “requirement” attached to any Religious Freedoms act. You don’t want my money? Fine, but let me know before I walk in the door….oh, and you should realize how many people will pass your business right on by when they see that sign.

      • ceeenbee

        I think if any such law is implemented, we should make up stickers (not unlike DMV license stickers that shred if you try and remove them) saying “WE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQs” and place them over and over on the windows of businesses who feel it’s their right to impose their warped morality on society.

        • Tiger Quinn

          Oh, I plan to do that in spades.

        • John30013

          I liked the approach many businesses took in Mississippi, which was to put attackers on their doors saying they WELCOMED LGBT customers. It turned the tables on the bigots.

    • Tiger Quinn

      That’s fine. It’ll be great fun to pick on the minorities, until Jethro and Co. figure out that you can use it at any time, for anything. Once it hurts white people badly, we might get somewhere.

  • Bared Bear

    You do not now or ever will have my trust. You’re evil and you will do evil things.

    • Tiger Quinn

      For all time. I will never listen to another Republican ever again.

  • Todd20036

    But RFAs are not out of the question on a national level. RIght?

    • Silver Badger

      Please explain RFA. Here are the first few google came up with, but none of them really sound right.
      Request For Application(s)
      Restricted Free Agent (professional sports)
      Renewable Fuels Association
      Royal Field Artillery
      Request For Assistance
      Request for Adminship (Wikimedia Foundation)
      Request For Approval
      Request For Action
      Right Forearm

      • pch1013

        “Religious” “Freedom” Amendment

        (The scare quotes are vital.)

        • Silver Badger

          I agree. I wonder if the KKKristians realize that Muslims will be covered? Sounds like a back door to polygamy as well.

          • Skeptical_Inquirer

            I think a mass conversion to the Satanic Temple is in order if they insist that religion trumps all.

      • Todd20036

        Religious Freedom Act.

        Basically, you get to treat LBGTs as second class citizens because you are using your religion to be all butthurt over gays existing, in public.

        • Silver Badger

          Thank you for your civil reply. Google didn’t show Religious Freedom Act at all.

          • IamM

            It’s what the state level freedom to ignore other people’s civil rights laws, like the one Pence signed in Indiana, are called. Strange that Google wouldn’t recognize that.

          • Silver Badger

            It is. My version of google doesn’t’ much like JMG either.

          • Chucktech

            Sounds like your Google luvs jeezis and hates queers!

          • johncAtl

            Google allows you to direct a search to a specific site. I use it a lot to find older posts from Joe. Just use the site keyword as part of the search.

          • It has somehow been scrubbed from google within the last 6 months or so.

          • Silver Badger

            How very….Odd.

          • I thought so as well. A week or so ago, a friend wanted some more info about it and was going to send him some links. Only to find that all the ones that used to be there, are now gone….. It worries me to pieces to know that vital pieces of info could be erased from the internet.

          • Silver Badger

            Houston, we have a problem! But what to do?

          • Absolutely nothing. In this we are powerless. That is the one weakness of the internet, printed material is harder to share across long distances, but harder to eliminate.

          • Jerry

            Search for “RFRA” instead…religious freedom restoration act.

      • Dutchlander

        Religious Freedom Act. Or, the First Amendment Defense Act as the monster is called on a national level.

        • Silver Badger

          FADA I understood. Things change so quickly. Thanks.

          • Johnny Wyeknot

            Gotta keep up!

          • Silver Badger

            Exactly why I ask questions!

      • OdieDenCO

        Right Forearm to the head is about right.

        • Silver Badger

          RFAH or RFATTH?

  • Butch

    Is this the idiot who headed Carly Fiorina’s campaign and who for some inexplicable reason has become a staple on Chris Hayes?

  • ChrisInKansas

    Because a law always stays a law.

  • Ninja0980

    Doesn’t matter if “religious freedom” laws give folks the right to not acknowledge does it?

  • Chris Gardner

    Love how the Rethuglicans like to use code words to essentially say, “until we can get the Supreme Court packed with conservatives and thus overturn those laws…”

  • Blake Jordan

    Marriage will mean nothing after the congressional rethuglicans pass the pro-discrimination laws they have planned…

  • Johnny Wyeknot

    But what’s in his heart?

    • Todd20036

      Coal or stone…

      • Johnny Wyeknot

        I’m betting on True Blood.

    • Beagle

      He has a heart?

      • Todd20036

        Yup. Dug it up himself from the graveyard and stapled it in himself.

      • shrpblnd

        Yes, he has the heart of a small boy. He keeps it in a jar on his desk.

    • Rex


  • j.martindale

    Every law has to be interpreted. Saying he will apply the laws “The way they’re written” suggests some magical meaning to words that leads to a single interpretation. This is balderdash, and intellectually dishonest. If the words of a law had only a single interpretation, there would be no need for a Supreme Court, nor would there be differences of interpretations among the members of the Court.

  • Ninja0980

    Funny thing, last fall at the Federalist Society meeting Clarence Thomas all but announced that the minute conservatives can get five anti-gay justices on SCOTUS Obergefell will be history.
    I’ll take his word over that of a right wing spox.

  • Gustav2

    An enforcement mechanism for the law, whether those laws are constitutional or not.

  • geoffalnutt

    They’ll find her naked body in the river…missing the head.

  • Dutchlander

    I don’t believe it. The moment they get the chance to turn the Supreme Court into the Heritage Foundation Court, they’ll do so.

  • Oikos

    Don’t believe anything they say. Every word out the mouths of these scumbags is a lie.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, remember when they were fine with us having marriage rights if it wasn’t called marriage then fought tooth and nail against civil unions or domestic partnerships and banned them in many cases?

  • abqdan

    “Enforcing the laws as they are written” doesn’t help us. Obergefell was a decision in the Supreme Court that determined laws banning same sex marriage were unconstitutional, but there is no law that says we CAN marry. In any case, the words ‘at this point’ are the get out as far as Sessions is concerned. I’d expect him to work to get laws passed that would deny us our equal rights.

  • Johnny Wyeknot

    She better bleach out that hair if she wants to stay a Republican Spox.

    • And get her boobs enlarged, take off some of those clothes, then she’ll be ready to parrot her GOP masters.

  • Ninja0980

    Don’t worry, homocons like my cousin’s former friend, Guy Benson etc. keep assuring us this will never happen.
    And if you can’t trust the word of self-loathing doormats, who can you trust?

  • Sam_Handwich

    ha! Sessions is being prepped for his confirmation hearing by Charles Cooper (of Prop 8 trial fame)

  • GayOldLady

    Y’all can’t bullshit us Beauregard.

    • Menergy

      Reminds me of “Auntie Mame” and the Suthuhn family she faced in her courtship with her hubby to be, Beauregard Burnside (played by Forrest Tucker) Except this current one is dangerous and evil and devious

  • AJD

    Here’s the kicker: Trump may get to appoint up to four justices to the Supreme Court who do not consider Obergefell to be settled law and don’t have any regard for the doctrine of stare decisis.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, all the folks who stayed home have screwed us all.

      • AJD

        Exactly. I was saying this up and down to the people I know who voted for Jill Stein, and they refused to listen – and I was only referring to SCOTUS justices, not the more than 100 federal judges Trump gets to appoint as well.

        • Ninja0980

          Yup, get ready for many of the Circuit courts to take a sharp right turn ala the 5th, 8th and 6th.

        • Strepsi

          You had friends who voted for JILL STEIN?! I hope you spat in their homeopathy and shat on their incense sticks.

          • AJD

            “Had” – I blocked them on Facebook even before Election Day because I was getting tired of their bullshit.

      • DJ John Bear

        Unfortunately, a few LGBT (former) friends voted for the orange manatee even after we brought up that very possibility. The fact that one of them stood up for my husband at our ceremony disgusts me to no end…

        • Ninja0980

          They are stupid fools who truly don’t that yes, the clock can be turned back and the bigots who will do it won’t give a damn about the backlash since they can’t be voted out of office.

          • DJ John Bear

            It was explained to them, and all I got in response was a pass of the hand. Stupid fools, yes, but as far as I’m concerned they, and others like them, betrayed our community.

          • Ninja0980

            I feel the same way.
            Guy Benson, Tammy Bruce, RIchard Grenell etc. are all traitors to our community, simple as that.

      • CJAS

        No, the racists who voted for racism screwed us all.

        • AJD

          That may be, but the fact remains that these people were amply warned of the dangers posed by Donald Trump and that expressing their discontent with the political system by voting third-party or staying home would accomplish nothing but increasing the likelihood of a Trump victory. And what did they do? They voted third-party and stayed home anyway.

          Now you have people like Glenn Greenwald saying that it’s really all the fault of Clinton and the Democrats, as if to say that people who knowingly chose to make decisions they knew full well would screw all of us bear no individual or collective responsibility.

          Well, they do. And I’d say just as much as those who voted for Trump, if not more so because they of all people should have known better.

          • CJAS

            When we begin a tract with “That may be” and then continue the same evasion…your white family, friends, mentors, teachers, colleagues, neighbors (70% of voters), sold everyone else out. Let’s address that. Then we can talk about 4.5% of voters.

          • AJD

            I come from a mixed-race family that overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) supported Clinton.

            It’s not an evasion when you consider that the margins by which Trump won in some areas were smaller than the number of people who voted third-party (Michigan is a notable example).

          • CJAS

            Margins? But it’s not an evasion. Let’s repeatedly and exclusively focus on what 4.5% of voters did instead of what motivated the most of 70% seems like an evasion.

            And when we talk about margins, where does voter disenfranchisement (voter ID, restricted hours, closed polling places, voter intimidation, etc.) fit in this narrative?

    • Chucktech

      Then again, Trump may not. Unless there’s a massive die-off of Democrats in the Senate, Dems are going to obstruct anybody that the Repubs find acceptable.

      At least, they damned sure better.

  • Skeptical_Inquirer

    If the press was smart (and they’re not), they’d skip the press conference because it’ll probably be like a bunch of tweets in a row and concentrate on the Cabinet.

    • IamM

      They should delay reporting anything Trump or his shills say or tweet. He’s just using them for publicity and distraction.

    • Bj Lincoln

      Or it could be another infomercial like the one he set up to announce Obama was a US citizen. The shit he says about the press and how he has avoided them should be met with a boycott by the press. I too think the press should skip this conference and any other ones until Drumpf stops the name calling and demeaning BS. If it were me, I would not send anyone or print one damn word that comes out of his mouth.

  • All well and good, but let’s remember that everything that comes out of these monsters’ mouths is a lie.

  • Stev84

    They’ll just push for “religious freedom” laws or refuse to defend and expand anti-discrimination laws. The Obama administration did a lot of work on the latter.

  • Halou

    “…at this point”
    So In other words. nothing has changed. Bigotry will still be passed as law later on.

  • canoebum

    This is bullshit. The continuance of marriage equality can only be put at risk by cases being filed against it in the states. The DoJ has nothing to do with it.

    • Steverino

      And only if Trump gets at least two Supreme Court appointments, including the current vacancy that should have been filled by Obama, were it not for McConnell’s obstruction.

      If that were to happen, I would be worried about Windsor, as well. All it would take would be for Congress to pass, and Trump (or Pence) to sign into law, DOMA 2.0, and in the inevitable federal court battles that would ensue, once it makes it up to SCOTUS, poof! Windsor (federal recognition of SSM, including spousal federal benefits, SSA, VA, etc.) will also be gone.

  • The Return of Traxley

    Honey, I don’t trust you. You can’t possibly be a shitgibbon spokeslizard.

    You’re not blond. Your makeup doesn’t make you look like a painted whore. You look like an office temp with average bewbs. You wear glasses and you dress like an Episcopalian.

    2/10 on a good day.

  • Mike in Texas

    That’s about as convincing as Trump saying he’ll pay construction contractors in full.

  • greenmanTN

    Congratulations to all you same sex married couples.

  • Curieux Bleu

    “At this point” my “unfavourable” view of Sessions remains firmly “settled”.

    Misogynist, racist, homophobic asshole. Will be a fucking disaster for “Justice” in America

  • CJAS

    The Voting Rights Act and Taft-Hartley Act (corporate campaign finance) were “settle law” too.

  • Tiger Quinn

    “At this point.” There’d be no reason to say that unless it was indicative.

  • edrex

    and how settled is Roe V Wade? Is Obergefell settled like that? b/c the right wingers spend a lot of time talking abt how to unsettle it.

  • KnownDonorDad

    Tony Perkins must be downright crushed.

  • Tom G

    “As they’re written…” scares me. That could set aside the judicial branch entirely.

  • boobert

    I won’t believe anyone from the coming administration ! They’ll say anything and then do the opposite. Didn’t kellyscam just say not to take their words seriously?

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Yeah, you say that now.

    “Trust them not one once, not one gram, no one atom, for the weight of their words are as air on the scales”™ — me, just now.

  • RealityBass

    He’s going to enforce the uppity parts too?

  • Gianni

    “settled law at this point” The statement imparts a sense that there is an end of that condition coming.