How The Supreme Court Could Overturn Obergefell

Mark Joseph Stern writes at Slate:

What happens if Kennedy is replaced by a Gorsuch-style conservative? At that point, Roberts would be free to rewrite Windsor and Obergefell however he wants. Roberts could remain faithful to the original text of both decisions. He could also reverse them. But the likeliest possibility is that Roberts first cuts them down to a single guarantee—the right for same-sex couples to receive a marriage license with no attendant privileges.

In case after case, Roberts could vote to allow discrimination against same-sex couples but affirm their right to the license itself. He could, for instance, permit the denial of spousal benefits to same-sex couples, contending that so long as gay people can marry, their rights have not been abridged.

One by one, he could pluck the stars out of Obergefell’s “constellation of benefits,” while insisting that he respected the decision’s bottom line. And then, once Obergefell has been mostly gutted, Roberts could drop this pretense and deliver the final death blow, asserting that the decision had already been lethally eroded. It’s a classic Roberts trick.

We’ve already seen the Texas Supreme Court rule that marriage doesn’t include state benefits for gay couples. Hit the link for the full piece, it’s worth your time.

  • Michael R

    Fuckface Gorsuch promised to follow precedent and already broke the promise ,
    so don’t expect anything from him .

    • Jonathan Smith

      the “precedent” came from his marked up copy of the bible, so, yeah, no.

    • Joseph Miceli

      When has a conservative ever followed precedent when it inconvenienced them? Look at the decision in “Citizens United.” That overturned 80 years of precedent. They truly have no shame.

      • Lizard

        And the idiots who used to howl “judicial activism” went strangely quiet when that activism began to benefit them. (I’m looking at you, Hobby Lobby.)

        • Exatron

          That’s because they really mean “a judge made a decision we don’t like.”

          • Lizard

            Oh, I know. It just makes them hypocrites.

      • Jerry

        Or Scalia (he’s still dead, right?), whose logic would become mangled like a pretzel from one decision to the next, just to fit his conservative agenda.

        • Lizard

          “He’s still dead, right?”

          Yes. Thank the FSM.

          • Mihangel apYrs

            Scalia and Shitfly – – – Satan had a bad few months

    • JT

      Nazis have no integrity.

    • Matt

      Conservatives lie. About everything. They are NOT trustworthy in ANY situation.

      • (((GC)))

        The only thing they are “conserving” is their privilege.

    • juanjo54

      Gorsuch does not believe on precedent. Only original intent.

  • Jonathan Smith
  • Lazycrockett

    Honestly I think the conservatives are more concerned bout Roe Vs. Wade than same sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Not that we should not fight.

    • Jonathan Smith

      not a battle i am willing to give up either, and I am a gay man it will not personally affect.

    • Lizard

      That’s why evangelicals voted for Cheetolini. He promised to appoint anti-choice judges to SCOTUS.

    • April

      It simple. Going after the gays is a twofer for them. Take away the rights of those nasty, sinful homos and make themselves feel superior.

    • band

      Yeah, abortion rights are hanging by a thread. Marriage equality? Not so much. Although we will have to fight troglodytes at the state level for years to come.

  • Daveed_WOW

    Broken record here: This is Hitler level stuff. Chip, chip, chip away at minority rights, put them at hardship and then the deportations/imprisonments and executions start. Watch The Handmaids Tale. Better yet, read about modern German history.

    • Mihangel apYrs

      “and then they came for me . . . “

  • Gustav2

    ….and 5 years after that the majority of Americans, who are single people, will sue so no marriages receive any benefits.

    • Jonathan Smith

      works for me. i Can’t get my marriage to mean the same thing, why the hell should they?

  • ugh. this is not a post i really want to read.
    fuck..

    • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

      and yet we must if we are to maintain the pressure.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      You can thank the millions and millions of Americans who lean Democratic but just don’t bother to vote in elections.

      • Todd20036

        Yup, the apathetic rank up there with the Nazis.
        The same result.

  • Lizard

    So…they could do to marriage equality what they’ve already done with abortion rights. “Sure, it’s still legal, but you have to drive two states over, stay three days, attend a demeaning ‘counseling’ session, and it’s not covered by your insurance.”

    Fucking assholes.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, while saying with a straight face it’s not an undue burden.

      • Jeffg166

        It’s their sincerely held beliefs.

        • Chris Perone

          So was slavery. Doesn’t make it right.

          • Kathyrdarby

            Managing director of Google says we are paying $97 per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family^ju182d:
            On tuesday I got a great new Cadillac ATS from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it,,Read more here
            ~va182d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash182ShopData/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::~va182o……..

          • Angelicarhorner

            Managing director of Google says we are paying $97 per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family^ju91d:
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it,Learn more
            ~va91d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash91OfficeHappy/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::~va91o……

    • John30013

      I’m not sure that’s an apt comparison. I don’t see how Roberts (or SCOTUS more broadly) could justify denying benefits that are predicated only on a legal marriage to same-sex couples when those same benefits are given to mixed-sex couples without any other stipulations (e.g., having children). Both the 5th and 14th Amendments (on which Windsor and Obergefell are based) would have something to say about treating similarly-situated people differently.

      This was also the basis of the recent SCOTUS ruling (whose majority Roberts joined) against the Arkansas government refusing to list the lesbian non-birth mother as a parent on her child’s birth certificate. He didn’t have to join the majority (I’m sure he’s not prone to peer pressure). If he were really going to try to “prune” away the “constellation of rights” mentioned by Obergefell, the Arkansas case would have been a perfect case to start that process.

      • The_Wretched

        Roberts wants one more seat before he’ll go. He cares about his PR but as we saw in the VRA, he’s willing to support unrealities like ‘there isn’t racism in voting anymore’.

        • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

          He’s also the one to give us Citizens United. His shit won’t fly anymore. And Gursuck will be gone with this administration. It was a bogus nomination.

          • Jonathan Smith

            unfortunately, there is no easy way to remove him.
            impeachment, which wont happen,
            Death, fingers crossed
            or he resigns. yeah don’t see that either

          • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

            It will ride on the coming two elections and the Democratic Party’s ability to galvanize the country. So far, they’re are doing a shitty job, I’ll grant you.

          • unsavedheathen

            There is no constitutional path to remove Gorsuch without impeaching both Trump and Pence. Dems would need to sweep the table in 2018, take back both Houses (with a 60-vote majority in the Senate) and put the Speaker(Pelosi?) in the WH. Republicans would fight harder to retain Gorsuch than to keep Trump. It’s a stretch to put it mildly. Gorsuch is here to stay.

          • The_Wretched

            Right, the historical solution is to threaten to increase the court to 11 or 13 members and have a full slate Dem control do the picking for the expansion.

      • Todd20036

        Basically, marriage could remain legal, but states could not grant the same rights to married gay couples as married straight ones.

        • John30013

          As I said above, I’m not sure how they could justify doing so in light of the 5th and 14th Amendments’ guarantees of equal treatment under the law.

          • The_Wretched

            The modern court seems to have no trouble passing down rulings that make no sense.

          • Strepsi

            They promote the narrative that treating gay people equally violiates other Americans’ 1st Amendment rights. This is what’s happening now.

          • John30013

            That might fly with private parties (i.e., business owners) although it will be interesting to see how they’d make that case in states that have broad non-discrimination protections. If it’s a 1st Amendment violation to force a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding (the same cake he’d make for a mixed-sex wedding), then how is it not a 1st Amendment violation to force the baker to make a cake for a mixed-race couple (assuming the baker claims a religious objection to that)? The latter is clearly illegal under the federal Civil Rights Act, which (as mere statute) cannot trump a Constitutional Right. Assuming the CRA is upheld on (non-1st Amendment) Constitutional principles, that would seem to indicate that the 1st Amendment argument isn’t strong enough to overcome other protections guaranteed in the Constitution.

            Having said that, there’s a big difference between private parties and the government. In the latter case, the 5th and 14th Amendments’ Equal Protection and Due Process clauses would be particularly compelling, whereas a government agent’s personal religious beliefs (though protected by the 1st Amendment) would typically have to be given less deference (unless, like the NC law, such agents recused themselves from serving all citizens in those duties where serving some would violate their religious beliefs bigotry).

        • Mike in Texas

          I don’t see how that would fly. Windsor established that the federal government cannot treat same sex and mixed sex marriages differently. The supremacy clause tells us that states cannot do what the federal government cannot do. And then, as others have mentioned, they have the 5th and 14th amendments to contend with.

        • FAEN

          That will be a gigantic mess.

      • Nicholas Reed

        “whose majority Roberts joined”

        It was actually a per curiam decision, so we have no way of knowing if Roberts voted with the majority. All we can say for certain is that he declined to join Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch in their muddled and counterfactual dissent.

        • John30013

          You may be correct that he simply remained “neutral” (my apologies for reading too much into the decision). However, my final point still stands: if Roberts had wanted to chip away at Obergefell, the Arkansas case would have been a good place to start. Since he definitely joined the (minority) dissent in Obergefell, I don’t see why he’d choose to “play coy” now.

          • Nicholas Reed

            He may just want to avoid tipping his hand until he can start reaching the results he wants. Joining the dissent wouldn’t have changed the outcome; there are 5 justices who recognize that same sex couples are protected by 5th and 14th amendment guarantees of due process and equality right now. As soon as that changes, Roberts may be willing to sign on to decisions that create second tier marriages. He’s made it clear that he doesn’t think the constitution requires equal treatment for same sex couples already.

          • John30013

            As I noted, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to “tip his hand”. In the current administration, his “viewpoint” can only get more support. He wasn’t shy about “tipping his hand” in Obergefell (in which he was also in the minority). In fact, he wrote his own dissent, so we know exactly how he felt (at the time, anyway) about it. I just don’t buy the “poker face” argument.

            If, in fact, he does want to limit the rights under Obergefell, he hasn’t helped his case by tacitly acquiescing in the Arkansas case. Assuming a similar future case makes its way to SCOTUS (say, the recent case from Texas), and there are 4 other Justices willing to uphold the TX supreme court’s ruling that states can legally withhold benefits to same-sex couples that they give to mixed-sex couples (based only on the couple being married), for Roberts to join those 4 others means he’d have to have a cogent answer for why the Texas case is substantively different from the Arkansas case that he (at least tacitly) ruled against (i.e., joined the majority).

          • Ninja0980

            Look what he did to the VRA over time.
            Roberts is NO ally and shouldn’t be trust.

      • JCF

        Great last line from the Linda Greenhouse piece (linked above):

        “My concern when Justice Gorsuch joined the court was how like Chief Justice Roberts he seemed in demeanor and professional trajectory. I could see him as a natural ally who would bolster the chief justice’s most conservative instincts. It now seems just as likely that Neil Gorsuch’s main effect on John Roberts will be to get on his nerves.”

        [She had compared it to how “young” Scalia got on Sandra Day O’Connor’s nerves, and actually pushed her to the left.]

      • Chris Baker

        I kind of have to agree. Obergefell said that same-sex couples needed to have all the same rights as opposite sex marriages. I don’t know how the court could them deny some of those rights. I agree, it’s possible, the court can do anything, but for the court to say “oops, we made a mistake” only a few years after the ruling, would make the court look unstable.

        Comparisons to abortion are not good, since the court did not say “every woman is free to have an abortion at any time”. Roe already had limitations, and abortion is viewed negatively by many people. Marriage licenses are given out in every local jurisdiction, by government employees, and wedding performed by countless numbers of persons from civil to religious officiants. Whereas abortions are performed by a handful of doctors who face scorn and protest.

  • I can’t even.

    • Jonathan Smith
      • kanehau

        Interesting to note…

        “Iron Eyes Cody, or “Espera Oscar de Corti,” was born in a rural southwestern Louisiana town on April 3, 1904, the second of four children. His parents, Antonio de Corti and Francesca Salpietra had both emigrated from Sicily, Italy just a few years prior. ”

        https://priceonomics.com/the-true-story-of-the-crying-indian/

    • Joseph Miceli

      Sadly, you just KNOW this isn’t speculation. You know that somewhere in a nice, well lit room at the Heritage Foundation, bright eyed little Christian lawyers and pastors are meeting right now to plan their strategy to chip away at our rights.
      I wonder what real good could be done in this world if all these people’s time and energy wasn’t devoted to their passion for a non-existent God and their revulsion (or secret philia!) for butt-sechs.

      • Dubito et cogitare

        It’s what Jeff Sessions masturbates to.

  • TimCA

    Really you think?

    Of course, this exactly what is in the offing despite how many times we’ve been told that our marriage rights are secured. Stare decisis indeed!

  • JT

    We told the purists about this, but they were just fucking stupid, self-satisfied little shits. If this happens, they will live in infamy.

    • The_Wretched

      I keep thinking the “purists” are the ones who won’t hear or respect the left. They want to keep a pure and quite pro-corp message humming along without those noise people standing up for universal healthcare / single payer and protections for the workplace.

      • JT

        No, that’s not it. Purists do tend to say things like “hear or respect the left” and mean by it kowtow to them. Anyone who wants to have influence in the party should work at it in local organizations and produce a majority. What they should definitely not do is enable the Nazis to come to power because they are too pure to work for someone who doesn’t meet their standards of purity.

        • The_Wretched

          dunno, been told to shut up and not rock the boat a few too many times from the pure ‘dont make a fuss’ people.

          • JT

            Well, you should know. What exactly are you confused about?

          • The_Wretched

            I was disagreeing with you.

          • JT

            How exactly?

          • The_Wretched

            I will not dance.

          • JT

            Just as I thought. You’re just trying to dodge the issue I brought up.

          • The_Wretched

            No, you’re being obtuse so I’m refusing to answer questions.

          • JT

            LOL. Right. You’re sounding like a troll. Govaritye pa ruski?

          • The_Wretched

            Anyone who isn’t on board with the DCCCs path to losing (did you see that logo yesterday?!) is a Russian troll, got it.

          • JT

            That’s not the point at issue. You are dodging it.

  • OhSoGood

    Come on, folks! The TX court ruled no such way… they sent it back to a lower court.

    There was no decision. At least leave it to the christian websites to lie about it.

    • Mike in Texas

      Absolutely correct.

    • Butch

      I was going to say….I usually respect Stern’s writing and I don’t discount the danger at all, but at the same time if you read him often Stern has really been on a “sky is falling” tear lately.

    • The_Wretched

      Bullshit. The TX SCT gave the lower court clear instructions. It’s a legal fiction and a bit of process to send it back to the lower court. The time for outrage is now and it’s not a lie to say that NOW is the problem.

    • TimCA

      The bottom line is the Texas Supreme Court refused to uphold the right to equal marriage benefits for same sex couples and they did so unanimously. They refused to uphold Obergefell.

      • OhSoGood

        Correct… but, they handed down no decision.

  • Kruhn

    So we need to get three seats in 2018 or we are so screwed! And the map is against us.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      We wouldn’t be in such a deep hole today had our side bothered to vote back in 2010, 2014, and 2016.

  • Yixing’s Fluffer

    Roberts has already gutted the Voting Rights Act, so why not reinstitute Jim Crow more broadly?

  • teedofftaxpayer

    I think they would be opening up a can of worms they wouldn’t really want to open. I think they would find a “Stonewall Riots” at the Supreme Court.

  • bkmn

    That is how riots begin – taking away peoples’ rights.

    • Lizard

      This is how revolutions begin.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup and I will be on the front lines if it happens.
      If these assholes think I’m going to go back to being a second class citizen, they have another thing coming.

      • David Walker

        We still are 2nd class citizens as far as the US is concerned. A few states have given us full rights, but for the most part we’re “married on Saturday, fired on Monday” possibilities. That’s not even “separate but equal.” That’s 2nd class citizenship and utter discrimination thanks to religion.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Historical fun fact, it’s how the U.S. came to be…go figure.

      • David Walker

        We’ll get it right someday. Oh, who am I trying to kid? May I have a taste of your popcorn? I hear it’s really delish.

    • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

      Remember, this is America we’re talking about. Gays don’t riot these days. We protest with a cup of Starbuck’s.

      • Todd20036

        Gay people alone cannot achieve much by rioting, in case you hadn’t noticed.

        • Bad Tom

          Stonewall seems to have started a movement. That’s pretty significant.

          • Todd20036

            True, but that also was a different time

          • Strepsi

            I dunno, U.S. citizens really don’t demonstrate much. In Paris you can get 10,000 people into the streets, shutting down the city, at the drop of a hat. I don’t see it in North America. The same here in Quebec when mass demonstrations preserved low education tuitions.

            Except for true violent outbursts, I find American citizens strangely compliant, with a large chunk truly wanting the stability of fascism.

          • Bad Tom

            Same type of people, though. Human nature doesn’t change so rapidly.

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        And we cause natural disasters by fucking, kissing and merely existing.

  • Lazycrockett
    • The_Wretched

      “Breitbart writers” had no business anywhere near the NSC in the first place.

    • JCF

      FFS, we’ve been told “Bannon Has Lost All Power&Influence w/ Drumpf!” before. I’ll believe it when…when Drumpf has him arrested.

  • I refuse to go into PANIC mode

    Let’s focus on mid-elections and getting control of the House and Senate again!!

    • Jean-Marc in Canada
      • Please stop. Negative campaigning sometimes discourages votes for your opponents but if we want to win we need to lay out a positive agenda of hugely popular programs that we would pass if we had the majority. Things like universal background checks (that polls over 75%). There are at least a dozen of those issues. If we press those and don’t relent and refuse to talk about anything else no matter what, we can take back the House. If not, we’re looking at two more years of the same.

        • Jean-Marc in Canada

          I post in jest my dear, in jest.

      • Bad Tom

        It’s a better slogan than that other one: “Have you seen the other guys?”

      • caphillprof

        Not if it’s warmed over Hillary.

        • Jean-Marc in Canada

          Start now honey, just so you don’t fuck it up again like you did in 2016…you know, when you handed SCOTUS over to the idiot and fucked LGBTQ+ citizens because of your inane, wholly myopic, ideological purity bullshit.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfa61b94a6b2ed62f7adfc72e8c28e4c9b0a1e0fe228af287854c229d33cdabc.jpg

          • Todd20036

            I blame the purists for this mess as much as I blame the Nazis.
            Thanks for Trump. I’m sure Hillary would undo LBGT rights just as much. Oh wait, no I don’t.
            Thanks traitor. Hope you’re happy. Hope you lose your health insurance, too

  • Ninja0980

    But both parties are the same right?
    I’m sure Hillary would have appointed Gorsuch , Pryor etc. to SCOTUS too right?

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Yup, never let the regressive left ever forget what they did on November 6th, 2016…EVER!

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Why dont we ask Do Something Nice?
      He/she seems to think hillary is the same as trump

  • Tomcat

    Marriage is NOTHING more than a contract between two people as far as the law sees it. Ones choice of party they want to enter into this contract with should not be relevant in the least to the law. There should not be anything in the contract that punishes people for their pursuit of liberty and happiness so,
    LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.

  • Elections have consequences. Especially the rigged ones.

    Fuckers.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Something tells me that if SCOTUS even considers going down the Roberts road, there would be a few queers who might decide to remedy the situation less tactfully. Hey, if it works for the right……

    Seriously, what do they think would happen? That LGBT’s would just what, sit down and remain silent? I don’t think so.

    As the saying goes: If it’s a war you want and you’re desperate for it, I will happily oblige your fantasy with my reality.

    • ZRAinSWVA

      And not just us queers, but our allies as well. I daresay 32 out of 34 people in my office would be horrified if this happened (they threw us a party–with an actual wedding cake–when we got married, for goodness sake!), as well as the vast majority of our neighbors.

  • FAEN

    Hey homocons-why so silent?

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Come on now, you don’t expect house faggots to say anything until it’s approved by their GOP overlords, do you?

      • Ninja0980

        My cousin’s former homocon friend will justify it by saying they are good on other issues and that he doesn’t need their approval.
        Neither do I but I want my rights.

  • Lazycrockett
  • joe ho

    Control of the courts was the issue this election.

    Thanks to all those too lazy or too righteous to vote for Hillary.

    How Putin played the far-left into voting against its own interests.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-putin-played-the-far-left?via=desktop&source=twitter

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      May they encounter Karma, not when she’s bitchy, but when she’s gangsta.

    • Ninja0980

      Damn shame our side has never cared about the courts as much as Republicans do.
      If we did, Hillary would have won easy.

    • Tomcat

      That was a fact that was expressed a lot by Hillary. But I did not hear it from Bernie or Jill.

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        The fact that they remained silent speaks volumes.

        • Robincho

          Qui tacet, clamat…

      • joe ho

        Bernie and Jill were too busy doing their Che Guevara Brocialist act. Their over-the-top hatred of corporate America distracted attention from the real threat to our society.

        • Ninja0980

          Yup, and pesky things like civil rights just got in the way.

          • pch1013

            And now white male brogressives are screaming about the need to abandon “identity politics.”

            Same as it ever was.

    • Gigi

      I can understand why some didn’t care for Clinton or her policies but what I don’t get is how antipathy of, or contempt for Clinton could lead one to believe that Trump would be better for America.

      • joe ho

        Trump was hitting some populist themes–protectionism and isolationism.

        Far-left and far-right are both ideological rigid and extreme.

        Extremists like Stein and Slurnadon have unrealistic apocalyptic fantasies about letting the entire system burn down and crash so a new workers’ socialist paradise can emerge.

        Of course, that’s the kind of childish fantasy life that fuels the far-left. Real world politics doesn’t work that way. Why they’re a danger to themselves and others.

        Democrats in the future must make coalitions with independents and not care about the far-left.

      • Xuuths
        • Matt

          That basically shows BOTH sides can be exceedingly stupid.

    • AJD

      And a lot of people on the far left (eg Greenwald) still think it’s the Democrats’ fault that Clinton lost. No, it’s you people’s fault for being stupid and lazy and not fucking listening when we warned you what would happen.

      • Matt

        Exactly. A LOT of us knew what would happen. Too many people chose not to listen. “It won’t happen.”

  • abqdan

    I suspect that will be the intent of many groups – but respect for the 14th amendment could stop even Gorsuch voting in favor. They might find a different legal argument to overturn Obergefell of course. They need a case that presents the option of reversing themselves on what they have all called ‘settled law’. Generally, the principle of stare decisis is fundamental to the court’s reasoning and stops them from reversing themselves so soon after a decision has been reached.

    • TimCA

      The 14th Amendment certainly didn’t stop Gorsuch (along with Thomas and Alito) from dissenting against the rights of same sex couples in the recent Arkansas case when it went before SCOTUS.

  • Ninja0980

    One more thing, to touch on what I said below, this is why I have nothing but contempt for those on the left who justified staying home or voting third party or “friends” who justified voting for Trump saying marriage equality was safe.
    It sure as hell isn’t and we know there are three votes to overturn Obergefell on SCOTUS already (Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch.)
    All it takes is Kennedy or Ginsburg being replaced by Bill Pyror or Diane Sykes and wah-la, no more Obergefell.

    • Gigi

      Agreed. I’m not a violent man but if I ever came into contact with one of those “Twinks 4 Trump,” my fist would come into contact with his face.

  • Gigi

    Studies have shown that married people are healthier, happier, live longer, experience less depression and fewer mental health problems, reduces stress, lowers blood pressure (they obviously didn’t study my parents), experience fewer trips to the doctor and have an improved chance of surviving a heart attack than unmarried people. If marriage is such a wonderful thing, why are conservatives working so hard to deny us the right to marry our same-sex partners? It can’t just be about the buy-bull.

    • Jonathan Smith

      but….butt-sex……..ewwwwwww3wwwwwwwwwww!
      that about sum it up?

    • Priya Lynn

      The don’t want gays and lesbians to have any of those benefits, they want to make their lives as hard and miserable as they can.

  • Ninja0980

    But they won’t murder us like they would in the Middle East so making us second class citizens is no big deal right?

    • Gigi

      They say they hate that “Moo-slims” throw gays from rooftops but deep down inside you know that they’re a bit jealous. They want nothing more than to institute their own version of Sharia Law in America. They’re Talibangelists.

      • Ninja0980

        The way they fought to uphold the sodomy laws and what they are doing in parts of Africa and Russia speak volumes to that.

        • Gigi

          “They’re not my words, their God’s words. He called them an ABOMINATION, not me.”

          • Bad Tom

            Just like shellfish.
            ——-
            We had lobster for July 4th. It was wonderful.

    • Mike C

      It’s not like they’re throwing you off a roof. Just denying your spouse life-saving medical insurance.

      • Jonathan Smith

        oh. goody.
        roof next?

      • Blake J Butler

        They drive people to suicide so they throw themselves off of rooftops instead of being thrown off in the Middle East.

        • Jonathan Smith

          cut out the middle man?

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        And denying us sposal social security benefits. I wont die quietly

    • Daveed_WOW

      Making us less than full citizens is the first step to genocide. It always is. They’ve been doing it to African Americans since the beginning and they just stepped it up against Muslims and Hispanics. The dehumanization has to be gradual and legal.

    • Todd20036

      No. They’ll just send us to reeducation camps to be “fixed”.
      And if a few of us die there, it’ll be our own fault.

  • A SCOTUS with just one more right wing hack “justice” will bring forth decisions that rival Dred Scott – Here is a link to a summary of the 13 worst decisions made by the SCOTUS – some of them relatively recent . . .
    http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

    • I would add:
      Shelby County v. Holder (2013).
      and
      San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).

      to the list . ..

    • The_Wretched

      That list is a good set for folks to know about. Some of the ‘good law’ ones, however, are rather dead in terms of current legal impact (koromatsu for example). They do show, however, just how far SCTs have gone to support the powerful or to support bigotry at various times in the past.

  • TK
  • Jonathan Smith
  • Mark

    I am so fucking tired of this country and the hate of the right.

    • joe ho

      I’m so tired of liberals too lazy to vote and protect their rights. Also tired of a far-left easily duped into voting against its own best interests. 2000. 2016.

      • Tomcat

        According to comments on JMG everyone is claiming to have voted and blaming everyone else for not voting.

        • Karl Dubhe

          Hey. I’ve never claimed to have voted in your election.

          I think that’s totally understandable too. As you can’t vote in ours. 🙂

      • Mark

        Do not include me in your rant of the left. I’ve been voting since the 70’s.

  • Karl Dubhe

    Dominionism is coming. It won’t just be the marriages that they’ll overturn. It’ll be a wonderfully Christian USA when the theocrats have their way.

    Don’t worry, they won’t just target the LGBTI’s. Every ‘sinner’ will get what they think the sinner deserves.

    • Jonathan Smith

      that include divorcées?
      or would that put them out of business?

      • Tomcat

        Don’t forget their motto, Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.
        it is a one way street however.

      • joe ho

        No. They’ve rationalized that the Bible is really OK with remarriage after divorce.

      • Karl Dubhe

        Depends on the financial status of the divorcee, wouldn’t it?

        If you’re poor, you’re stuck with the choice. If you can pay the priest enough, you’re annulled. 🙂

    • Leo

      They try that shit and the millennials that never turn out to vote will be WOKE pretty damn quickly. I hate that we have to reach a crisis to get there though.

      • Karl Dubhe

        You’re presuming that the votes get counted honestly. I’m not so sure that’s going to happen anymore. Unless the USA goes back to paper ballots, I’m going to presume that we’re going to need to prepare for a few million refugees from the USA. 🙁

  • Reasonoverhate

    While we must remain vigilant I will not become an alarmist. Marriage equality is a much different issue than abortion. Once we have a right it is extremely difficult to take it away. However, with the filibuster now gone virtually anyone can get a seat on SCOTUS.

    • Jonathan Smith

      really? Women have a RIGHT to an abortion, if they so choose.
      how’s THAT working out?

    • Lizard

      Tell that to women who can’t get abortions they need because of waiting periods, travel times, expense of the procedure, etc., etc., etc.

      • Reasonoverhate

        With abortion the argument can be made that you’re ending a human life. I don’t believe that argument but nonetheless, that is a powerful argument for a lot of people. No one is being “killed” due to gay marriage and we have widespread support. Again, I refuse to live my life in fear.

        • Natty Enquirer

          I think you underestimate the revulsion that some people feel over homosexuality. I daresay it is as strong as their outrage over the supposed murder of fetuses.

          • The_Wretched

            I had someone argue with me yesterday that anyone with the least bit of gender non-conformity shouldn’t be seen or known to exist by children.

          • Jonathan Smith

            and anyone THAT close minded shouldn’t be either

          • Karl Dubhe

            Even if they’re children themselves?

            smh…

          • The_Wretched

            Yes, especially then.

          • Karl Dubhe

            I was 5 when the first adult called me a queer.

            My father objected, but the man remained a family friend until he acted as mum’s executor. 45 years later…

            sigh.

          • amandagirl15701

            Someone from Children and Youth Services told my fiancé that. We raised hell with them. I’m not sure what ever happened to her, but we never heard from them again.

        • Jonathan Smith

          Kiddies are allways being killed that way /s
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

        • Lizard

          Your claim was “Once we have a right it is extremely difficult to take it away.” The way I see it, the current state of abortion rights disproves that. Abortion rights activists stopped at Roe, but opponents did not. They’ve been slowly taking that right away ever since.

    • The_Wretched

      Waiting doesn’t work.

  • Michael

    Oh well at least getting laid will be easier again.

    /sarcasm

  • SCOTUS can overturn any prior decision with a subsequent ruling. There is nothing new here. However, history has shown SCOTUS is not likely to step into an issue that has already been decided overwhelmingly in the court of public opinion. 64% of the American public approves of marriage equality in a recent Gallup poll, and 62% in a recent Pew poll, with an overwhelming skew towards younger voters. Any decision to the contrary will instantly make the right-wing composition of SCOTUS a central issue in any national election. (and here is a secret that the mainstream National Republican Republican Party does not want their social conservative fundie wing to hear — they do not want this issue politicized either). Here is the Gallup poll in May 2017— http://www.gallup.com/poll/210566/support-gay-marriage-edges-new-high.aspx

    • Michael

      It’s a safe bet 1/3 of our support will be erased if those answering the question no longer have to worry about being “politically correct.”

      • Jonathan Smith

        god’s i HOPE your wrong.
        can’t say you are.
        just hope

      • Why do you think it is a “safe” bet? It might account for a small percent but why is 1/3 a “safe” bet? The term in politics is — I am trying to remember — the black candidate who ran for Governor of California as a Democrat I believe way back. I cant think of his name . in the 80s?

        • stevenj

          Tom Bradley? (ex mayor of LA) The Bradley Effect?

          • Yes! thank you that is what its called. When people do not want to admit they are bigots to pollsters.

      • Vista-Cruiser

        Precisely. People give pollsters socially acceptable answers, but once inside the privacy of the voting booth, their bigotry takes over.

    • The_Wretched

      The Dems haven’t centrally featured a SCT issue and have ignored the right wing take over of the judiciary since 1980. I can’t see that changing as a matter of DEM politics. Decades of not giving a shit show they will not change.

    • Tomcat

      What makes you think that your last sentence is correct? We have seen the right wing composition already help to assure elections would be rigged and WE DID NOT GO VOTE DEMOCRAT.

        • The_Wretched

          Do you have the graph for whether or not there is anti-black racism in the US?

        • joe ho

          But SCOTUS can let gays still get a marriage license while chipping away at benefits and protections that go along with it.

          • Oh sure! But marriage equality itself is here to stay I think. Equal Protection is a long way off.

        • Ningsisa

          But how much of that is passive support? They may “support” it, but wont go to the mat to protect it. And they could vote for people who oppose marriage because it’s not a priority for them.

      • We did go out and vote democrat, but things are so gerrymandered we are almost a single party country.

    • At the risk of derailment, the current GOP “Let’s Kill America” healthcare bills have approval ratings in the teens, both the House AHCA and Senate BCRA versions.

      Nevertheless, this is at risk yet of becoming law, if not now, then perhaps in a few weeks or a few months. Because public opinions, like free and fair elections, are deemed irrelevant by the ruling party.

      • The Republicans only care about money for the 1%. It is so obvious. We all know this— but we have to get the word out somehow. The built-in Republican advantage in the House according to Nate Silver is 6-7% right now to keep control, due to Gerrymandering, incumbency, and small state advantage. The Dems need to beat the marginal difference by 6-7% to take control of the House. Right now they are there. Take a look at his poll average here. https://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

  • netxtown

    Their hate will get met by a rainbow of anger and rage. It won’t be pretty.

    • Jonathan Smith

      and that will accomplish….what?
      hasn’t worked yet.
      ….sigh……..don’t mind me, I’m in a bad mood

      • netxtown

        it’s ok. I have been passing in and out of “pissy” for the last couple weeks. There’s a whole lot more I would like to do than fight these bigoted assholes daily.

      • I agree with you. If the law is against us, we have zero recourse

    • JCF
  • If SCOTUS overturns same-sex marriage equality in the name of ‘traditional marriage’ (i.e., a religious basis), expect someday they’ll find other marriages they find objectionable. Like those involving non-Christians.

    More to the point, if they say it’s okay for someone to discriminate against a same-sex married couple, even if that someone works for the government, it’s only a matter of time before that same discrimination is allowed against single parents, Muslims, atheists, you name it.

    If this sounds like a ‘slippery slope’ argument…well it is, but it’s also apt. Once bigots get a taste of renewed power and privileges reserved for themselves only, they won’t stop with just the gay people.

    • The_Wretched

      The central problem with ‘slippery slope’ arguments is that they tend to omit the evidence that the slope is indeed slippery. Here, however, we have the history of Jim Crowe. Once you allow for some unequal treatment under the law, it’s very hard to stop other instances of unequal treatment under the law. Once marriage’s rights and incidents depend on if you’re gay or not, the rest of the historical bigotry are just as likely to come back (mixed race, mixed religion).

      • Yep: “You let us discriminate against those icky gay people…why can’t we show the same disapproval for avowed atheists? Also, the races shouldn’t be mixin’…”

      • Bad Tom

        The principal evidence is that we fought our way UP this slope, against these very bigots determined resistance.

    • Ninja0980

      Why the Masterpiece Cake shop has to be seen for the threat to all civil rights that it is.
      Pretty soon, the bigots will want to know why they have to serve women, blacks etc. since their “beliefs” say they shouldn’t and there won’t be a good answer if it’s okay to do against one group of people but not others.

      • Strepsi

        That’s why I never use emotional arguments, but simply say it’s SETTLED LAW – public accommodations laws were made so as not to burden unpopular minorities (i.e. mixed race couples) with wandering through a whole city looking for a shop who’ll “serve your kind”.

        • JCF

          Which brings up a question: there’s a legal firm (don’t know if it’s local, Northern California, or national) that advertises itself “A law firm men can count on [in divorce]”. Is THAT legal? If a woman walks in the doors, can they say “Sorry, dicks not chicks”?

          • McSwagg

            There’s a law firm in an upper class suburb of Houston that advertises similarly. I don’t know if there is any affiliation but they are certainly all adherents of the same “men’s rights” ideology.

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      • Jonathan Smith

        now….where have i seen that before………. 🙂

      • Todd20036

        They came for the Muslims first, and we stood up for them.
        We are next. Will we stand alone?

        • Stephen Elliot Phillips

          I told my partners brother, who is a rethuglican washington lobbyist, what trump would do with the courts and how his brothers and my marriage will be unmandated on the national level. Thus no social security.
          I told him he knew this would happen when he pulled that lever for trump.
          I told him its rethug party over family.
          Havent spoken to him since then. That was november

          • Todd20036

            That might be why he voted for Trump. To hurt you, and his own queer brother.
            Nazis hate. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            No they arent the bible thumpin types. Theyre just die hard republicans. Like william buckley types. But they fall in line. Party over everything when its time to vote.
            They didnt have a care about consequences. My mom either. They didnt even think of consequences.

          • Xuuths

            That makes them dangerous. To you. Specifically.

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            Yep. Havent spoken to one of my partners family and i barely speak to my mom.
            I feel betrayed by their lack of critical thinking

          • jmax

            I have (had) several friends and family members that voted either for Trump or one of the 3rd party candidates (“because Hillary is crooked”). People I thought I liked or at least respected. All of them are white, heterosexual, middle-class ‘Christians’. And after talking to them after the elections, I realized they don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect them directly. If Trump’s administration hurts gays, or blacks, or the poor, that’s someone else’s problem, not theirs. A basic lack of compassion or empathy for anyone else. Made me rethink a lot of my relationships.

          • -M-

            People can be so stupid. Hillary’s not crooked as politicians go, and more importantly -even if she were as awful as she’s been painted- at least she isn’t stupid or vain enough to sell the country out because Putin flattered her. Good, bad, or fucking awful maybe but she is not the same as Paul Ryan’s mango mimeograph.

          • Ninja0980

            Did the same with my Bernie or Bust cousin (haven’t talked to the Republican one since she lectured me about my wedding.)
            If they think helping put right wing hacks on the courts will send a message to Democrats or rally people to progressive causes, they’re idiots.
            And hurting others because St. Bernie didn’t win the primary?
            No, just no.

        • Karl Dubhe

          I doubt we’ll be alone. But I fear we’ll not be the only ones attacked.

    • netxtown

      That’s why we have to keep the really ugly side of their ‘religion’ on full public display. The exposure of sexual abuse of kids needs to stay front and center. Abuse of women and minorities, too. We need to engage our allies – especially at the corporate level. We need to make certain the ACLU is fully funded to fight.

      We also need to get even more engaged in the political races to shore up blue support and shift the balance of power.

  • The Milkman

    With the sure and certain understanding that the legions of bigots among us will never stop trying to overturn Obergefell and/or make it a moot point, and with the knowledge that Trump’s SCOTUS appointments will make that a real possibility, I’ve just made an appointment with my attorney to craft some 90’s-style legal documents in an effort to protect my hubs and me (and what assets we have). That was a depressing call to have to make. I’m not holding my breath for the straight people among us to do anything to prevent it, so we’ll set up our own protections as best we can. I encourage all of you to do the same, if your needs are similar to mine. Luck, after all, favors the prepared.

    • nocadrummer

      We set up our Trusts years ago, before we thought that marriage was even a possibility.
      A Trust costs more than a Will, but they don’t go through probate, and are therefore a lot faster.

      • Jonathan Smith

        no, unfortunately, “we” did not.
        I, silly me, thought once we had a marriage certificate, that was all covered.
        don’t know what I was thinking.

  • Travis Morrow

    People like my mom did this. “I know gay people! I didn’t vote *against* gay people. I voted *for* Trump.” High out of her mind on prescription opiates and making sure those evil immigrants stop taking jobs she won’t work.

    • Like my father in law claiming he doesn’t hate black people, but doesn’t want them living next door.

      • jmax

        Despite having a black son-in-law and several mixed-race grand- and great-grandchildren, my father will still drop the N word every now and again – but only if he’s referring to one of the “bad” blacks. Like Obama.

        • ChrisInKansas

          A family friend occasionally dropped the N word. I made it clear that I didn’t care for that kind of talk. She tried to justify it by saying “No no, Chris, there’s good blacks…and then there’s N…..s”.

          We don’t talk anymore.

          • jmax

            Exact same thing my father says.

        • JCF

          Gack.

      • Todd20036

        My father was ready to buy a gun to protect himself from the Latino landscapers who tended the yards of the gated community he lived in.
        I discouraged him from getting one.
        It wasn’t a gun or a Latino that eventually killed him, but merely his smoking habit.

  • billbear1961

    A modern democratic society that allows a group that has finally won recognition of a fundamental right to be stripped of that right some time later is NOT a democratic society.

    Such an act by a high court would be EVIL–based purely on the most hateful and irrational bigotry–and would also cause legal chaos, disrupting MANY lives–harming countless couples already married, couples planning to marry, and their families, for no good, rational, justifiable, compelling reason.

    Such a dishonest FASCIST ruling–a denial of equal protection–a stripping of MILLIONS of their RIGHT to FULL citizenship–would be REJECTED by any decent society possessed of ANY self-respect.

    Let something like this happen and it’s further proof that the U.S. is no longer a genuine democracy.

    Such a fraudulent democracy should be SHUNNED as the cowardly, evil PARIAH it has let itself become.

  • So many liberals are in denial. They trust that the mainstream Republicans will rise up against Trump. Ain’t gonna happen. And on the courts they assume that far-right justices will uphold a ruling they vigorously opposed because of precedent. I am just not willing to count on that. This kind of blind faith in our institutions is misguided. The problem isn’t the institutions but that the people in charge of them have no respect for anything but their own agenda. They already have a majority on most issues and if Kennedy or any of the not-far-right justices (they aren’t really all that liberal most of them, only by comparison are they left-wing) are replaced by another Scalia wanna be, gay rights are gone. We need to stop “misunderestimating” the right. They play dirty and they play to win. Liberals need to grow a spine and fight or we are going to lose everything we fought for over the past 85 years.

    • Ninja0980

      Always boggles my mind people think we’re safe especially when Alito and Thomas have already made it clear they will overturn Obergefell if it comes to them.
      As to your second point.. don’t get me started.
      Democrats fighting for the courts has been one of their biggest failures.

  • ZRAinSWVA

    Yeah, if that happens we’re liquidating all our assets, taking all our money and retiring to a more gay-friendly country. I hear there’s still room in Canada, right Jean-Marc? (And we did qualify for ‘express’ immigration!)

    • TimCA

      This is my country and I have no intention of leaving. I’m going to stay and fight for as long as possible!

      • billbear1961

        You are very brave, Tim, but there’s lots of evidence that the U.S. is basically a society of bullies and cowards.

        Look how there is not ONE strong voice in a position of power–not one SINGLE elected voice of stature–raised–proud, loud and defiant–against the OBVIOUS mortal threat posed to our democracy by Trump and his followers, a gang of fascist THUGS!

        People are being stripped of their right to vote. A SCOTUS seat was stolen. The AG is guilty of perjury. Kushner attempted espionage but retains his security clearance. Our oldest alliances are being undermined by a traitorous FOOL! 17 of 17 intelligence agencies say the Russians interfered in the election to steal it for Trump! This regime refuses to hold Russia accountable for subverting the election and likely colluded with them to do JUST THAT!! Recounts in 3 crucial states were SHUT DOWN!! There is no paper trail for MILLIONS of votes!!

        A society of SHEEP waits to see their democracy SLAUGHTERED, placing ALL their hope–like frightened children–in ONE man and his investigations, a man the tyrant may well order FIRED!!

        Trump has already obstructed justice when he fired Comey! He is guilty of unparalleled GRAFT!

        The GOP aid and abet Trump in his COUP against this Republic!! They help him HIDE his TAX RETURNS, the returns which would certainly help reveal his GUILT!! They are preparing a MURDER bill to replace the ACA!!

        Trump, the GOP, and the right-wing propaganda machine ASSAULT the TRUTH on a daily basis, unchallenged by any strong voices of stature raised in opposition!!

        What is the country’s reaction? WHERE ARE THE MASSIVE DEMONSTRATIONS to protest the relentless OUTRAGES?!

        From what I’ve seen, I put the country’s chances of escaping fascism at less than 50%!

        I see a people who cannot rely on the corporate MSM or on the corporate-controlled Democratic party for LEADERSHIP!!

        I admire your courage, Tim, but hope Canada or any other civilized democracy will open its arms to you should you decide, at some point in the perhaps not-distant future, to flee the EVIL that is slowly destroying the all-but-undefended Republic!!

        It is so difficult to be optimistic about democracy’s future in a country whose institutions are failing before our very eyes!

      • ZRAinSWVA

        I don’t disagree. I’m a bit battle weary, though….

    • Stephen Elliot Phillips

      Id rather eat dirt in mexico than to be a second class citizen in my homeland.
      Fuck this country.

      • Tomcat

        Not sure we will be welcome there after trump gets done.

  • John Calendo

    I hate doomsday articles about catastrophes that may never happen. It’s a bit End Timesy.

    Nevertheless, if this were to happen, it will happen with a lot of easier take-backs, and eventually America will be divided into states where liberal laws continue to improve lives, and hard-right states where conservative rules continue to lay out strict red lines, privileging the “right” Americans and penalizing the “wrong” ones.

    We will, in effect, have two Americas without ever having a civil war. You’ll be married in New York, but have your children taken away from you in Mississippi.

    Remember, Canada is just across the border.

    • Bad Tom

      That’s the way it was just a few years ago. And not all that long before that, you could be arrested in your own home for having gay sex.

      If the state and police were so inclined.
      ——-
      Which is exactly why it was so fundamentally unfair. Your existence was criminal depending on where you lived.

      • Todd20036

        Yup. In 2002(?) sodomy laws were repealed.
        Not long ago at all.

        • JCF

          2003. Lawrence v Texas.

    • Tomcat

      What week is Summer in Canada?

  • billbear1961

    THIS is what this country should look like if fundamental rights are stripped from ANY group.

    It should look like this NOW to DEMAND that lying thief, tyrant and traitor’s TAX RETURNS and that he be impeached for obstructing justice!!

    https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/880984915340341248

    The world begins to DESPISE us for our CRAVEN refusal to protest against this STOLEN election and the FASCIST takeover of this republic, the regime’s pathological LYING, the unparalleled GRAFT, and its unprecedented threats to the tenets of genuine democracy!!

    Who can blame true democracies for the CONTEMPT they begin to hold us in for our COWARDICE?!

    • Those South Koreans know how to protest! The difference between them protesting and us is the GOP doesn’t care about popularity. They know with things so gerrymandered they can’t be unseated.

      • coram nobis

        The people in Seoul may realize their city could get pulverized suddenly if Donald does the wrong thing. And there’s little they could do to stop it.

      • billbear1961

        We can and SHOULD paralyze this evil, illegitimate FASCIST government, biki, bring them to a STANDSTILL.

        They must be MADE to hold the tyrannical GANGSTER in the Oval Office accountable!!

        We must SEE the lying crook’s TAX RETURNS!!

        Nothing can justify or legitimize the THEFT of an election or the FASCIST policies Trump and the GOP have in mind!

        Nothing can justify or legitimize the dismantling of this democracy, the overthrow of the Rule of LAW, the inundation of the courts with fascist GANGSTERS like Thief Gorsuch, the MURDER bill they plan to replace the ACA with!!

        To bow down to these crooks, thieves, traitors and murderers would be a CRIME, a BETRAYAL of everything this country is SUPPOSED to stand for!!

        What I fear–VERY MUCH–is that this IS a country of SHEEP who WILL allow these monsters to abuse them–to strip them of everything, of every right, even of their LIVES–and to destroy this democracy!!

        I fear Americans have become cowards, afraid to fight; and that they will make vile excuses to bow down to INFAMY; that they will let the bigots and racists in this country WALK ALL OVER THEM and strip them of EVERYTHING!!

    • Tomcat

      His ego would convince him it was a tribute to him.

    • fuzzybits

      Needs to and will are two different things. Hugs Mr. Bear.

      • billbear1961

        XO

  • bambinoitaliano

    Peter Thiel knows best. He’s got a citizenship path to New Zealand after fucking the gays over in America.

  • JWC

    What a fun thought

  • coram nobis

    Sidebar, on point: Legal commentator Linda Greenhouse, in NYT today, calls Gorsuch “Trump’s judicial avatar” and flamboyant.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/gorsuch-trump-supreme-court.html

    Whether out of ignorance or by deliberate choice, Neil Gorsuch is a norm breaker. He’s the new kid in class with his hand always up, the boy on the playground who snatches the ball out of turn. He is in his colleagues’ faces pointing out the error of their ways, his snarky tone oozing disrespect toward those who might, just might, know what they are talking about. It’s hard to ascribe this behavior to ignorance — he was, after all, like three of his colleagues, once a Supreme Court law clerk. But if it’s not ignorance, what is it?

    • billbear1961

      He’s an arrogant, fascist SHIT who doesn’t belong in the STOLEN seat he accepted!

      Why the others don’t put him in his place is BEYOND ME!! The way that decent people in this country allow themselves to be walked all over ASTONISHES ME!!

      He needs to be REMOVED from that Court!

      No one should respect any decision the goddamned HACK makes!

      THAT seat belongs to Garland–it was stolen from Obama in a year-long act of brazen and unprecedented SEDITION!!

      That that theft did not and does not meet with MASSIVE PROTESTS tells me that I am fully justified in my fears of just how EASY it will be for the right to DESTROY this feeble democracy of cringing COWARDS!!

      It fucking SICKENS AND ENRAGES ME!!

      His arrogant behaviour adds insult to injury!

      The goddamned bastard belongs in PRISON, and so do ALL who actively engineered the SEDITION that PUT him on that Court, God DAMN it and THEM!!

      What the FUCK is WRONG with the pathetic people of this pathetic country?!

      Where is the desire and drive to FIGHT FOR WHAT’S RIGHT that any person of spirit and honour should possess?!

      How can they endure this INSULT to democracy and JUSTICE?!

      • (((GC)))

        It was a stolen seat.
        It was a STOLEN SEAT.
        IT WAS A STOLEN SEAT!

        I’m still angry that on the first day of the Senate session in January, before the new senators were sworn in, Biden and Senate Democrats didn’t use their temporary majority to quickly confirm a renominated Merrick Garland. It would have been an unprecedented parliamentary maneuver, but thoroughly justified after Rethuglicans blocked, for a whole year, even a hearing on anyone nominated by the man guilty of presidenting while Black. The Greedy Old Party were setting up to steal that seat, and they got away with it.

        What do we do now?

        As The_Wretched noted, it might be possible to expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 13 seats when we get a Democratic president and Senate majority. (The Republicans would regret having gone nuclear!)

        • Bryan

          That’d be the plan now, I don’t think America or the world will survive if we don’t go blue again in 2018, 2020, 22 and 24.

      • coram nobis

        As Ms. Greenhouse points out, it’s a lifetime appointment and we’re stuck with him now. Donald could be gone tomorrow, and Gorsuch would be on the Court till 2040 at least. That’s how the Court is set up, and short of impeaching Gorsuch* there’s no way around it.

        That’s why it’s so important who gets to pick them.
        – – –
        * (The one Justice who was impeached was Samuel Chase, in 1805, for letting his partisan leanings affect his conduct, but he was acquitted in the Senate).

      • JCF
  • caphillprof

    If Roberts screws around with Windsor and Obergefell, then it means war. We need to look into his own “marriage” and his need to adopt children, among other things. In the end, they will wish that they only had to bake wedding cakes.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Except people who voted for Trump by proxy or omission have no legitimate standing to be pissed off. They chose Trump, so they don’t get to speak about how SCOTUS now sucks. They abrogated any legitimate claim or credibility to whine, squeal or stamp their feet. If you voted 3rd party or not at all, your opinions should carry the same weight and worth, that being none whatsoever. Period.

  • kaydenpat

    I would hope that Roberts isn’t quite that evil. That would be an awful legacy to leave behind.

  • Matt

    Hey conservative justices on any supreme court – if you use personal opinion for your decision-making and ignore the constitution, FUCK YOU. Talk about “activist judges.”

  • aagold76 .

    I said this when Obergfell passed- that if they kept a conservative majority on the court, they could erode the law and use it like they have abortion for years and for billions of dollars. People yelled at me to shut up (it’s not like I wanted this to happen), screaming- ‘they’ll never take it away from us now…’

  • Talisman

    For conservatives, it’s all or nothing. They don’t just want Obergfell overturned – they want all marriages between same-gender couples nullified. They don’t want just to remove the right to abortion, but remove any right to contraception. They don’t just want to control voting, they want to stop brown people from voting at all. And so on and so forth.

    Consequences be damned.

    Thanks again Bernie-bros, Stein-bots, Hillary-haters, and Russian hackers…

  • metrored

    Does it mean that it’s wishful thinking to believe Roberts not joining the dissent in Pavan V Smith is a good sign?

  • WiscoJoe

    C’mon, don’t worry fellow gays. My Bernie loving white, straight Brocialist friends insist that the Supreme Court doesn’t even matter and besides if we just all keep quiet about these pesky little social issues then the socialist revolution can finally take place saving us all. Huzzah!!!!

  • JCF
  • Ginger Snap

    FYI, if they try they will get the revolution they are saying would have happened if Hillary would have won. I will be at the front lines fighting it. I will not go backwards and I’m a tough fucking drag queen sissy butch fag when I’m fighting for my rights.

  • stvnc44

    I continue to make apologies for the Texas State government, but no one can tell me how they got in office!
    Still I cannot find anyone in this state that claims to have voted for them.
    Frightening.
    Someone please pass a very large tub of Vaseline,
    I think we are about to get fucked,
    and not in the good way.

  • ian

    So LGBT trump supporters, remember when he said he’d be great for gays? Get ready to experience having your basic human rights, those inalienable rights, eroded.

  • SelectFromWhere

    Horrifying–and utterly hypocritical, since they’ve been saying all along that it wasn’t the secular benefits they had a problem with, it was “marriage”.
    Thus to keep that-and-only-that would piss off both sides, it would seem?

    • Ninja0980

      Their fight against civil unions and domestic partnerships should have put that lie to bed a long time ago.

  • sword

    And when the LGBTQ mobs try to smash down the SCOTUS bronze doors..make sure you use queer Trump voters as the battering rams.

    • rusty57

      This^

  • I’m worried that Ginsberg will not outlast #45. Retirement, illness, death can mean another ultra right appointment.

  • Gianni

    I have never heard of such a thing. A lead Justice of the court, unilaterally taking it upon himself to dip back to an earlier decided case and change the decision or the parameters of the decision? I’m not aware that doing such a thing is anything approaching legal. In actuality, the quoted article refers to any such reversal of that previous decision could be the result a a new case that constitutionally challenges the legality of same-sex marriage that the SCOTUS would accept for review. Even, so, I just don’t see a complete negation and reversal of Obergefell happening.

  • Rob Roy

    “Democrats 2018: I mean, have you seen the other guys?”

  • Kathyrdarby

    Managing director of Google says we are paying $97 per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family^ju183d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Nissan Versa from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it…See more
    ~va183d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash183FinderData/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::~va183o…