Most of them weren't alive for it or were itty children.It has to be the only things about that era that they could be pining for. Most other things of that time are things they'd be fighting against these days, like higher taxes on wealthy and stronger Unions and worker's rights.
they said the same about abortion rights. Look what happened.The reason they didn't invalidate same-sex marriage and gay marriage protections is they knew it would be too politically unpopular, that's it.
That's exactly my point - they might wait for the furor over abortion to die down and then cite the Roe case as precedent for removing other rights. They just didn't do it all at once for tactical reasons.they said the same about abortion rights. Look what happened.
I'm not sure if it'll ever die down. Don't forget O'Connor's case in Texas late last year about certain drugs violating religious freedom laws. If ya can't take down a big stone you chip at it.That's exactly my point - they might wait for the furor over abortion to die down and then cite the Roe case as precedent for removing other rights. They just didn't do it all at once for tactical reasons.
District judges are a different thing. I meant SCOTUS.I'm not sure if it'll ever die down. Don't forget O'Connor's case in Texas late last year about certain drugs violating religious freedom laws. If ya can't take down a big stone you chip at it.
Plot twist, R's expand the SCOTUS to 300m, all adults are included, and everyone votes on every issue via app. Socialism finally defeated!for the record as I've no skin in this game but Tennessee recently passed a clerk law allowing a clerk to deny a marriage certificate to gay couples if he or she didn't feel okay doing it but would pass it onto someone who was fine with it as I understand. This law was written and passed in the hopes of a gay couple taking the L and biting back and it slowly working its way up through to the sc and managing to somehow overturn same sex marriage despite the RfMA passing this past fall.
edit: Sorry I got this wrong. The bill allows refusal for same sex, interfaith, or interracial couples. Surprisingly a few of these landed in Thomas's opinion not long ago.
Sadly I was unable to convince my conservative leaning friends with lots of conservative Facebook friends to post something to the effect of 'OMG we just found out George Soros was ferrying Sotomayor around on his yacht and on expensive vacations for years' just to see what the right wing reaction would be.
Except under Trump religious exemptions were expanded. Biden's admin is challenging this and plans to retract the expansion. There was no national injunction put through but it's still being reviewed. It's very much in limbo.District judges are a different thing. I meant SCOTUS.
Generally speaking though SCOTUS holds that when you are religious you get to choose what laws you wish to follow and which you don't, which is its own gigantic problem.
How is macrumors these days?I went over to the conservative-leaning forum I visit and it's crickets over there on this one.
This would have been funnier if R's didn't screech at technology and how it's biased towards liberals.Plot twist, R's expand the SCOTUS to 300m, all adults are included, and everyone votes on every issue via app. Socialism finally defeated!
It doesn't have anything to do with Trump or Biden. SCOTUS has been ruling that religious people get to choose what laws they want to follow for 15 years+ now.Except under Trump religious exemptions were expanded. Biden's admin is challenging this and plans to retract the expansion. There was no national injunction put through but it's still being reviewed. It's very much in limbo.
If so why is the HHS reviewing his opinion? Trump admin's amendments included birth control and HIV preventative medication. These were thrusted upon companies before the ruling. I'm not sure why you're hyper focused on it always being doable when it clearly wasn't until Trump came into office and changed the rules through his hhs. The ruling is simple, companies aren't on the hook to offer plans that included preventative care and zero cost medication. His admin's HHS also issued two rules on birth control and other similar contraceptive drugs and devices.It doesn't have anything to do with Trump or Biden. SCOTUS has been ruling that religious people get to choose what laws they want to follow for 15 years+ now.
It's not in limbo either - if right wing religious people don't want to follow a law they don't have to according to SCOTUS.
Hell, in my lifetime we've gone from 'the state may not fund private, religious education' to 'the state MAY fund private, religious education' to 'the state MUST fund private religious education'.
I guess I'm confused as to what you're saying - I agree they are trying to roll it all back.If so why is the HHS reviewing his opinion? Trump admin's amendments included birth control and HIV preventative medication. These were thrusted upon companies before the ruling. I'm not sure why you're hyper focused on it always being doable when it clearly wasn't until Trump came into office and changed the rules through his hhs. The ruling is simple, companies aren't on the hook to offer plans that included preventative care and zero cost medication. His admin's HHS also issued two rules on birth control and other similar contraceptive drugs and devices.
The only issue with this is his admin later, as in near the end of his term developed a program to get these services to people without insurance, and those with terrible insurance would pay a fraction. It came full circle with Cuban's new drug company offering generics and name brands at cutthroat rates compared to regular pharmacies.
Like I said, if they didn't want to follow the law why did they go to court over getting this struck from the aca? Why waste so much money in legal fees when you didn't have to do anything? They're moving towards repealing any decent humane rule of law we've pushed forward in the last 15 years. Even Bush is too liberal for them now.
Finally he understands. There's a reason they're ramming something so silly through court. This is why I suspect the whole drag show scuffle is a distraction, a mean awful distraction but a distraction non the less.I guess I'm confused as to what you're saying - I agree they are trying to roll it all back.
They would declare any funding cuts that left them unable to operate unconstitutional. They will also declare any attempt to subject them to an ethics code unconstitutional.
Yes, @HomerJS made this same argument and my response was basically the same. If you're willing to ignore their decisions there's no real need to defund them, just ignore them.So? Ignore them. Are they going to send the Supreme Court Army down to the treasury to get their money?
Because OF COURSE he fucking did !!
This cvnt needs to be removed from the SCOTUS...like, yesterday (or you know, the 90s when he never should have been confirmed to begin with.)
Yes, but states would still be infected by their decisions. Red states would not ignore their diseased opinions.Yes, @HomerJS made this same argument and my response was basically the same. If you're willing to ignore their decisions there's no real need to defund them, just ignore them.
District judges are a different thing. I meant SCOTUS.
Generally speaking though SCOTUS holds that when you are religious you get to choose what laws you wish to follow and which you don't, which is its own gigantic problem.
Why doesn't that apply to the Rastafarians? Wait, I think I know.It doesn't have anything to do with Trump or Biden. SCOTUS has been ruling that religious people get to choose what laws they want to follow for 15 years+ now.
Or Muslims, or Jewish, or anything NOT Christian.Why doesn't that apply to the Rastafarians? Wait, I think I know.