All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

I'm hoping the mask of him being "the good pope" is finally coming off.

It's relative compared to others. Just a reminder, one of the previous popes who tried to insist that the poor be treated well and Jews shouldn't be persecuted so much was Alexander VI, aka Rodrigo Borgia.

[Username taken]

LGBTQ+ rights are already dead, it's not a matter of if but when.

The way I see it, any challenge to existing gay marriage laws will be complicated because the precedent used to legalize same-sex marriage was Loving vs Virginia which legalized interracial marriage.

I'm not sure why Justice Thomas is talking about re-visiting that without re-visiting Loving vs Virginia itself. That's basically saying that LGBTIQ people are not being given equal protection under the law.

[Mister Mets]

What about the stuff Thomas declared should be revisited? Are you as confidant about them?

As I explained before, he represents a minority opinion, in that he is the only member of the Supreme Court to bring up a concern. In addition, the question of whether something is a good law is a different question from whether it is legal.

His question about the implications of a particular legal approach (he does not care for stare decisis) is a different question from whether there is different rationale available to support popular Supreme Court decisions.

[Farealmer]

As I explained before, he represents a minority opinion, in that he is the only member of the Supreme Court to bring up a concern. In addition, the question of whether something is a good law is a different question from whether it is legal.

His question about the implications of a particular legal approach (he does not care for stare decisis) is a different question from whether there is different rationale available to support popular Supreme Court decisions.

If gay marriage was kicked back to the states are you under the belief all states would protect it? If not, how would it still be legal in all states if not for that ruling.

[Mister Mets]

If gay marriage was kicked back to the states are you under the belief all states would protect it? If not, how would it still be legal in all states if not for that ruling.

I don't think it's getting kicked back to the states. If you're concerned that this might not be the case, we can stick a pin in it and revisit the question it in two years.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The way I see it, any challenge to existing gay marriage laws will be complicated because the precedent used to legalize same-sex marriage was Loving vs Virginia which legalized interracial marriage.

I'm not sure why Justice Thomas is talking about re-visiting that without re-visiting Loving vs Virginia itself. That's basically saying that LGBTIQ people are not being equal protection under the law.

Without double standards, Republicans wouldn't have any standards at all

[Farealmer]

I don't think it's getting kicked back to the states. If you're concerned that this might not be the case, we can stick a pin in it and revisit the question it in two years.

Why two years exactly? Is there something happening in two years that would prevent it from happening past that?

[Mister Mets]

Why two years exactly? Is there something happening in two years that would prevent it from happening past that?

It seems a time multiple people on this board could plausibly plan for with scheduling features and stuff.

If you want to go for a different time, I could consider that.

[Tendrin]

For ya'll complaining about the Dems singing:

https://twitter.com/Wilson__Valdez/s...84820510777345

Shocked, I tell you, shocked that some folks got taken in by reflexetive ****-democratness.

[Mister Mets]

For ya'll complaining about the Dems singing:

https://twitter.com/Wilson__Valdez/s...84820510777345

Shocked, I tell you, shocked that some folks got taken in by reflexetive ****-democratness.

To defend people here who didn't care for the moment, the awkwardness of the event was acknowledged in the mainstream writeups.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...184411836.html

[Tendrin]

To defend people here who didn't care for the moment, the awkwardness of the event was acknowledged in the mainstream writeups.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...184411836.html

Sure, I agree that it's tone-deaf but it *wasn't in response to Roe* like people in this thread were commenting. For someone who claims to love accuracy so much you should appreciate the distinction.

I will add one thing:

The Democratic party does *not* know how to celebrate its wins at all, and the gun control bill getting signed the same day Roe was struck down is a prime example of the Democratic party not knowing how to adapt.

[Panfoot]

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

[Mister Mets]

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

Would you like him to try?

And if President DeSantis has 60 Senators (this assumes Republicans keep current seats while flipping ten of the following sixteen: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire in 2022, and Sinema Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin in 2024), what should he do?

[Kirby101]

Why would your choice for 2024 expand the Court when the fascists already control it.

As for same sex marriage, Thomas asked States to ban it so it will end up in the Court, where they will overturn Obergefell. But before that, they will simply stop allowing gay marriages. It will happen before the end of the year. Stick a pin in that!

[kidfresh512]

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

It's the best answer to give right now on that specific question. It is pointless for anyone to run on expanding the court with the margins we currently have. Once people start voting GOP out consistently then you can bring that up.