[y66]

What a fantastic week at the Supreme Court for love and health care!

[jjbrr]

[Winstonm]

Bad week for self-righteous bigots.

[Vampyr]

How fitting to get this news on London Pride Day.

[Phil]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-27, 10:37, said:

How fitting to get this news on London Pride Day.

As is San Francisco's. Would have been fun to be in the Castro for this milestone.

http://sanfrancisco....de-parade-ever/

[y66]

Nancy Pelosi about doing whatever it takes to pass health care reform when things looked bleakest — after Ted Kennedy had died, and Republicans won his seat — Democrats started to backtrack, but Pelosi stood firm. Via Gail Collins.

Quote

We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

The Bob Hamman of the Democratic Party. Probably eats raw steak too. Actually, her father and her brother were both mayors of Baltimore. No doubt, you learn a thing or two about gumption in that family.

[barmar]

SCOTUS definitely redeemed themselves this week after the Citizens United decision.

[barmar]

Although I got to wondering: If Citizens United declared that corporations are people, and this week they ruled that any people can get married, can corporations get married?

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2015-June-29, 08:39, said:

Although I got to wondering: If Citizens United declared that corporations are people, and this week they ruled that any people can get married, can corporations get married?

Yes, but don't expect monogamy.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2015-June-29, 08:31, said:

SCOTUS definitely redeemed themselves this week after the Citizens United decision.

Just barely though. And did you read the dissents? Pretty harsh stuff for legal opinions. Which oh yes reminds me of

Winstonm, on 2015-June-27, 10:22, said:

Bad week for self-righteous bigots.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2015-June-29, 09:02, said:

Just barely though. And did you read the dissents? Pretty harsh stuff for legal opinions. Which oh yes reminds me of

Winstonm, on 2015-June-27, 10:22, said:

Bad week for self-righteous bigots.

As much as I disagree with the opinions of Justice Scalia, Alito and Thomas, it is inappropriate to refer to them as self-righteous bigots. They have an agenda, and they will follow that agenda come what may. Attributing their opinions to baser motives is unfair and inappropriate.

(By the way, one should read Chief Justice Robert's opinion as he directly challenged a number of the points raised by Justice Scalia. Strong stuff from the CJ)

As for others on the right (Santorum, Limbaugh, et al.), I don't have any problems with your characterization.

[billw55]

Hmmm. I wonder when the next case will come. Will this become like abortion, a permanent issue of contention, with near-constant legislation attacking the court's ruling? Or will it become like Loving v. Virginia ... gradually accepted until mainstream. I wonder.

[Mbodell]

billw55, on 2015-June-29, 10:24, said:

Hmmm. I wonder when the next case will come. Will this become like abortion, a permanent issue of contention, with near-constant legislation attacking the court's ruling? Or will it become like Loving v. Virginia ... gradually accepted until mainstream. I wonder.

The second. You can already see acceptance rapidly moving on this issue, and as more people either know someone who is gay or realize the world didn't end with gay people getting married that will continue to grow. And on L v. V, it was only 1995 when 50+% of Americans approved of interracial marriages. We already have 50+% of Americans approving of gay marriage.

There likely will be vocal minorities for a while, but before too long (possibly years, but like <8 years) it will be a minority opinion even when restricted to just Republicans.

[billw55]

Mbodell, on 2015-June-29, 11:30, said:

The second. You can already see acceptance rapidly moving on this issue, and as more people either know someone who is gay or realize the world didn't end with gay people getting married that will continue to grow. And on L v. V, it was only 1995 when 50+% of Americans approved of interracial marriages. We already have 50+% of Americans approving of gay marriage.

There likely will be vocal minorities for a while, but before too long (possibly years, but like <8 years) it will be a minority opinion even when restricted to just Republicans.

You may be right. I hope so. Then again, religious objectors tend to be resistant to change/acceptance, and these are the large majority of the current "against" crowd.

[Phil]

I predict that pot legalization will be the next great battleground, although its unclear if the court wants to make this a federal issue.

[Winstonm]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-29, 09:45, said:

As much as I disagree with the opinions of Justice Scalia, Alito and Thomas, it is inappropriate to refer to them as self-righteous bigots. They have an agenda, and they will follow that agenda come what may. Attributing their opinions to baser motives is unfair and inappropriate.

(By the way, one should read Chief Justice Robert's opinion as he directly challenged a number of the points raised by Justice Scalia. Strong stuff from the CJ)

As for others on the right (Santorum, Limbaugh, et al.), I don't have any problems with your characterization.

My comment was not referencing the justices - only the self-righteous bigots that were disappointed by the justices.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-June-29, 08:39, said:

Although I got to wondering: If Citizens United declared that corporations are people, and this week they ruled that any people can get married, can corporations get married?

Imagine the nice opportunities for tax schemes if a person can get married to a corporation.



Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-June-29, 17:00, said:

Imagine the nice opportunities for tax schemes if a person can get married to a corporation.

Or the rule that you can't be forced to testify against your spouse.

Although I heard in some discussion of this case that the justices did address the fact that they aren't necessarily opening up the door to bigamy. So the corporation would have to pick just one executive to marry. And I guess there's also the general rule that sham marriages (e.g. "green card" marriages) are not considered valid. So you'd have to convince the judge that you and the corporation are truly in love. But I suppose of a corporation can have a political opinion, it can also have emotions.

[blackshoe]

Historically, being in love has rarely been a consideration in marriage. I can't imagine it's a legal requirement.

[y66]

What do you get when 2 corporations mess around?

Congress man.