Red Mosquito

Cheers to a certain group of friends; nice timing too.

Oh, Nino...Way to take a low blow at Kennedy.

Antonin Scalia wrote:Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count)

It's Pride week here in Dublin. We'll have more than a few for you guys tomorrow at the parade:)


Couldnt be happier for you guys, well done

dimejinky99 wrote:

I love that.

From Roberts dissent:

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be.

Kind of ballsy considering how the decision went yesterday.

Green Habit wrote:Oh, Nino...Way to take a low blow at Kennedy.

Antonin Scalia wrote:Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count)

People are having fun with both this and also this gem: good ol' fashioned hippie bashing!

Antonin Scalia wrote:(Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

What the fuck does that even mean?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:What the fuck does that even mean?

Women be crazy!

So after reading Kennedy's opinion, and reading some expert takes on it...it's really pretty sloppy. No one seems to know exactly what rationale Kennedy used, it's like it's a mish-mash of different clauses. Both a libertarian and leftie that I read frequently put out the case in more detail:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... reasoning/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... gbt-rights

What's bugging me most is that I want to know if states are required to issue civil marriages based on the Due Process Clause, even if they don't discriminate. The scenario I'm thinking of is if some state regulates civil marital benefits separately, without calling them marriage. It likely won't happen in practice, but I'm still curious.

Two things, watching from outside. Holy fuckin reaction batman!

But in both the best and worst senses.

So, these last two opinions had some ranting by Scalia in the dissent. Seemed like his was posting on a message board, not writing a Supreme Court opinion. Is this a new development?

Every time I read an article on how dignity was a big part of Kennedy's Obergefell opinion, this is all that I can picture:



That's probably an accurate depiction of his opinion in general, too.

Worthy of Webster's.