14th amendment cited, Kennedy reading the decision now

oh wow. thought they were done yesterday?

Poor fat Tony

It used to be so much easier to require people to behave the way you felt they were obliged to

reading #tcot for the laughs

drsmooth wrote:Poor fat Tony

It used to be so much easier to require people to behave the way you felt they were obliged to

i am seriously wondering if he's losing his mind

waiting for a list of all the quotes from various crazies

Benjy Sarlin ‏@BenjySarlin 28m28 minutes ago
Week starts with 150-year overdue reckoning with Confederacy ends with gay marriage everywhere. ACA rescued in between. A liberal fantasy.

* * *
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered

Now that's a fucking paragraph.

Anthony can turn a phrase, goddamn.

He really does have a soft spot in his opinions for equality of the individual. Just wish his corporate leanings were a lot better.

Scalia -"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Not to make an inappropriate pun, but he sounds butthurt

pacino wrote:waiting for a list of all the quotes from various crazies

All you need is more Scalia:

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,”

Those are going to be some awkward lunches.

swishnicholson wrote:

pacino wrote:waiting for a list of all the quotes from various crazies

All you need is more Scalia:

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,”

Those are going to be some awkward lunches.

I was seriously just going to post that. There went the congeniality of the Court!

also, trouble at home?:

"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."

The "constitutional amendment" crowd among the R candidates is interesting. That was a clever enough ploy by W back in 2004... the country was evenly enough split on the issue, even tipping against gay marriage, that such a position was a great way to be against it without having to actually do anything about it. Now, that position just seems absurd. The support for gay marriage is strong now and only going to get stronger. Announcing you want a constitutional amendment to continue "traditional" marriage is going to rapidly become more like favoring a constitutional amendment favoring "traditional, racially pure" marriage.

Walker and others are taking a page out of the W playbook, but in this case I think 10 years too late. He doesn't need to court the Christian Right on this issue - they won't vote for a D, and they don't have the chops to get Huckabee or someone similar nominated on their own. Mistake I think.

Amending the constitution to restrict liberties against the wishes of the majority of Americans is just such an absurd concept to me. It would be such a black mark on our history.

Soren wrote:Amending the constitution to restrict liberties against the wishes of the majority of Americans is just such an absurd concept to me. It would be such a black mark on our history.

a prohibition on gays!

pacino wrote:Clarence Thomas cited the NBA in his dissent with the Fair Housing Act decision. His reasoning? Racial imbalances aren't always a bad thing for minorities!

for
fuck
sake

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Scalia -"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Not to make an inappropriate pun, but he sounds butthurt

John Marshall was well known to have a great handle on the delicate issues of gay marriage in the US 150 years after he lived. I hope he puts his head in a plastic bag and falls asleep.

I haven't had time today to read the full opinion or dissents, but the excerpts I've seen from Scalia so far are goddamn embarrassing. Here's a great example:

Scalia is a turd

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Scalia -"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag.

I've got a bag, and a twist tie, he's welcome to hide his fugly head in.

He can even keep it when he's finished. Er, when he's out of gas. I mean, when he's through.