Scalia was awful. I know he's your hero, but it doesn't make me stupid to not join in your romanticism towards him. Scalia was defintely smart, no doubt, but it matters little if his decisions were terrible and he abandoned his celebrated "originalism" when it suited his personal beliefs. As far as I can tell, conservatives love him so in large part as an upscale right wing troll on liberals, a sport highly enjoyed on the right. Otherwise, yes, with an RGB being at an age when it seems quite possible for her to leave at any moment, one way or the other, control of the Court will likely be in the hands of the conservative wing for some time. With the loss of RGB, we'd have about 20 or so years of, at least, 5 hard right justices due to the last two Republican presidents, both of whom, interestingly enough, came into the office with less votes than their opponent, putting in young candidates on the Court. Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and a RGB replacement would make a conservative majority for a long, long time. So, congrats. Conservatives targeted the Court and they'll likely get it for quite a while, which is why liberals are so sore about Garland.
There is a good chance the wife is going to be looking for jobs in Canada inside of 6 years. Least I’ll get to watch some good local hockey.
The fact that so many corporations fund both parties kind of flies in the face of the idea that it is "speech."
Keep seeing opinion pieces calling for dems stacking the court. Can't think of a more knee-jerk or impotent take. Unsustainable, unprincipled, no end-game, and about as useful as planning on how I would spend my publishing bonus from my hit novel I haven't written. Let's try getting people to show up to vote first.
This is completely off topic but I find it very interesting. We (my immediate family) are heavily involved in the softball world up through the college level. We have a couple of married lesbian couples that we are pretty good friends with. Both are married (or wear rings and have changed their names, etc.) and have children together from donors. Both live here in the deep south. They are both as conservative as they come. I have had conversations with them about political ideology and find it a little shocking just how conservative they tend to be considering that the real or perceived threat that the Republican party presents to them. They were raised in the south and I suppose that has influenced them politically? I just find it interesting.
If added and ratified into the Constitution, it wouldn’t be subject to whimsical change. Just saying.
Ever been to a church? Plenty of people who do one thing and believe another, every which way. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing that makes the tribal nature of our political system work.
I’ll bet you one (1) can of Diet Coke that SCOTUS never so much as picks up a challenge to gay marriage, and a six (6) pack that they’d reverse it, even if they did.
Source? What happened to the days when you had to have at least two rock solid sources before you ran with a story?
Stacking the court? How do they plan on doing this? Did they not learn from FDR, who had way more power at the time than Dems will in the near future?
Should every little right and equality have to be spelled out in a specific amendment? The Constitution is hard to change and with good reason. I would think that it is clear enough already in the Constitution without adding a gay marriage amendment.
Yes, but precisely in the exact opposite direction. It will be an absolute mad dash to overturn Roe by sending any decision on its legality back to the individual states. If we can take our personal beliefs on abortion and set them aside for a moment - from a purely legal perspective, it really is widely believed to be the single worst / most overreaching / least legally sound ruling in the last 100 years, and maybe ever. I say this only to say that there is more than ample legal grounds - forget any mention of morality, ethics, etc. - to throw it out, and I believe that they will do so.
Citing an anonymous who isn’t authorized to speak on the record for any number of reasons isn’t a new journalism concept.
