• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

Vernikova

Champion
Thats twice now they have gone against the will of the people with more likely to follow.
SCOTUS is not supposed to decide based on the "will of the people" (though it has obviously influenced rulings in the past). If anything, the draft leak did nothing but obliterate any chances of Roberts getting a 5th vote to stop the overturning of Roe since caving to public pressure would ensure that the court look like nonsense.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
This came out of nowhere, but Slovenia legalized same sex marriage through the Constitutional Court.

Next European countries expected to legalize same sex marriage are the microstates Andorra and Liechtenstein, but the next major European country expected to legalize is Czechia.

Next country overall expected to legalize same sex marriage this year is Cuba, whenever the referendum happens.
 

Phillies

Well-Known Member
SCOTUS is not supposed to decide based on the "will of the people" (though it has obviously influenced rulings in the past). If anything, the draft leak did nothing but obliterate any chances of Roberts getting a 5th vote to stop the overturning of Roe since caving to public pressure would ensure that the court look like nonsense.
They are also supposed to decide based on the law and not on their personal political or religious beliefs.
 

Vernikova

Champion
They are also supposed to decide based on the law and not on their personal political or religious beliefs.
I doubt most people here could articulate the law and are just reacting based on what they want rather than what was written down and its legal reasoning.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
The legal reasoning was a mix of Originalist Bullshit that only works if you believe things never change ever, and insane things like “needing a domestic supply of babies”

Especially since several of them said before things were settled law, only to turn out for that to be a lie due to Religious Fundamentalism.
 

Vernikova

Champion
The legal reasoning was a mix of Originalist Bullshit that only works if you believe things never change ever, and insane things like “needing a domestic supply of babies”

Especially since several of them said before things were settled law, only to turn out for that to be a lie due to Religious Fundamentalism.
"Settled law" doesn't mean that it can't be overturned. That's literally lawyer speak for "I acknowledge the Roe ruling happened and nothing more." Barret openly stated that it wasn't a "super precedent" i.e., it can be overturned.

And originalism doesn't suggest that things don't change but that the law means what it meant when it was made into law. If you want the law to mean more than what it does, you need to have those changes written into actual law.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Obviously the Dems should be more proactive about this stuff, and not hoping that the GOP won’t take the most destructive path possible, but to reason this wasn’t done for religious fundamentalism reasons and to hurt women is kind of crazy. It’s why they’re going after gay rights next.

The Supreme Court itself is inherently undemocratic, and usually makes wrong decisions when it comes to actually helping people and ensuring their rights as human beings, and when it comes to things like 2000 will openly lie and work the books to favor what they want. To think they’re an honored institution deserving of any respect is an increasingly silly idea.
 

Zora

perpetually tired
The legal argument is bullshit. I've spent like a month reading about this damn ruling to explain implications for Obergefell/Lawrence to my inlaws.

First, the legal argument holds ninth amendment to the Glucksberg test that ninth amendment inferences must be "deeply rooted in history." 1864 is the arbitrary cutoff date, because that's when the fourteenth amendment passed. This distills the legal analysis to a historical one, and the history SCOTUS conjures up is pure fanfiction.

Second, the right inferred from the ninth is not abortion, but privacy. Read about legal penumbra to understand how privacy is inferred.

Thirdly, Glucksberg is an exceptional case, as the merits were about doctor assisted suicide. The legal argument in that case, especially the "deeply rooted in history" line, was not meant to be applied to more readily apparent penumbra like privacy. Glucksberg is the foundation of originalism and was not meant to be the big ruling FedSoc six say it is.

Fourthly, no non-FedSoc judge practices originalism. It's an untenable theory. How does one apply originalism, for example, to modern IP law involving tech? I can't overstate this; to say originalism is legitimate approach to jurisprudence is about as sensible as saying creationism is a legitimate approach to biology.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Microstate of Andorra has voted to legalize gay marriage. There seems to be confusion about this vote (some claiming it as Andorra legalizing gay civil unions, which happened way back in 2014, though earlier form was present in 2005), but basically, the new civil code creates two different categories of marriage, one civil, and one religious. In other words, you can gay marry when the law goes into effect, just not in a church, if that's your vibe.

Next European state expected to legalize gay marriage is Liechtenstein, and next major European country expected to legalize is Czechia, just like in the previous post.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Microstate of Andorra has voted to legalize gay marriage. There seems to be confusion about this vote (some claiming it as Andorra legalizing gay civil unions, which happened way back in 2014, though earlier form was present in 2005), but basically, the new civil code creates two different categories of marriage, one civil, and one religious. In other words, you can gay marry when the law goes into effect, just not in a church, if that's your vibe.

Next European state expected to legalize gay marriage is Liechtenstein, and next major European country expected to legalize is Czechia, just like in the previous post.
And the United States House of Representatives just approved a bill that will scrap the infamous Defense of Marriage Act and enshrine the right to same sex marriages into federal law....with the support of FORTY-SEVEN REPUBLICANS. It's now headed to the Senate, where several Republican senators have said that they are thinking about voting yes. This bill was written in anticipation of an upcoming Supreme Court decision that would completely reverse the Obergefell v Hodges decision.
 

Zora

perpetually tired
And the United States House of Representatives just approved a bill that will scrap the infamous Defense of Marriage Act and enshrine the right to same sex marriages into federal law....with the support of FORTY-SEVEN REPUBLICANS. It's now headed to the Senate, where several Republican senators have said that they are thinking about voting yes. This bill was written in anticipation of an upcoming Supreme Court decision that would completely reverse the Obergefell v Hodges decision.
It's more nuanced than that, unfortunately.


The more I look at RFMA, it's less about codifying Obergefell and more about providing a roadmap for a post-Obergefell landscape. Namely, RMA establishes:
  • Existing marriages are given free faith and credit. So states cannot annul same-sex marriages post-Obergefell. (apparently it does not do this)
  • US government gives free faith and credit to all marriages for federal government purposes. So Windsor is codified.
  • States must give free faith and credit to out-of-state marriages. This is a very partial coding of Obergefell.
However, something RFMA would permit in a post-Obergefell landscape are red states requiring you go out of state for a marriage license. You want a same-sex marriage in Texas? Better plan your Las Vegas wedding.

I'm completely unsure why the bill is written this way. Either it's a one-to-one repeal of DOMA and is simply addressing that (since DOMA still allowed states to have their own discretion) or this is a compromise to get GOP senators on board to protect Kim Davis and her ilk.

Edit: Mark Joseph Stern's reasoning for why RFMA is written this way is that Congress has no authority over prescribing what grounds states may or may not issue marriage licenses per tenth amendment at esbliahsed in Murphy. So that's that, I guess.
 
Last edited:

masdog

What is the airspeed of an unladen Swellow?
It's more nuanced than that, unfortunately.


The more I look at RMA, it's less about codifying Obergefell and more about providing a roadmap for a post-Obergefell landscape. Namely, RMA establishes:
  • Existing marriages are given free faith and credit. So states cannot annul same-sex marriages post-Obergefell.
  • US government gives free faith and credit to all marriages for federal government purposes. So Windsor is codified.
  • States must give free faith and credit to out-of-state marriages. This is a very partial coding of Obergefell.
However, something RMA would permit in a post-Obergefell landscape are red states requiring you go out of state for a marriage license. You want a same-sex marriage in Texas? Better plan your Las Vegas wedding.

I'm completely unsure why the bill is written this way. Either it's a one-to-one repeal of DOMA and is simply addressing that (since DOMA still allowed states to have their own discretion) or this is a compromise to get GOP senators on board to protect Kim Davis and her ilk.
I think its a compromise.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Continuing on gay marriage news, Cuba's Parliament has approved the new Family Code, which means it now has to go to referendum on Septemper 25th. If it passes, this means gay marriage will be legal in Cuba as well.

The next country in the Americas expected to legalize gay marriage is Venezuela.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
A lot of major news has happened.

1. Voters in Kansas chose to reject a ballot proposal that, if passed, would have opened the floodgates to massive abortion restrictions in the state.
2. The United States Senate voted to validate the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley was the lone "No" vote.
3. Indiana Congresswoman Jackie Walorski, who represents the state's 2nd district, was tragically killed in a car accident alongside two of her staffers. The driver of another car was also killed.
4. The Justice Department finally charged four members of the Louisville Police Department for the killing of Breonna Taylor.
 
Last edited:

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Given the threat of random retailitory violence, there is also not a chance in hell Garland and Biden approves this unless they were confident that they were going to get something enormous.
 

Divine Retribution

No war but class war
So everyone's (least) favorite misinformation profiteer Alex Jones got handed a $49.3M verdict in one of several cases against him for his blatant slander and defamation against the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre. Sounds like a good thing, right? Well, a couple things have left a bitter taste in my mouth.

The first of which is, thanks to a loophole in Texas law, the actual amount of damages Jones will have to pay is capped to a far smaller amount (here's a video that explains it; the creator, a lawyer practicing in, I believe, South Carolina, believes that the actual amount paid will be less than $1M). $1M is a slap on the wrist for Jones; he's made many, many times that amount pushing poisonous rhetoric like the lies that landed him in court in the first place. Even the full $49.3M verdict pales in comparison to the amount of money his network brings in pushing divisive reactionary toxicity. In addition, it seems the verdict allows Jones to stall the other pending trials brought against him in other states.

The second of which is Jones's egregious conduct throughout the entire trial. Because I have nothing better to do at the moment I've been watching recordings of the trials, and on more occasions than I can keep track of Jones and his lawyer have flagrantly done things that would get most people, at the very least, a contempt of court charge. Everything from blatantly lying under oath (and being called out on it by the judge on at least two occasions) to refusing to produce evidence demanded by discovery. Apparently anti-perjury laws only apply to us plebs who don't have multi-million dollar media empires at our disposal.

While, on the surface, this verdict seems like a win, the reality is it's just an empty show victory. The average person sees a $49.3M verdict and thinks he got what he deserves, while legal loopholes designed to protect rich capitalists soften the blow to a slap on the wrist. This man destroyed the lives of people who were already left in a vulnerable state by a horrific tragedy beyond most people's comprehension. With his lies and the army of rabid followers who lap them up like dogs, he did incalculable damage to their mental well-being at a time when they were already compromised. They faced death threats and vitriol like nobody deserves, least of all someone who just lost their kid in a school shooting. Jones deserves prison time for knowingly peddling false information that lead to the harm of these parents. No dollar amount will fix this, especially when there's so many protections in place that will prevent him from ever paying the full amount anyways.

We'll see what comes of Jones's other pending trials, but I don't think we'll see true justice unless the man ends up in prison, and I somewhat doubt that will happen.
 
Top