Oh and MGT wants to look at the political prisoners and their horrible conditions in JAIL..............freedom fighters
I think that's "Afghanistan" but given the makeup of this Republican Caucus it wouldn't surprise me if they had another Benghazi investigation.
Exactly the type responses you'd expect from someone who begged for a pardon, pleaded the 5th, and is terrified of being convicted herself.
If the republicans actually came to the table and their promise was to produce plans to decrease inflation and restore the economy, I’d be supportive. But instead it’s just owning the libs.
No one has mentioned overturning Loving v. Virginia, or anything related to the equal protection clause. This is a trick to try to associate interracial marriage with the cases based on Substantive Due Process. Certainly the government involving itself in marriage is Constitutional under Alito's formulation. I don't think there is any basis for the federal government to regulate it beyond the equal protection clauses. More importantly though, it is just a bad idea. Just because something can be done under the Constitution, that doesn't mean is should be done. It would be very easy for the government to extricate itself out of marriage. You simply repeal all laws that treat married people (or any other classification other than individuals) differently than single people. Everyone just files single income taxes, for example. Eliminating government recognition of marriage would make things simpler, not more complicated. The government already has a model for how it treats single people, you would just apply that model to everyone.
Thomas opened the door for reconsideration of a lot of cases including Loving in his opinion in Dobbs based on how Loving was decided. This again depends on how you view the purpose of government. That marriage did exist even predating the Consitution and continues to exist with an expansion of the institution would lead government to need to step in to regulate otherwise that would lead to chaos regarding things like inheritance or responsibility towards dependents. The problem is you're looking at centuries of legal structure, jurisprudence but also much of our economy is set up around the institution of marriage. For example private companies offering benefits to married partners and legal dependents. If you suddenly just repeal all of that that will not be simple and likely lead to many other problems. This leads back to why I consider the Liberatarian view while principled but also naive. I think it's discounting a lot of human nature. The fact that there is such a thing as "Deadbeat Dads" shows that personal responsibility or behaving rationally isn't something many humans are good at. In that case there is a place to laws to address those things.
He specifically did not. In point of fact, he called out revisiting the decisions that were based on Substantive Due Process (which I just mentioned and you quoted). Loving was based on Equal Protection, which is not the same thing. The Equal Protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments say that the government has to give the protection of the law to everyone in the same way. Substantive Due Process was a made up 20th century doctrine that said due process doesn't really mean what process is due when depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property (despite that being the exact language used), but rather due process is code for secret rights that are both so fundamental that no amount of process can protect them (even more than living that means) but also not worth putting into the bill of rights. Rights that they clearly had in mind in 1789, like gay marriage. Marriage is not at all necessary for inheritance. There are societies that do not at all consider marriage in inheritance. Hell, for most of human history women could not inherit at all, married or not. Marriage is also not necessary for responsibility toward dependents, which is obvious to anyone who has ever seen someone held responsible for children born out of wedlock. If anything, marriage complicates those issues with things like presumption of parentage and community property. Private companies could still recognize marriage if they chose and could choose not to recognize marriage right now. The government no longer recognizing marriage would not necessarily have any impact on that. Hopefully, the government treating everyone the same would encourage private companies to do so as well, but it is not a precondition. You can handle that though contract law. In fact, it would probably lead to women making better choices if they knew daddy government wasn't going to chase down their deadbeat sperm donors for child support.
Lord knowns we all want to see that happen so bad if it was just the normal person it would have been done already.
My time is limited so will try to give a more thorough response later. But many legal scholars have noted that Thomas’ opinion does open the possibility of overturning Loving. Also doesnt it seem rather self serving for Thomas to bring up Obergfell but not Loving. Yes there are societies that form have marriage but most societies do have some form of marriage that going back to an ancient time has been used to recognize things like inheritance. Why women might not have inherited property their legal heirs as recognized by marriage could. Why “bastards” aren’t recognized as being legitimate in many societies. Ideally yes but given the prevalence and history of marriage as an institution it’s not going to be easy. Also if marriage where just handled through contract law it would be a lead to it being more expensive as lawyers would be required even more than now and likely lead to much more court time to deal with all of the marriage contracts and issue that would arise out of that. If we think family and divorce law is a mess now it will be far worse with no standard legal format.
I’m listening to Mike Pence on Meet the Press and he’s delusional about both his prospects for higher office and also about the administration he was part of.
Only if you don't understand the legal foundations for the two decisions. Just read what he wrote. He said the court should revisit its substantive due process decisions and then listed decisions that were based on substantive due process. Loving was an equal protection case. Yes, I never said marriage has not been used, only that there are societies that did not rely on marriage as a legal entity for inheritance, which proves it is not necessary. An infinite number of examples where it has been used cannot counter that point. If I said there are electric cars and provided the example of Tesla, you could list a thousand gas powered cars, and that doesn't disprove that electric cars exist. Actually it would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. You just treat everyone the same way you treat single people now. Bam, totally solved. It is trivial to make a form marriage contract that you could download. We already have family law cases outside of marriage. That is not a tough issue to suddenly deal with. Every lawyer who has done family law knows that a pre-nuptial agreement makes divorces easier, not harder, so having explicitly written contracts will actually make family court less of a mess.
This is such a terrible comparison. Republicans are shameless when it comes to hate crimes. People dying from illegal drugs they choose to take should never be compared to innocent people being shot down by some hateful person preying on them. Then again, this is the way MTG rolls. She conveniently left out the fact that we've had over 700 mass shootings already this year.
Is he jaunting away from whatever is killing the Republican Party? ...for now He's faithful his word will ring true, and the Good work as vice president will open a path towards greater America and freedom and liberty and Jesus.
