Re: Alito’s “misunderstanding” — he had no qualms putting a potential target on Justice Sotomayor’s back by joining the Vasquez Perdomo decision … so hypocrisy much?
Inasmuch as Alito did not elaborate on the nature of the misunderstanding, it would be a little difficult to assess the likelihood that a misunderstanding of some sort occurred. Apart from the fact that no elaboration was provided and the fact that you harbor unhinged contempt for the man—what convinces you that there was no misunderstanding of any sort? More to the point, what in your view does account for Alito’s supplemental remarks, if not some misunderstanding?
“The good news, and the reminder of Lawrence, is that a relatively short time later — longer than it should have been, but short in constitutional terms — the court was able to acknowledge that “laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”
The near entire fascist unelected purjurer SCOTUS judges’ shadow docket pogroms overturning of Americans’ rights needs to be reversed and perjurer maga judges indicted and disbarred.
It's worth noting that Scalia understood that under the Lawrence analysis, the next domino that was going to fall was the state prohibitions on same-sex marriage. In his dissent in Lawrence, he wrote "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding." I'm fairly sure that masturbation, adultery, and fornication were already legal in all 50 states when he wrote that, but yup, he was right on the money about same-sex marriage.
Light in the darkness. We need these exercises. Thanks.
Re: Alito’s “misunderstanding” — he had no qualms putting a potential target on Justice Sotomayor’s back by joining the Vasquez Perdomo decision … so hypocrisy much?
And he's the only one bringing up free speech. When it comes to the age verification fight. (pointed out by Cathy Gellis.)
I don't say this to praise Alito. Is that if he's the only one bringing this up, then there's a problem. We are so screwed.
He also had the “honor” of penning Mullin v. Roe—it ain’t racism - O we conservatives have eliminated that - it’s just political.
Dare I ask, what the hell that is?
Yesterday’s (heartless) removal of temporary protection status from Haitians and Syrians: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
I think Kennedy was so right: in each generation We must find in the Constitution the means to continue to to expand human freedom
Inasmuch as Alito did not elaborate on the nature of the misunderstanding, it would be a little difficult to assess the likelihood that a misunderstanding of some sort occurred. Apart from the fact that no elaboration was provided and the fact that you harbor unhinged contempt for the man—what convinces you that there was no misunderstanding of any sort? More to the point, what in your view does account for Alito’s supplemental remarks, if not some misunderstanding?
What a pain in the ass
Ridiculous and a damn shame.
I appreciate that you have found an excellent quote to remind us things can get better.
And we do have Scalia to thank for the choice phrase, “pure applesauce and jiggery pokery!” 🤣
No matter what else is decided about trans people, biological males never belong on a female sports team or locker room.
“The good news, and the reminder of Lawrence, is that a relatively short time later — longer than it should have been, but short in constitutional terms — the court was able to acknowledge that “laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”
The near entire fascist unelected purjurer SCOTUS judges’ shadow docket pogroms overturning of Americans’ rights needs to be reversed and perjurer maga judges indicted and disbarred.
Thank you
Thoughtful and informative. Thanks for sharing
Happy Pride Chris! And to everyone the same.
It's worth noting that Scalia understood that under the Lawrence analysis, the next domino that was going to fall was the state prohibitions on same-sex marriage. In his dissent in Lawrence, he wrote "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding." I'm fairly sure that masturbation, adultery, and fornication were already legal in all 50 states when he wrote that, but yup, he was right on the money about same-sex marriage.