I weep for this country. I remember when Obergefell was decided - how we celebrated, the beautiful language and sentiments. Those were days when it felt like we were on the right track. Nasty, evil people like Alito and Thomas had to sit and sulk with their mean spirited little souls and ideas in the Bohemian Grove by themselves. And this is why we MUST make sure they stop being wined and dined by the people who want to drag us back to the 19th century. ENOUGH. Let’s abort the Republican party.
Alito's comment in his statement regarding Obergefell is an example of his bias.
There is nothing specific about same sex marriage that changes the overall question of religious liberty. Catholic doctrine has broad reach, including opposing remarriage after divorce and sex outside of religiously sanctioned marriage. Griswold, the contraceptives cases, was a product of Catholic supported legislation against use of birth control.
I clashed on a Catholic legal blog years back with those who wanted to provide a special extra burdensome rule regarding sexual orientation discrimination. Neutral concerns of religious liberty is not the issue here. Where was claimed need for state officials not to take part in "sanctifying" (a dubious term for secular laws) marriages in the past?
Many secular marriages clash with religious viewpoints. When a selective few are deemed problematic, we can be well suspicious of bias.
I hate it when we have to have martyrs, but I hope now that everyone will learn their name.
There's no such thing as indifference to bodily autonomy. If you are not in favor of it, then you stand against it, whether you realize it or not.
I wonder if this is what the Dobbs five wanted, what they anticipated. I wonder if any of them feels even the slightest bit of concern about all of this, or whether they are all certain they bear no responsibility for it.
It has to get worse to get better. Let's have that happen before November instead of after.
You are far too generous with those five disgusting excuses for humans. Not only do they feel a responsibility for it, this is the outcome they wanted. They understand that we cannot return to racially segregated misogynist utopia they want without extrajudicial violence applied to groups that are not white Christian nationalists while authority looks the other way or participates. They want to return to the days of strange fruits and child killing bombs. And it’s about time that we start acting with that understanding.
The thread winding through all of these horrific cases that irks me- is the sheer stupidity. Or in the case of the Oklahoma police- they think we're stupid? If they don't actually know anything yet, then how did they come to the preliminary conclusion that their death was 'unrelated' to the fight?
A patient of an IVF clinic walks into the back room of said clinic. They grab a tray of frozen embryos. They freeze-burn their hand, because duh. They drop the tray.... and kill a bunch of 'children'. What?
One of the most irritating Republican sayings in regards to trans people has been, "Democrats don't even know what a woman is." Now we find out the truth is that conservative theocrats don't appear to have any earthly idea what a human child is!!?! It's madness. I'm just happy Chris is here to lay out that it's also a fiasco from a legal perspective. It's exactly what we think it is. You help keep my head from exploding, man!
a niggle point. I don't think Nex was trans or thinking of transitioning. None of the stories have said so. They were non-binary, which is NOT the same thing. Some trans people also take the label non-binary, but a whole lot don't. It just means not feeling like you are either male or female, or even just predominantly one or the other.
This was a familiar feeling to those of us who grew up in the 50s finding ourselves crammed into "female" roles when a lot of things we liked (in my case, science fiction amongst others) were boy territory. We compromised a lot to "fit in" to the stereotype. There just wasn't a word for it.
I’m not sure we are working with the same definitions, but it wasn’t necessary for the piece and I don’t want to cause any confusion, so I removed the one reference that was not non-binary.
as I said, a niggle. The reason I mention it is that if they weren't trans, this shows how the anti-trans fanaticism is spreading to kids who may just still be in the adolescent wondering stage.
Thank you for highlighting “the dangerous faux-jurisprudence” encouraged by the Dobbs court. Ignoring precedent, reaching far afield to arrive at a desired ruling, and using a case that required no such ruling stand as distinctive hallmarks of the “jurisprudence” that leads to such weakly reasoned decisions as Dobbs. The rule of law goes begging at this particular SCOTUS.
There is only one way this ends: The Roberts court relegated to the Lochner dustbin, and the American conservative movement having the same reputation as the Franco fascists. Anything else, we lose democracy itself.
Since none of the new "unborn children" in Alabama can possibly be United States citizens--no matter what mental gymnastics the Alabama courts engage in--all embryos and fetuses in the state must therefore surely be illegal aliens as recognized by the state. Pregnant women in Alabama are knowingly harboring illegal aliens and should be subject to the relevant statutes, which in Alabama are quite strict. Intriguingly, pregnant women who cross Alabama's borders may be in even more trouble, by intentionally bringing in persons with no right to be in the United States. Obviously the IVF labs are prohibited from doing anything that benefits an illegal alien, and so probably the remedy there is for those labs to contact federal authorities to deport the embryos to another state where they are not people, although I think the status of former personhood seems possibly a bit murky.
Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas would not have been able to find any right to privacy had the rationale of Dobbs been applied and the whole line of decisions based on the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right that includes bodily autonomy. We can think of this as a revival of 1905's Lockner v. New York basing a right to liberty interests of persons (as opposed to natural persons, people) to be free of state regulation that impaired economic autonomy. Just as that implied right was eroded over the following three generations, up to the start of the Reagan Era, the implied right of personal bodily autonomy is falling today. What will be left will be only the Exclusionary Rule protection of the Fourth Amendment preventing evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizure in criminal prosecutions. And, in turn, the conflation of privacy and secrecy in the line of cases from Katz v. United States implies that the public display of personal identity, say, has a liberty interest protected solely by the First Amendment.
Chip, chip, chip—Michaelangelo's celebration of the human form in David becomes a pile of dust and rubble to be trod upon by the State.
It's never about morality or community standards, it's always about power through control of how people present to the world.
I weep for this country. I remember when Obergefell was decided - how we celebrated, the beautiful language and sentiments. Those were days when it felt like we were on the right track. Nasty, evil people like Alito and Thomas had to sit and sulk with their mean spirited little souls and ideas in the Bohemian Grove by themselves. And this is why we MUST make sure they stop being wined and dined by the people who want to drag us back to the 19th century. ENOUGH. Let’s abort the Republican party.
Keep drinking that kool-aid, honey.
Alito's comment in his statement regarding Obergefell is an example of his bias.
There is nothing specific about same sex marriage that changes the overall question of religious liberty. Catholic doctrine has broad reach, including opposing remarriage after divorce and sex outside of religiously sanctioned marriage. Griswold, the contraceptives cases, was a product of Catholic supported legislation against use of birth control.
I clashed on a Catholic legal blog years back with those who wanted to provide a special extra burdensome rule regarding sexual orientation discrimination. Neutral concerns of religious liberty is not the issue here. Where was claimed need for state officials not to take part in "sanctifying" (a dubious term for secular laws) marriages in the past?
Many secular marriages clash with religious viewpoints. When a selective few are deemed problematic, we can be well suspicious of bias.
Thank you, Chris.
I hate it when we have to have martyrs, but I hope now that everyone will learn their name.
There's no such thing as indifference to bodily autonomy. If you are not in favor of it, then you stand against it, whether you realize it or not.
I wonder if this is what the Dobbs five wanted, what they anticipated. I wonder if any of them feels even the slightest bit of concern about all of this, or whether they are all certain they bear no responsibility for it.
It has to get worse to get better. Let's have that happen before November instead of after.
💔
You are far too generous with those five disgusting excuses for humans. Not only do they feel a responsibility for it, this is the outcome they wanted. They understand that we cannot return to racially segregated misogynist utopia they want without extrajudicial violence applied to groups that are not white Christian nationalists while authority looks the other way or participates. They want to return to the days of strange fruits and child killing bombs. And it’s about time that we start acting with that understanding.
The thread winding through all of these horrific cases that irks me- is the sheer stupidity. Or in the case of the Oklahoma police- they think we're stupid? If they don't actually know anything yet, then how did they come to the preliminary conclusion that their death was 'unrelated' to the fight?
A patient of an IVF clinic walks into the back room of said clinic. They grab a tray of frozen embryos. They freeze-burn their hand, because duh. They drop the tray.... and kill a bunch of 'children'. What?
One of the most irritating Republican sayings in regards to trans people has been, "Democrats don't even know what a woman is." Now we find out the truth is that conservative theocrats don't appear to have any earthly idea what a human child is!!?! It's madness. I'm just happy Chris is here to lay out that it's also a fiasco from a legal perspective. It's exactly what we think it is. You help keep my head from exploding, man!
Thank you for writing this informative and useful column.
Monsters. All of them — and Alito especially. May they all rot in hell.
a niggle point. I don't think Nex was trans or thinking of transitioning. None of the stories have said so. They were non-binary, which is NOT the same thing. Some trans people also take the label non-binary, but a whole lot don't. It just means not feeling like you are either male or female, or even just predominantly one or the other.
This was a familiar feeling to those of us who grew up in the 50s finding ourselves crammed into "female" roles when a lot of things we liked (in my case, science fiction amongst others) were boy territory. We compromised a lot to "fit in" to the stereotype. There just wasn't a word for it.
I’m not sure we are working with the same definitions, but it wasn’t necessary for the piece and I don’t want to cause any confusion, so I removed the one reference that was not non-binary.
as I said, a niggle. The reason I mention it is that if they weren't trans, this shows how the anti-trans fanaticism is spreading to kids who may just still be in the adolescent wondering stage.
"... If THEY weren't trans, ..." - it's fine to niggle but respect their pronouns. And, yes, I agree with your point.
you are right and I am correcting. at almost 80, habits die hard, especially when touch typing.
Thank you for highlighting “the dangerous faux-jurisprudence” encouraged by the Dobbs court. Ignoring precedent, reaching far afield to arrive at a desired ruling, and using a case that required no such ruling stand as distinctive hallmarks of the “jurisprudence” that leads to such weakly reasoned decisions as Dobbs. The rule of law goes begging at this particular SCOTUS.
Gulp! Where are we going as a nation?
The slippery slope to hell, if this continues unabated.
That’s why the collective “we” must work together to stop the slide.
There is only one way this ends: The Roberts court relegated to the Lochner dustbin, and the American conservative movement having the same reputation as the Franco fascists. Anything else, we lose democracy itself.
Since none of the new "unborn children" in Alabama can possibly be United States citizens--no matter what mental gymnastics the Alabama courts engage in--all embryos and fetuses in the state must therefore surely be illegal aliens as recognized by the state. Pregnant women in Alabama are knowingly harboring illegal aliens and should be subject to the relevant statutes, which in Alabama are quite strict. Intriguingly, pregnant women who cross Alabama's borders may be in even more trouble, by intentionally bringing in persons with no right to be in the United States. Obviously the IVF labs are prohibited from doing anything that benefits an illegal alien, and so probably the remedy there is for those labs to contact federal authorities to deport the embryos to another state where they are not people, although I think the status of former personhood seems possibly a bit murky.
Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas would not have been able to find any right to privacy had the rationale of Dobbs been applied and the whole line of decisions based on the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right that includes bodily autonomy. We can think of this as a revival of 1905's Lockner v. New York basing a right to liberty interests of persons (as opposed to natural persons, people) to be free of state regulation that impaired economic autonomy. Just as that implied right was eroded over the following three generations, up to the start of the Reagan Era, the implied right of personal bodily autonomy is falling today. What will be left will be only the Exclusionary Rule protection of the Fourth Amendment preventing evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizure in criminal prosecutions. And, in turn, the conflation of privacy and secrecy in the line of cases from Katz v. United States implies that the public display of personal identity, say, has a liberty interest protected solely by the First Amendment.
Chip, chip, chip—Michaelangelo's celebration of the human form in David becomes a pile of dust and rubble to be trod upon by the State.
It's never about morality or community standards, it's always about power through control of how people present to the world.
Thank you Chris. And yes, we must do better.
It’s extremely clear to me that we would be a lot safer under Sharia law so I am supporting Joe’s Muslim nominee to a circuit court!
When will they reveal their decision on Anderson v. Trump?