Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They’ll “leave it up to the states” I’m sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.
I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.
Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.
In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
I don’t doubt it. However if Trump’s team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he’d fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain’t.
I don’t think they’ll send it down the pipe, or be successful if they try. The process tends to have to start at the lower courts and work their way up. In all likelihood, lower courts would simply strike it down, and the appeals court wouldn’t see any reason to change that.
There are ways to skip those intermediate steps, and they could certainly try to invent a whole new process just for the case. But when one of their biggest allies on the court has a clear reason to be against it, why even try? They have a hundred other cases they’d rather do to hurt people. If you follow the domino metaphor in OP, then Loving is way towards the back.
Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.
A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.
Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.
That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.
So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.
So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.
Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.
Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They’ll “leave it up to the states” I’m sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.
I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.
Clarence Thomas rulling his own marriage illegal? 🤔
That’s definitely one way to get a divorce
Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.
In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
I don’t doubt it. However if Trump’s team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he’d fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain’t.
I don’t think they’ll send it down the pipe, or be successful if they try. The process tends to have to start at the lower courts and work their way up. In all likelihood, lower courts would simply strike it down, and the appeals court wouldn’t see any reason to change that.
There are ways to skip those intermediate steps, and they could certainly try to invent a whole new process just for the case. But when one of their biggest allies on the court has a clear reason to be against it, why even try? They have a hundred other cases they’d rather do to hurt people. If you follow the domino metaphor in OP, then Loving is way towards the back.
Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?
Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.
A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.
Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.
Because our legislature is dysfunctional in its very structuring.
The simulation ran out of computational power and this is AI trying to use the last 0.1% of the Neural Processing Unit to continue generating a story…
That’s the way English Common Law works contrary to French Civil Law
That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.
So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.
So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.
Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.
Louisiana runs off French civil law. They work around it.
Today I learned!
Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.
Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.
Maybe Canada was more proactive than the USA but it’s still a result of the type of legal system they use, that wouldn’t happen with Civil law.
There’s still plenty of things in Canada that are left to precedence, we don’t pass laws every time something comes up.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“Leaving it up to the states” is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotus….
I’m sure this one will get right on that.