Two thoughts:
- I’m genuinely surprised. What’s the catch? Are they just waiting for a better case like the one in Texas?
- Eat shit, Kim Davis.
The catch is that this was always a non-starter. I said it yesterday in a thread about this.
Gorsuch literally wrote the majority opinion on Bostock. As far right as he is on everything else, he’s actually pretty good on LGBT stuff. Between him, Kagan, Roberts, KBJ, and Sotomayor, there wasn’t even going to be a debate.
This was simply conservative groups taking pot shots with cases. This never had a chance to go anywhere.
What’s the catch?
That was my immediate thought. Good things don’t happen anymore, so how is it going to sour? Do they need gay people to get married so they can build a registry or something?
…this Wednesday. But Thursday is looking pretty good?
We need non alienable rights and not rights that depend on who’s in charge this week.
although I agree with you. any state of government system set to ensure those rights, can easily take them away.
they shouldn’t, and they should lose they heads if they try. but I don’t think you can theoretically have “absolute inalienable rights”.
Not as long as we tolerate the presense of those willing to take those rights away
There is no system of governance that can withstand a critical mass of the people operating it choosing not to do what they’re supposed to. It’s why ohio ignored its supreme court and constitution on gerrymandering and why Trump gets away with shit.
The judiciary was slowly captured alongside the media because they were supposed to be the counterbalances to congress (who’s become afraid of their own shadows) and the presidency (a revolving door of business as usual centrists and caligula level lunatics)
