The Blue side should have realized that when Dole ran the Senate when Clinton was President.
2 Likes
The Alito Standard: It’s OK if your law is just a little racist.
14 Likes
Democrats can’t depend on the Supreme Court to protect the right to vote. Democrats are going to have to mobilize and beat Republican efforts like a drum. It is going to have to start at the local level. Every Republican has to face a Democratic challenger every election going forward. We have to gain control of as many state houses as we can.
What I am proposing is hard, hard work to rid America of a party that doesn’t believe in the ideal of encouraging every American to vote. This problem won’t be solved by air warriors taking 3 martini lunches at the Capitol Grill.
10 Likes
OT
28 Likes
The court is now totally corrupted and nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Republican Party.
Just waiting for further decisions that kill the Civil Rights act which is probably coming down the road…
3 Likes
According to these asshats the VRA didn’t actually want to do anything. It’s just such BS that they keep chipping away at the purpose of the law.
7 Likes
30 Likes
There were stories of him eating documents. Literally.
7 Likes
Pelosi’s announcement comes after McCarthy threatened members of his own party that he would strip any Republican member of their committee assignments if they accepted an offer from Pelosi.
So how soon before Kinzinger gets appointed? Don’t agree with either his or Cheney’s politics, but they both seem forthright enough to call an insurrection an insurrection…
22 Likes
30 Likes
Wow. McCarthy is: (said in her best Bette Davis staccato) Such. A. Dick.
And, while I hate anyone named Cheney…it did take guts to take the appointment.
15 Likes
Just checking for bamboo fibers. That’s all.
5 Likes
Ah, the three fruits of the poisonous tree help the GOP jihad against voting.
Cannot wait for the ruling on that abortion case.
4 Likes
Committee
10 Likes
Just like tax laws, abortion restrictions or any other law simply doesn’t apply to them.
Income taxes? Haha, just call your income something else. Er, “capital gains,” there. I have no income.
Abortion? Please. I’ll take a summer holiday to France and get all the abortions I want.
Voting? Simple, black people can’t vote anyway. We win.
3 Likes
Shorter Alito: “It may be okay to screw democracy as long as it’s only the tip.”
8 Likes
I suspect it was learned at the knee (or some body part) of Roy Cohn.
7 Likes
This ruling was not only predictable but predicted by those of us who have been paying attention the last 20 years.
The big problem is even if a new voting rights act passes, depending on the political situation at the time, it is also predictable and predicted that the current court will find it unconstitutional.
That is likely the only way to fix this is to unfix the Republican and not conservative Supreme Court.
Oh, and on another unrelated matter:
Contracts Preventing Marriage
Generally, there are two types of restraints against marriage: (i) a general restraint and (ii) a limited or partial restraint. Given the sweeping nature of a general restraint it is usually prohibited.
EXAMPLE: Douglas was the only child of a very possessive mother. When she died she left all her property to him. Douglas remained single during his mother’s lifetime so that he could take care of her. His mother wanted to ensure that he remained single; therefore, she included a provision in her will that he would lose everything if he ever married anyone, thereby restricting Douglas from marrying anyone at any time. Such general restraints of marriage are against public policy and void. See, e.g., Cowan v. Cowan , 75 N.W.2d 920 (Iowa 1956).
A limited restraint, which only restricts marriage to a certain extent, has often been upheld by courts.
EXAMPLE: Samantha and Arthur were married for 12 years before Arthur filed for divorce last year. One clause in their divorce decree states that if Samantha remarries before their youngest child reaches the age of 18; the former marital home reverts back to Arthur for his exclusive use. In evaluating whether this clause provides an unenforceable restraint on marriage (i.e., against public policy), the court relied upon prior case law and any relevant statutes. In Georgia, where they live, the courts have found that similar clauses “were merely expressive of the duration of the term during which [Samantha] should have received the benefits [of living in the family home with their children].” Accordingly, this clause is akin to a provision that terminates alimony upon the remarriage of the recipient. As such, this clause was held to be enforceable because it served a valid purpose rather than being a general restraint on marriage. See, e.g., Gordin v. Gordin , 249 Ga. 371 (1982).
In addition, states also address these restraints via statutes. For example, in Oklahoma: “Every contract in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void.” See 15 Okl. St. § 220 (2004). Other states’ statutes essentially mimic the language of Oklahoma’s statute. See, e.g., MCA § 28-2-706 (2004); see also Ca. Civ. Code § 710 (2005).
Georgia has a more elaborate statute:
Marriage is encouraged by the law. Every effort to restrain or discourage marriage by contract, condition, limitation, or otherwise shall be invalid and void, provided that prohibition against marriage to a particular person or persons or before a certain reasonable age or other prudential provisions looking only to the interest of the person to be benefited and not in general restraint of marriage will be allowed and held valid.
As how this applies to prenuptial agreements depends on the skill of the lawyer. That is with an insidious spouse trying to enforce it against a sympathetic client, a good lawyer would argue that enforcement would be harmful to the institution of marriage. To be sure over 20 years ago a court, I think it was New York but am not sure and am not going to look it up, held that far from harming the institution of marriage prenuptial agreements actually advance the institution of marriage by pushing away barriers to marriage. As I do not practice family law I cannot say for sure but the courts in these types of ruling usually leave open the possibility with the right facts it could in specific cases find a prenuptial agreement is invalid because enforcing it under those circumstances does harm the institution of marriage. If nothing else, raising this archaic point of contracts law, which I do practice, might help with the settlement.
1 Like
19 Likes
His tail or hooves.
4 Likes