Intentional or not, your use of “president” instead of “precedent” is inspired!
3 Likes
Alito talking with Kristol. Go no further. It’s a conversation foretold.
18 Likes
Alito speculated that future justices could grant constitutional rights on the basis of their ideological whims, and practically, the nomination of judges will become more like a political election.
Like saying money is free speech? Alito pretending that this wasn’t already the case with the court would be funny, if he weren’t such a big part of how this is already the case for the court.
18 Likes
If precedence means so much to Alito, maybe he should revisit his decision on the Shelby County voting rights decision he recently made.
What a hypocrite!
14 Likes
Deconstructionism is so “MLA circa 1985.” Snore.
2 Likes
Can’t even hide his disagreement at SOTU 2010 viz Citizens United
3 Likes
Darn spellcheck!
1 Like
Decisions I agree with = constitutional
Decisions I disagree with = ideological whims
We’ll be paying for the W presidency for generations to come. Thanks 'Murica!
36 Likes
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get over it!
5 Likes
Is this an example of a superior legal mind at work? We are in deep trouble, especially when you throw mute-boy and his handler into the equation.
6 Likes
Um, yes he did. Most of the decision was laden with prose aiming for historical quotability to be sure, but the ruling is very much grounded in the 14th equal protection (as well as due process) clause(s). It is just so simply obvious there was not a large amount of pontification on it, but it was squarely in the ruling. From the ruling itself:
(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal under- standings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.
(emphasis mine)
9 Likes
He’s battier than Trump. Where does the media get the idea that Alito and Scalia are such great conservative minds? Certainly not from such a convoluted argument as this.
2 Likes
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard from a SC Justice, and I’ve read quite a bit about Scalia, so “stupidest” is a high bar.
7 Likes
He gave us the perfect reason why we should not elect another Republican to the Presidency.
14 Likes
My feeling exactly. These conservative guys aren’t even trying to make any sense, legal or otherwise.
2 Likes
My feelings exactly.
Is Alito qualified to be a judge?
I suppose Alito is right. Straw man arguments could certainly allow judges to end minimum wage laws if they were so inclined.
4 Likes
You actually need several judges to make a significant change. But in once sense he is correct. Get a group of crazy judges, and they might decided that corporations are people.
13 Likes
Outside of Scalia I don’t think anyone on the Court is more enraged at Obergefell than Sam.
3 Likes