Discussion for article #235181
Someone needs to take these peoples’ law licenses away. I say that in all fucking seriousness as an attorney myself. This shit (and KY’s) doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Totally frivolous nonsense. When something sounds so utterly absurd, you’re not supposed to submit it to the Court. Moreover, on a practical level, all these cartoonish arguments do is highlight how desperate and out of arguments these idiots truly are.
29 Likes
The more they lose, the more ridiculous their arguments become.
7 Likes
IF the FRAmers WANTed GAY MARRY, they WOULd’ve PUT it IN THe CONstiTUtion.
4 Likes
I can see them putting the final touches on their brief saying, “Well, at least we won’t get an incomplete.”
6 Likes
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.”
-Anatole France
12 Likes
It’s really long past time that conservatives realized that women and gays are human beings just like the are.
4 Likes
Wow. They are just phoning it in, aren’t they?
3 Likes
I just love how responses to issues such as SC seem to always try to take the same statement and have it both was… Times have changed since the 17th was written re how women are treated, times have not changed since the 17th was written to how we treat gays…
3 Likes
I am not an attorney and even I can tell how ridiculous the arguments are - and it is really rich that they come from the party that claims it is against frivolous lawsuits.
3 Likes
These arguments sound like something you would hear in the Supreme Court of SAUDI ARABIA!!!
3 Likes
Honestly Sandy… Are you able to prove your theory of conservative membership in the human species? Please list your source data and all relevant data from experiments.
2 Likes
I’ve been wondering whether some of these people aren’t just going through the motions, knowing it’s ridiculous and hopeless but making the effort so they can go back to the base and say they tried. I mean this one—“we no longer think about women’s roles the way we did in 1868, but the way the amendment’s framers thought about women then means they wouldn’t have wanted gay marriage now”—it’s just nonsensical.
7 Likes
the authors “insisted upon leaving untouched those state laws depriving women of basic rights upon marriage to a man.”
I doubt that anyone could find in the 14th Amendment words that its authors “insisted” any such thing. The Civil War was not fought over marriage rights!
Yep, like they did with mandatory retina scans and holographic-IDs for voting.
2 Likes
“The Fourteenth Amendment framers went to considerable lengths to
preserve the traditional family unit, even insisting upon the
subordination of married women. With this in mind, they did not, by any
stretch of the imagination, contemplate that same-sex marriage was
required by the Amendment or its Due Process Clause,” Wilson wrote in
the brief."
Bullshit!!
The 14th says in section 1: “:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it’s juisdiction equal protection of the laws.”
Where is subjugation of women mentioned??? Or the family mentioned???
This is probably the worst legal reasoning I’ve ever heard about.
6 Likes
AND fiNGerPRINTs!!!
2 Likes
Our SupremeCorporation K-RATS (kennedy-roberts,alito,thomas,scalia) will go down in history as the most destructive to human rights ever.
I imagine Roberts is desperately trying to burnish his legacy with his ObamaCare decision a few years back…and he’s squirming now trying to make himself look good for history-sake.
My amicus brief will make as much sense once I file it. A handy summary of my argument below:
Why is an orange?
You MUSt HAve the aBRIDGEd versION libtard.
1 Like