Justices Thomas, Alito Take Aim At 2015 Marriage Equality Ruling

[riversedge]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Crooks and Liars




10/06/20 5:08am

Add Obergefell to the list of Supreme Court precedents religious conservatives will be taking aim at, particularly if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to take the seat left open by the late great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


The Supreme Court rejected Monday an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the high court's ruling striking down bans across the country.

Following the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2015, Davis was sued by gay couples to whom she denied marriage licenses. Although the Supreme Court unanimously rejected her appeal, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito calling Davis a "victim" of the decision—suggesting that Obergefell now joins Roe and the ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the conservative justices’ chopping block.


"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last," Thomas wrote. "Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws."

....................................
"Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals," Thomas wrote. "Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy." ..............................

Read more: https://crooksandliars.com/2020/10/justices-thomas-alito-take-aim-2015

---

Link to tweet

?s=20

[ananda]

1. They're doing this to help Trump and game the vote.

imho

[mountain grammy]

5. This has nothing to do with Bernie supporters

give it a damn rest already.

[NurseJackie]

7. It's a consequence of 2016. I think it's fair to remind everyone of what happens when people...

This has nothing to do with Bernie supporters

It's a consequence of 2016.

give it a damn rest already.

I think it's fair to remind everyone of what happens when people don't vote because their feelings were hurt and they were disappointed that their favorite didn't earn the nomination. Or because they wanted to "punish" others or get some sort of revenge.

These are lessons that should never be forgotten. There's no harm in calling out bad behavior and poor judgement in the hopes that the same mistakes are not made again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Alito was appointed in 2006. Thomas in 1991. Confess, you have a time machine, don't you?

You've just forgotten the rest of us don't. That's how you think these justices are a consequence of 2016.

[NurseJackie]

13. Ridiculous. You know perfectly well that this has nothing to do with Alito or Thomas ...

That's how you think these justices are a consequence of 2016.

Ridiculous. You know perfectly well that this has nothing to do with Alito or Thomas or when they were appointed. But it does, instead, have everything to do with the fact that Trump (and not Hillary) is the one who has now had THREE opportunities to throw the court to a 6-to-3 conservative majority.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. It's IN THE THREAD TITLE. ALITO. THOMAS.

How on earth can you call reading the goddamn thread title "ridiculous"?

[NurseJackie]

15. What's ridiculous is ignoring reality and the consequences of Trump being in the White House.

It's IN THE THREAD TITLE. ALITO. THOMAS.

Actually, that's irrelevant to the point that I was making regarding an important (and hopefully avoidable in the future) reason that we're now in the situation we find ourselves in.

How on earth can you call reading the goddamn thread title "ridiculous"?

What's ridiculous is ignoring reality and the consequences of Trump being in the White House... or pretending like it doesn't matter, or that it happened for mysterious reasons that were out of our control. That's how.

[Gothmog]

20. You do realize that giving Alito and Thomas three more votes has consequences

Surely you understand the math. There were two nut jobs on prior to 2016 and when you add three more you have a majority. That is called math. There is now a hard core group of five ultra conservatives consequences due to idiots who voted for stein or who stayed home

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. I realise that saying this has nothing to do with Alito and Thomas is ridiculous

because, as you too appear not to have read the thread title, let alone the OP, IT'S ABOUT ALITO AND THOMAS. Do you neede large print for that?

Notice that the entire "purpose" of this stupid sub-thread was an attack on "Bernie bros", rather than any good-faith attempt to discuss people who voted for Stein or stayed at home - neither of which was mentioned in the post that has now been rightly removed.

[Gothmog]

23. I read the title but the difference is that I actually understood the title and the issue

The fact that you do not undestand the issue being discussed is cute and adorable. I was a Clinton delegate at the national convention and I understood that the sanders delegates who were booing John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and others were in effect going to cost us the control of the SCOTUS.

Again the fact that you do not understand the math or the concepts being discussed is cute and adorable

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It's not "cute and adorable" when you join in attacks on Democratic supporters

about your hard feelings from 4 years ago. We haven't got to "the math"; there is a direct denial that this is about Alito and Thomas, when they are the subject of the thread (and not, for instance, the 2 SC justices who were nominated by Trump). They are, of course, a vital part of your "math", so you shouldn't be defending "Thomas and Alito have nothing to do with this". I'd have thought a lawyer, "cute" or not, would understand that.

[Gothmog]

26. Again, it is cute and adorable that you are ignoring the facts here

The contol of the SCOTUS was a key voting issues for real Democrats in 2016. Intelligent voters knew this and voted for Clinton. Iditios who voted for Stein or who stayed home because their feelings where hurt are the reasons why trump won and why we have lost control of the fedral courts. ReaL Democrats did not vote for Stein and real Democrats did not stay home in 2016 and help to elect trump.

Again, control of the SCOTUS was an issue that real democrats considered and based their votes on in 2016.

BTW, Alito is on the bench in part due to idiots who supported Nader in 2000 and 2004 even though Rove was funding Nader http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[NurseJackie]

28. Absurd.

there is a direct denial that this is about Alito and Thomas

Absurd. There can be no denying that the power and influence that Alito and Thomas now have has been magnified and strengthened because Hillary is not in office, and because Trump is there instead. There can be no denying that. There is so much more reality going on beyond the "subject of this thread" and we're now suffering the consequences because of certain individuals who refused to vote for Hillary, or who had hard-feelings and "switched" to Stein in order to send-a-message or get-revenge (such as Sarandon, etc.) Those were selfish and ego-driven mistakes that we're all paying for now. It's good to remember how we got here and to call-out the behavior and the reasons we're here. All I'm trying to say is that those who do not remember or understand the past are doomed to relive it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. A quote from you: "You know perfectly well that this has nothing to do with Alito or Thomas"

QED.

[NurseJackie]

30. LOL!

[George II]

16. How about Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Heaven forbid Barrett? THOSE are consequences of 2016.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Well, find a thread about them (nt)

[George II]

18. Were it not for those two, or maybe three soon, what Thomas and Alito say about.....

...the 2015 Marriage Equality ruling would be inconsequential. They would be in a 4-5 or 3-6 minority. But due to the consequences of 2016, they'll be in a 5-4 or 6-3 majority.

[Gothmog]

21. The control of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016

Again, the math here is really rather simple. There were two religious nut jobs on the court prior to 2016. Soon there will be three more. Two plus three equal five. Five is the majority of the court.

The control of the SCOTUS was on the ballot. The idiots who voted for stein or who stayed home because they were made about sanders losing are the reason for the lost of the control of the court

[Gothmog]

19. Hillary warned us-control of the SCOTUS was on the ballot

Control of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016 and idiots who supported Stein or stayed home are to blame

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[oasis]

25. "By using SCOTUS, you can't blackmail me into supporting Hillary". I've

read a hundred such posts at a certain location.

[Gothmog]

27. How is JPR doing?

I have not visited that site in a while. I have saved their posts about applauding the booing of John Lewis

[CaptYossarian]

3. When Thomas and co. strike down the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery,

who will own him?

Welcome back to the Stone Age. Are we great again yet?

Maybe we should buy (disappearing) Greenland. The deplorables can start their Fourth Reich.

[not_the_one]

4. Thomas needs to be impeached. Ginni is cause enough FOR that impeachment.

Last gasps of desperation by the new Putin GOP. (IF we vote, count the votes, and count them accurately, we win in a blue tsunami.)

With Biden, we will become a true rainbow coalition of progress. These hate filled hacks will be a closed chapter in this country's sordid past. Sure, they will never be eliminated, but they will become so marginalized that they will be the equivalent of lepers. Shunned by all polite society.

The turd is their last gaseous fart in our general direction. It too will dissipate, and be gone.

If we won't impeach Thomas, I still suggest Biden appointing Anita Hill as a SC pick. That will take care of Thomas.

[mountain grammy]

6. Kim Davis is a victim????

unbelievable bullshit from the court that's not even a court.

[William Seger]

8. "legally tantamount to invidious discrimination"

Which it was. Nobody asked Davis to "alter [her] religious beliefs" -- just do her damned job or get out of the way.

[Marthe48]

9. Well said

I made a choice years ago that I wouldn't apply for or accept a job that was in opposition to my outlook. If davis wasn't prepared to serve the public, she should have looked for another job.

As it is, she is playing God and has more bias than the current s.c. and gop.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

10. I thought judges weren't supposed to legislate from the bench

Isn't that what Republicans are always screaming about?

[aggiesal]

11. This is not a political issue, this is a religious issue ...

The government needs to get out of the marriage making business and
just license/certify, individuals/entities, to perform marriages and report
the union to the government for tax purposes.

When that happens, the religious freedom groups would have no argument
with the government.

Your religious beliefs don't allow you to believe in same-sex marriages,
guess what? Don't practice same-sex marriage.
Marry whomever you want, nobody is stopping you.
Unfortunately, they really need to tell the rest of society that because they
don't believe in same-sex marriage, nobody should believe in same-sex marriages.

[JudyM]

31. Locking

Alerted on for non-mainstream news source, and for being essentially a dupe of this post’s news https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142596861 with analysis added.