home

SCOTUS Rules Constitution Requires Marriage Equality

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 12:56:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Decision here.

Discuss.

< Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Act | Friday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SCOTUS Rules Constitution Requires Marriage Equality | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Congratulations, it's a big day (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    for all the divorce lawyers out there :)

    Or, to quote Chris Rock (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    "Go ahead, let 'em get married.  We'll come back in a couple years and see how gay* they still
    are then. ... they got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."
    -
    * as in "happy"

    Parent
    The cloud ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    in this silvering lining (beautifully written decision, btw) is in the long run this (and the ACA decision to a lesser degree) are good news for Republican presidential hopefuls.

    Because it kills two wedge issues that they're on the wrong side of.  And it dampens an issue that was key to Democratic grass roots organizing and fundraising.

    This will be especially helpful with suburban voters who became pro gay marriage five seconds ago. (But on Facebook act like they were always for it. Much like the Democratic Party.) Now they can maintain their cocktail party pro gay cred. And vote Republican.

    A few Republicans will double down on constitutional amendment talk. But that's a non starter. And will have little impact on the race ... except maybe in Iowa.

    This is a great day for gay rights.  But it could also turn out to be a pretty good day for Jeb Bush.

    Actually (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    this is bad news for the GOP because instead of just saying "it's settled law" they are now advocating for Jim Crow for gay people i.e. a repeat of the Indiana religious freedom law.

    Those cocktail voters were already voting R because they're all about taxes and really don't care whose rights get stomped on as long as they don't pay too much taxes.

    And if you read Jeb Bush's statement not so much. It's an entire bunch of circular nonsense about how it's decided law and we need to love our neighbors into Jim Crow for gays.

    Parent

    it depends how the primary plays out (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    You could end up with a Mitt Romney situation where a "moderate" is forced to adopt the more extreme positions to win the nomination, only to have it bite him in the end with the general.

    Or they could've learned from that mistake.

    Or they could actually nominate a full-crazy one.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    depends on who it is I guess. The problem for them is the people who vote in primaries no matter who the candidate is. If one of them said it's settled law and let's move past the gay issues they would be toast in the primary.

    Go to anyone of their facebook pages and you'll see nuttiness after nuttiness and bible quotes and how God is going to rain down hell on America and all kinds of BS.

    I think that people like Rence Preibus understand the problem but the voters do not. They have been coddled too long regarding these kinds of issues and anyone who doesn't toe the line is seen as "caving into liberals"

    I just don't see how anyone gets out of the GOP primary without signing onto all their wacko issues.

    Parent

    First Step... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    ...they need to locate a 'moderate' cause it ain't Jeb Bush.

    Parent
    People don't want ... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    want a "moderate".  

    They want their extreme views, and those of the candidate they support, to be called "moderate".

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    they are now saying it cannot be Jeb because his brother and father were the ones that put Souter and Roberts on the bench. They are definitely taking this out on the Bush family as part of the problem. Somehow they always seem to forget that Reagan was the one that put Kennedy on the bench.

    Parent
    That is Really Funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    I mean seriously, they are gonna flip at whatever person/people Hillary nominates when the time(s) come(s).

    They are basically mad that their people failed them, mad at the justices, mad that they can't attract more voters, mad that they are going to lose to HRC, mad that they won't have a say in the SCOTUS for most likely 16 years.  And it's all one-in-same issue, they want and won't give, and that non-sense in catching up to them, and guess what, they are mad about it and none of it is their fault.

    Parent

    The terrible (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    Horrible no good very bad week.

    And it ends with gay pride weekend.

    PFFFT

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    that describes what is going on with red state Republicans to a T. They are mad, very mad, and they are taking it out on the GOP because they've been promising to stop gay marriage and they failed and the majority of the court was picked by Republican presidents.

    Parent
    You think people will forget who is (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    on the wrong side of the wedge if the GOP candidates stop talking about it? And also that the press and/or the religious right base will let them stop talking abut it?

    OK, guess we shall see....

    Parent

    The religious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    base is NOT going to let them stop talking about it I can tell you right now. They want a solution to gay marriage and if you're not offering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or at least offering Jim Crow to gay people you are going nowhere.

    Frankly the GOP would have been better off if the supreme court had not decided this issue because they probably wouldn't have to find a "solution" to placate their voters.

    Parent

    Most Dems ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    including Obama were against it till five seconds ago.

    This is the first presidential election where it could have been used as a powerful wedge issue.

    But now that's not going to happen. And that helps the GOP.

    As I suggested there will be some who double down.  But that will help those that don't.  And smart pols have already looked at the numbers and realize there's no growth there.  So it will likely only be the marginal candidates that try to hang their candidacy on this.

    Parent

    I understand your point (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    but I refuse to care

    Parent
    Understood ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    just making a marker for later.

    Parent
    I actually think (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    the issue is far from going away.  In a way it just got turned to 11.
    Especially for the republican primary.  There are already locals yokels you are saying they will refuse to obey.    Huckaberry is kicking off a "Religious Liberty Tent Revival......um I'm mean TOWNHALL Tour". Next week.  Those guys were just given the gift of news coverage.
    As long as there there is stuff going on in the news and the courts it's not going away.

    Parent
    The Republican-candidate debates (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    ...may be unable to avoid this issue.

    I think the rabid reactionaries will force each candidate to take a stand - maybe to the point that they'll have to support a Constitutional Amendment to survive the primary....

    Parent

    As I said, some of the marginal ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    candidates will try to get some mileage out of it.

    But this isn't "Roe v. Wade".  The numbers just aren't there.

    Parent

    Inside the Republican Party (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    I believe they are there.  

    Parent
    DailyBeast (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    Even before the Supreme Court's ruling, several prominent Republicans had pledged to disobey any high court ruling in favor of marriage equality--and had called on their fellow Republican leaders to do the same.

    For instance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have both signed a pledge that reads, "We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman."

    Huckabee also challenged the authority of our nation's highest court when he said, "The Supreme Court can't overrule God."

    Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Steve King also called for Congress and any future Republican president to flagrantly ignore such a Supreme Court ruling.

    Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker issued one of the more curious formulations. "I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs," he said in a press release. "No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience."



    Parent
    What Walker (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    said is just bizarre. But then I guess he's got a line on the evangelicals being one himself and they're all screeching that they're going to be "forced" to marry gay people.

    Parent
    Not feeling too sorry for the evangelists... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    ... They'll be extracting a few new G650 Gulfstreams out'a the suckers to fight this battle.

    Parent
    I am not a biblical scholar but I (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    seem to recall passages in the bible when marriage was not between ONE man and ONE woman. IOW, there is no clear biblical understanding of marriage as SOLELY the Union of one man and one woman.

    Parent
    It's interesting wording (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    in not saying it violates anything that the bible actually says but rather their understanding of what it says.

    Parent
    Force them to participate? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    Did I miss the part of the ruling where straight people will be forced to enter into marriage with persons of the same sex?

    I just don't get it.  I don't understand what all this hysteria over "forcing" is about.  Who's being forced to do anything?

    Parent

    My theory (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    some of it is projection.  They would happily make us do things we find objectionable.   I believe for them imagining a mind that could not possibly care less what they do, caring as they do so very deeply about what we do,  is for them like understanding the effects of LSD without taking it.

    They have no frame of reference whatsoever.

    Parent

    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    they are like the little old lady snoop sisters that look out their window all the time trying to see what the neighbors are doing and then talk about how awful they are.

    Parent
    Force concientious objectors (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    to sell wedding cakes, photograph weddings, performance marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?  Who knows.

    Parent
    Let me ask you a practical question (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:38:53 PM EST
    k?

    If you were planning a wedding for yourself or anyone else for that matter would you knowingly choose a person for any of those services who did not want to do it?

    Never seen a "performance marriage ceremony" but it sounds interesting.

    Parent

    Maybe that's when you get ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "Never seen a 'performance marriage ceremony' but it sounds interesting."

    ... Laurie Anderson to officiate.

    Parent

    Isn't every wedding a performance? (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:08:27 PM EST


    Parent
    They're certainly not cheap. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:34:55 PM EST
    I just saw the estimate for Elder Daughter's wedding in August. I'll pay for the first one. But any others after that, and she's on her own!

    Parent
    Most of them scripted from start to finish (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:09:30 PM EST


    Parent
    you made me google (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:48:06 PM EST
    performance art weddings.

    Parent
    "have both signed a pledge" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:03:28 PM EST
    - the (old white) He-Man Gay Haters club.


    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    it really was a wedge issue for the GOP it seems to me. Those dems are going to let men get married to each other!!!

    There may be a lessening of activism in the gay community I would imagine but that doesn't mean they aren't going to show up and vote I would think. We had this discussion the other day about how excited they are about Hillary running.

    Parent

    Got it! (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 03:27:52 AM EST
    Change State law so that every marriage license  issued, automatically, gets a gun permit attached.

    Think of the possibilities.

    Parent

    Oh, for Heaven's sake, Shooter! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    Don't give them any ideas! ;-D

    P.S.: Actually, now that I think about it, we really shouldn't be joking about that at all. Very likely, there are wingbats in the NRA who monitor this site, given that the underlying theme of TL is "the politics of crime."

    And all it takes is one of them to slap his forehead with his palm, say "Ooh! Ooh! Why didn't I think of that?" and run to the organization's legislative liaison. The next thing we know, identical bills to that effect are introduced by their allies in the state legislatures across the country next January, just in time for the convening of their 2016 regular sessions.

    While I have every confidence that such an insane measure would never even receive a hearing in either chamber of the Hawaii legislature, all we have to do is look to those states like Iowa, which recently authorized the issuance of gun permits to the legally blind, to -- as you said above -- "think of the possibilities."

    And that scares the daylights out of me. The yahoos we're talking about are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, when it comes to basic common sense and public firearms protocols.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    As the fictional Republican Congressman Skinner said to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Josh Lyman on "The West Wing":

    Congressman Skinner: You know I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got two million members. You bring three million to the next meeting, call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns... bam! Move on.

    Josh Lyman: It's a heck of a strategy, Matt. I'll bring that up at a meeting.



    Parent
    Well, the Republicans (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    can still fall back on Benghazi. The "Aspersions on the Asparagus" party is pretty adept at manufacturing wedge issues.  The Supreme Court decision could take the edge off the Clown Car entrants dilemmas if they are smart.  But, they have never been accused of that attribute.

    Perhaps, after the primary their self-inflicted quandary will abate.  However, at this point, Jeb! is nostalgic for that easy question on Iraq that only took a week to answer--badly.  Of course, for Huckabee, marriage equality is not only cat nip for his followers, but also his own bread and butter.

    Agreed, that the child that was given birth today has a generation of fathers and mothers.  In reality, the gestation period was extensive and the child born is a bouncing adult.

    To me the poignant passage of the beautifully written opinion (I suspect was crafted as a joint venture) was the observation that the recognition of new insights and societal understandings have uncovered unjustified inequality  within the fundamental institution that was passed over unnoticed and unchallenged.  Indeed, easy to pass over when suppressed by anachronistic criminal laws.

    Although the Chief Justice, in his dissent, sees the Court's decision as a cause for celebration for gays as well as other supporters, he says that the constitution is not its basis.  It seems the Chief is trying to span the chasm, but he constructs a bridge to nowhere. It is the Constitution that is celebrated.

    The other dissenters come up with thread-bare traditional arguments on traditional marriage.  Alito hangs his hat on traditional marriage means procreation, not that "thoroughly modern millie" idea of happiness of persons who chose to marry.  It is a wonderment how Alito, that good Catholic, explains traditional marriage for divorcees who want to receive communion need to be chaste, living like brother and sister  (non-Deliverance siblings only).

    Scalia opines that marriage (traditional) abridges rather than expands intimacy.  Just asking for a hippie, he claims.  He needs to loosen up his cilice and move beyond the Haight Ashbury lore he has read about.  The Scalia rant that remains is more targeted at the Court than the issue.  

    Of course, there will be a reaction. After all, we are dealing with reactionaries.  The country may have to suffer from sincerely held beliefs against baking for gays, but that will fall, along with Hobby Lobby's Lincoln's Birthday Confederate Flag sale.

    Parent

    Uplifted; optimistic (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    You might want to listen to the whole of President Obama's Eulogy for Rev. Pinckney.  Good eulogies have a way of drawing so many aspects of life and community together.  See, for example: Marc Antony's eulogy for Caesar and President Lincoln's renowned Gettysburg Address.

    Don't get me wrong ... I'm not presuming that the President's eulogy for the fallen pastor/statesman today reached the level of unforgettable.  But--as a number of reporters said and even stammered afterward--this Eulogy is remarkable in a week remarkable for expansion of human rights.  The Eulogy did what the best of such statements do: Address the situation with understanding, description, genuine sympathy for survivors, etc. ... then, take the condolence & honor message to a broader level, a higher purpose by intertwining happenings with personal and public events.  When the Eulogy marks a path forward, it moves beyond condolence to cause. It is a spiritual movement from despair to sorrow to renewal ... and more.  

    The reality of love and human dignity could not be missed this week.  So...among other things, let the rightwing squabble with themselves right now; let them shout with hateful faces and voices. The tempo, I think, has been changed at a deeper level.  The fanatics may not know what hit them with the long-delayed backlash of public sentiment.  If anything, recent days may well show even the most cynical that (this time) "the times they are a'changing" ; and, the change will be for the better. It just takes awhile.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:45:21 AM EST
    I really love listening to people who know the English language, specifically, know how to utilize a minimum of words, and capture the maximum effect. I doubt you can learn it, it's a gift, I think.

    Just this second, in writing this, the "Gettysburg Address" popped into my head. Talk about getting maximum efficiency out of your words. A thousand years from now the "Address" will still be required reading.

    I watched David Boies on Charlie Rose tonight. Just listening to him explain an issue (The SC Marriage ruling today) I couldn't help fantasizing, "Man, if only I could speak like that guy." It's easy to understand why he is one of the most sought after lawyers in the world. I was mesmerized by Boies the first time I saw him. I don't recall the case he was talking about, but it doesn't matter. If you had the good fortune to hear his explanation of the Bush/Gore case, you knew, unequivocally, that the only way he could lose that verdict was if "the fix was in."

    And, wow, when he teamed up with Theodore Olson, the most "hated" sentry on earth, coming from the most "hated" tribe on earth, and partnering up to work on one of the most divisive issues on earth, it wasn't a question anymore, the man walks on water.

    Listen, I gotta get outta here, or I'll go on all night. What I started out wanting to say was that I was always for same sex, marriage equality, but I never, ever, heard it explained "why" like I did tonight. Boies gave credit to Justice Kennedy, not just for today's ruling, but, today's ruling as a continuation of his prior "swing man" rulings. While it was obvious (to me, anyway) that Boies abhors Kennedy's philosophy, and decisions, most of the time, he is able to separate a specific decision (together with the train of thought leading to it) from the other times. It was fascinating to watch.

    Boies went, so seamlessly, from oozing disgust at the majority of Kennedy's work & philosophy, to one of unfettered amazement, almost worship, in describing the perfect, flawless thinking that ran through the trilogy of decisions he made prior, and that were consummated today. It sounds so corny, even as I'm writing this right now, but, when a lawyer like Boies can make what looks like an epiphany for Kennedy on this topic, into his own, then transfer it to me, so that I understand the meaning of "Fundamental Rights" like I never understood it before, I know what "they" mean to "stand in the presence of greatness."  

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:41:13 AM EST
    I really love listening to people who know the English language, specifically, know how to utilize a minimum of words, and capture the maximum effect

    should never be the start of a long response :)

    Parent

    But at this point, the wedge issues of ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    ... gay marriage and the Confederate flag, which once worked to great electoral effect for Republicans as recently as a decade ago, now hold tremendous potential for use as a political cudgel against them.

    Recent events have caught the GOP standing flatfooted, both in the public spotlight and on the wrong side of history. And leading a futile attempt at escape from the Liberal Hell that's enveloping them is none other than Justice Antonin "California does not count" Scalia himself, screaming down the halls while looking in vain for the nearest hippie to punch.

    L. O. L.

    Parent

    And there is also (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    Nino saying:

    "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," he writes. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

    Crooks and Liars

    Really, Nino?  Really?  A "Putsch"?  You're comparing this to the Nazis???
    He really needs to step back and take a few deep breaths, learn some relaxation techniques, or maybe take a few hits from a bong.  Otherwise, he's in danger of stroking out. He needs to watch his blood pressure.

    Parent

    From one of the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    Citizens United boys.

    Parent
    You mean the same folks (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:47:36 PM EST
    who brought us Bush v. Gore, minus 2 plus 2 worse than the 2 who left?

    That was a fine piece of Constitutional adjudication - equal protection of people whose votes had been counted for the candidate of their choice meant the votes of others that hadn't yet been counted would never be counted.  Riiiight.

    Parent

    Sotomayor? Ginsburg? Thomas, even? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    Patrician?  I think not.

    Parent
    Well, this is (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    Scalia we're quoting, here.  He seems to have gone even farther around the bend than he used to be, if that's possible.

    Parent
    Scalia trolls again (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:24:16 PM EST


    Parent
    IMHO, Nino needs to do more than ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    ... step back, take a few deep breaths and watch his blood pressure. The man is rapidly proving himself to be a judicial embarrassment of the first rank, and he needs to retire.

    This has now gone way above and beyond his own partisan inclinations. Justice Scalia's always been somewhat irascible and prickly, but of late his increasingly nasty temperament is such that he's quickly rendering himself inherently unfit for the bench.

    "Ask the nearest hippie." In a Supreme Court dissenting opinion, no less! Jeez, that sort of childish vitriol, in which he's apparently channeling his inner bitter old queen, would likely be worthy of reprimand and / or sanction from his peers, had he been an appellate or trial judge.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Activists ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    who've championed this issue for close to 30 years, deserve the real credit.

    Politicians, until recently, have been MIA.  The Democratic Party has an embarrassingly spotty record on this issue.

    It's a reminder that if you want to change something politically in this country, you have to start outside the system.

    And the battle will probably take decades.  You will be generally ignored till you get things to a tipping point. And if things actually change, you probably won't get much of the credit.

    But you can change things this way. It's probably the only way. Today is another reminder of that.

    Justice Kennedy must have a wonderful (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    marriage. What did I miss about that institution?!

    It is remarkable that CJ Roberts was roundly criticized in dissent re his ACA majority opinion yesterday, w/the dissent quoting the same portion of The Federalist as the CJ quoted in his dissent in the same sex marriage case today.  

    Today's dissents strongly resonate w/the pre-birth control pill 1950s. Such moralizing.

    Agreed. And, just yesterday (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    in his ACA dissent, Scalia says "words don't mean anything."  In his dissent of today, Scalia says California is not west.

    Parent
    How the HECK did... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    ... he ever get this reputation as some sort of intellectual giant? I have never understood that.

    Parent
    He wore hats (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    European hats worn in scholarly procession at university.  Scal