You are fundamentally incapable of working at an abstract level. You simply don't understand what people like myself are interested in.
Gay marriage was written into law properly rather than by a complete work of fiction in the Supreme Court
What religious conservatives say and think is irrelevant, they hold very little sway on the nation's policy, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know any americans and only know of the country's politics through CNN
I hope you’re right about a progressive movement making a new better version, but I don’t believe for a second the conservative judges were thinking about that. it sounds nice, but there’s no way it’s true
This is not true and it's dependent on the same interpretation as the 14th.
The "conservative judges" were thinking that it was illegal (because it is) and that their court shouldn't be a place to write legislation for progressive causes (which is true)
this was jusge clarence thomas saying this in a legal document, not a guy on twitter
Gay marriage was enshrined by the Supreme Court?
Actually the interpretation is a little better.
Obergefell v Hodges upholds that it's unconstitutional to enforce a gay marriage ban.
you will not convince me judge clarence thomas had the wellbeing of anybody in mind
It has nothing to do with wellbeing you ■■■■■■■ it has to do with the law.
Your problem is you can't conceptualize the world in any way other than your own perspective
You think that Supreme Court justices are deciding what they think is right for the country, what direction the country's policy should go etc
That is distinctly not the role of Supreme Court outlined in the Constitution. Your failure to understand that means we will never get anywhere in this discussion
"Let Justice Be Done Though The Heavens Fall"
“I think Supreme justices are deciding what they think is best for the country”
YES ABSOLUTELY THEY ARE
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
what would you call this
This is actually the case because the legislative branch does nothing and the executive is simultaneously neutered to domestic policy but able to do whatever they want in regards to foreign policy.
youre gaslighting me acting like im delusional when im quoting the damn guy ur defendinf
this is insanely condescending and also wrong
There's MAJOR issues because the law doesn't work because the Constitution of "Freedom of Association" doesn't mesh with the Civil Rights Act Constitution, so they just keep kicking the can down the road because no one wants to be the one who blows it all up.
You argue from a near-utilitarian point of view, and utilitarianism has always been r*tarded.
you: Judge Clarence would never come for gay marriage, it was just this one thing!
Judge Clarence: In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold , Lawrence , and Obergefell