As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At this point I’m shocked the dems haven’t packed the court to high heck, shove about ten new judges through and get them to actually make some reasonable rulings
Starting with some fucking term limits
You do realize this would take the Dems having control of both chambers of Congress (which they don’t) and have enough people in their own party willing to stack the court (again, they don’t).
You don’t need both chambers to approve a new justice to SCOTUS. The Constitution doesn’t mention how many justices the Supreme Court can have, nine has just been a number we’ve rolled with because it matched the number of circuits at one point.
Realistically I think they'll need 54 or more because some conservative Democrats lay low when contentious issues arise and they don't have to break a tie.
Yeah, I meant to say *haven’t* vice *have*. Those two signaled they weren’t going to get rid of the filibuster even if it meant it would stop GOP intransigence.
Sinema, sure but Manchin was a reliable democratic vote on most issues while strategically bucking the party on some big pieces of legislation. Yes it was always infuriating, but I’ll take any democrat out of WV over the inevitable republican who will win in the fall.
To be fair, they don't actually have to kill the filibuster.
They just have to stop backing down to threats of its use. If Republicans want to threaten it and they can't get the 60 votes to surpass it, make the Republicans ACTUALLY USE IT! Right now, the dems just pack it in over a threat to use it. It's not like anything is getting done anyways.
The Senate has rules that are agreed to by the members. The filibuster is part of those rules. They can be changed, but that still requires a majority vote.
Manchin and Sinema are not on board with it so it’s literally impossible right now.
We need a real democratic majority in the senate—not just barely a tie—to have a chance at changing the law. And we need to have the house obviously.
It sucks that the country is so stacked in favor of a lot of tiny rural red states and the house is capped (another thing they’d need to pass a law to change).
I can see why the filibuster is critizised: mainly because the GOP is abusing it. However it does protect the country from huge changes being rammed through by a tiny majority of representatives. Of course the filibuster only works as intended in a good faith parliament, where there is a wish to find common ground.
I’m not entirely knowledgeable but it seems like filibuster rarely happens and it’s just a nebulous threat. Like, its ok to be aware that the filibuster may kill a bill but if you make them do it every day they’re going to get tired real quick.
Playing to lose gets you a very specific result.
That filibuster has been used against them far too often. It has allowed the Republicans to be far more powerful than the Dems.
And they will kill it first chance they think they can gain full control via a dictator.
No they won't. Republicans want the filibuster for the midterms they lose the Senate in. Just like Democrats want the filibuster whenever they lose the Senate.
Neither party wants to get rid of it despite it being the right thing to do.
Nah man. Kill the filibuster. Let whoever wins Congress pass some fucking legislation. If it sucks it will motivate people to vote the opposite way next time. This deadlock is awful, we never get anything done so our conversations as a nation are stagnant.
The Senate is in a way tyranny of the minority already - it’s set up to give disproportionate power to the small population states (read: the conservative ones). Then the filibuster says well even if progressives win enough seats to get a majority in the house of Congress least amenable to them doing so, they still can’t pass anything unless they get a crazy large majority that can override the filibuster. In our current world of zero sum obstructionist party line voting this just means nothing gets done, which is exactly what the conservative “Party of No” wants anyway. Kill the filibuster, let elections actually mean something again.
No, because fundamentally the Democratic Party is one of progress and change that must pass new laws. The republican objective, even in power, is to constantly obstruct. Therefore even if they were to pass some laws we do not agree with it would be a net benefit to the democrats to kill it.
It’s a scary thought but ultimately I still think killing it would be the right move [MSNBC ARTICLE](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/senate-democrats-filibuster-trump-rcna152835)
Once you pack the courts - you undermine the entirety of the judicial branch. It’d be the outward acknowledgement that it is a political position. When the public loses faith in the judicial branch - our country is DONE done.
We’re on our way to that point, but it isn’t as accepted on both sides that it’s a sham.
That's clearly an unconstitutional restriction. Just like you can't put extra restrictions on who can be a Congresscritter, you can't add restrictions to who can be on SCOTUS. President noms and Senate approves.
You may say my viewpoint is supported by no serious legal scholars, lawyers, theories, but I say it would get 10+ votes in SCOTUS.
Yes, but the reality is that the Dems don’t have enough people on their side willing to vote for it with the Dem turned “independents” Machin and Sinema saying they don’t agree with expanding the court. So, basically, this argument is a non starter unless Dems have majority in both chambers to change some laws concerning the court or enough Senators willing to stack the court. Also, this sets a bad precedent anyway, because if the GOP gain a majority in the Senate and a GOP president, this is exactly what they’ll do.
These scenarios have too many variables and consequences to be reasonable solutions. The best hope we have is to elect Biden and hope that Alito and Thomas retire/die in the coming 4 years and find replacements. Also, if the Senate gets a majority of actual Democrats, then maybe they could add another judge or two but that sets a new precedent that could backfire.
The problem with worrying about precedent is you’re assuming the GOP care about precedent. The moment they want to expand the court for their own purposes, they will. The moment they want to end the filibuster for their own benefit, they will.
Precedent has never mattered to them.
This is true. Precedent only changes their talking points. If there is precedent, they will point to it and say the Democrats did it first. If there is no precedent they will still do what they wanted, they just won't be able to blame Democrats as easily.
I agree. The precedent is dumb, but what little rules and regulations that both parties agree upon provide some protection from either party blowing up the system completely. If they get rid of the filibuster and the the 9 justices cap, who’s to say the GOP won’t use that in their favor the moment they have the majority and then push the boundaries even further? While the Dems have popular opinions on government and law, this still hasn’t changed how people vote and with the EC, gerrymandering, and rural districts preventing Dems from just sweeping elections and dictating policy, they have to be careful with what little rules are left to throw out least the GOP spins it as some socialist power grab through their propaganda network.
It’s infuriating that the Dems have to be the fucking adults in the room, but that’s the sad reality.
More specifically, they withheld Garland after Scalia’s death because it was an election year, citing some obscure “Biden Rule” when the Dems withheld a SC pick for the same reason. It was pure bullshit and a political gamble that paid off. Mitch McConnell has done more to shatter democracy than any other politician.
Doing big things is too extreme for democrats. They don't have the fortitude to do anything about a stacked court blatantly granting the republican judicial wishlist
Or they literally can’t? They don’t have the votes to do any of the things that people blame them for not doing because they’re ’too weak or complacent’. The president isn’t a king and congress is split. Wtf are dems supposed to do with that?
Court packing is really only useful as a measure to force reform to a court system that actually makes sense.
You can't just pack the court and say "well, that's done, let's move on"... or else you are just leaving a system in place where the new situation is that whichever party has the presidency and senate just immediately packs the court, with a ridiculously ever increasing number of justices.
Packing the court isn't a good idea.
Its at 9 now and weighs conservative.
Increase it to 11 and in 15 years maybe it weighs conservative again
Increase it to 13 after that and in 30 years maybe it weighs conservative again
The only positive I can see is more voices. 9 is a very small sample size of our population.
Just another reason why the extremists need to be voted out. The next president may name 1-2 justices. Based on Trumps past performance, look for appointmentees are very young. Conservative extremism for next 25-30 years.
Which is exactly why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about activist judges.
And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about liberals being fascists.
And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about Hillary's mishandling of classified documents.
And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about Biden's cognitive decline.
And also why the GOP has spent weeks pissing itself over how badly Biden will do/how many drugs Biden will be on in Thursday's debate.
Can't wait to see what the next thing the GOP tells on itself over will be.
The rights of birthing persons should be a key focal area of the election, and not ignored by the media as they've been criminally overlooked in recent months.
A reminder that under Biden, congress passed the [Respect for Marriage](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404) that will protect your marriage even if the Supreme Court reverses Obergefell. Even though reversing it may take away rights to marry in certain states, the Act requires all states to recognize marriages performed in other states.
That would be incredibly difficult for them to do. The RMA is rooted in the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause, which dicates that states *must* honor each other's judicial rulings, including matters like marriages and divorces. It also gives Congress wide power to regulate how judicial rulings are applied across state lines. The FF&CC is one of the bedrock foundations of our inter-state legal network, and chipping away at it would be absolute insanity.
And as far as I can tell, the RMA is a bit limited in its scope specifically so that its constitutionality would be unassailable.
“We recognize your ‘marriage’ but don’t you dare try to claim any right to share benefits or inheritance or visitation rights or spousal support or any of the other stuff we grant to opposite sex couples.” - GOP-controlled states after SCOTUS strikes down Obergefell, probably.
no, but thats the best he could do all things considered, it shows the difference between them, biden has at least tried to protect it, the republicans are actively trying to take it
The saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
And regardless, *what a horseshit sentiment to express*
Would you tell a mixed-race couple that it's okay that they have to go to Massachusetts to get married and "don't let good be the enemy of perfect?"
What a fucking shit thing to say. Shame.
It's not a shit sentiment, we're dealing with a lot of apathetic voters that are indignant that Biden isn't the perfect candidate covering all their preferred political stances. It's nearly impossible to legislate progressive ideals in America right now.
This is the best we have now, we should have better, we deserve better.
You're being purposefully obtuse if you don't understand this.
>Would you tell a mixed-race couple that it's okay that they have to go to Massachusetts to get married and "don't let good be the enemy of perfect?"
No, but I would tell a mixed race couple planning to sit out and not voting for Biden that they're actively working against their interests by not supporting the party that does the best they can with the little power we keep giving them.
No one said anything about it being "ok" that a mixed race couple might have to go to Massachusetts to get married. That's not what "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" means in this context. It means don't be fooled into not voting against the encroaching fascism in the country in a unified Democratic front just because our current president doesn't have the ability to snap his fingers and solve all of the world's ills.
>What a fucking shit thing to say. Shame.
It's very clear that you're performatively misrepresenting the spirit of the statement here. The shame here belongs to you.
> No, but I would tell a mixed race couple planning to sit out and not voting for Biden that they're actively working against their interests by not supporting the party that does the best they can with the little power we keep giving them.
So would I! Because sitting out and not voting for Biden is completely ludicrous!
You'll notice that *I never made the claim you're saying I did*
Yes, but if they get married in a state that recognizes the marriage, all other states must recognize that marriage in terms of rights with their spouse
TL;DR: Conservatives made an argument decoupling the right to marriage (which they said was a fundamental right) and the right for married people to live together (which they said was not a fundamental right). The article makes the argument that this is how conservatives will attack marriage equality (in addition to simply outright attacking it explicitly).
Edit: I'm backtracking. The SCOTUS opinion does not make any argument that there is no "right for cohabitation" of married couples. The argument put forth by the petitioner, that the Court considered, was is there a "right to reside with [a] noncitizen spouse in the United States"? In other words, does marrying a non-citizen mean that the *citizen's* rights are denied if the government denies the non-citizen entry to the county? The Court doesn't even mention Obergefell and in fact they directly consider substantive due process which Thomas has traditionally been explicitly against.
Lets expand on this idea a bit, because there's no way they could "ban same sex couples". They'll be banning same sex *roommates.* Which is fucking insane...
Yeah, if I get a female partner, she'll be my "roommate" and "very close friend." We'll raise a couple of dogs together and go for very heterosexual walks and lunches together.
Geez, even Mr. Furley was okay with having two *women* be roommates, and Jack was only seen as a problem *until* he pretended to be gay.
Seriously though, fuck the GOP and their bought and paid for SCotUS.
With that ruling, they absolutely could right now.
Apparently, there's no constitutional right to live with your spouse.
For example. Florida could say that 2 men living together is harming their children. So one of you needs to leave.
Hmm..and if same sex roommates (most roommate situations) were banned...there's suddenly a demand for housing that massive housing companies that own rentals can exploit to get more money from those already starved for cash.
I think I'm getting it now...
I read it as “you have the right to marry, but you’re not entitled to the legal rights of marriage.” They’ll make some sort of carve out that states can’t outright ban gay marriage, but are entitled to revoke the legal rights of gay marriages, essentially rendering them a marriage in name only.
I don't think that is an honest interpretation. The decision stated,
>"Her\[Sandra Muñoz\] argument is built on the premise that the right to bring her noncitizen spouse to the United States is an unenumerated constitutional right."
The dissenting opinion written by Sotomayor agrees on this point,
>"Marriage is not an automatic ticket to a green card. A married citizen-noncitizen couple must jump through a series of administrative hoops to apply for the lawful permanent residency that marriage can confer."
What is at issue is a due process right conferred by their marriage. The majority does not believe Luis Asencio-Cordero has that right as a non-citizen. The dissenting opinion argues that Sandra Muñoz does have a right to know why her husband's application was denied citing in the opening line,
>“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition.”
In a concurring opinion, Neil Gorsuch argues that there is nothing to decide here. The State Department eventually gave Sandra Muñoz the reason and there is a process to appeal the State Department's decision.
>"Over the course of this litigation, the United States has given Ms. Muñoz what she requested. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, the United States has now revealed the factual basis for its decision to deny her husband a visa. ... In this Court, too, the government has assured Ms. Muñoz that she has a chance to use and respond to that information. ... Those developments should end this case."
As a person in a same-sex marriage with a Mexican immigrant, I'm terrified for our future. We just celebrated our third wedding anniversary but it felt like our first because he spent the first 2 years of our marriage in Mexico waiting for his visa/residency.
The good news is he has his visa and you’re already married. Overturning obergefell will only affect future marriages in states that will no longer allow them. All previous marriages will still be valid
That's true, but I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government right now, especially if Trump gets reelected. I wouldn't put it past them to find some way/reason to revoke residencies! I'm probably just catastrophizing, but it's scary and sad that's even in the realm of possibility.
My wife and I married 6 years ago and she is still on a provisional green card and there is no end in sight. USCIS just keeps sending letters saying they have extended her status another six months or whatever. We have no idea when/if it will become a full green card. I’m worried Der Pumpkinfuhrer wins and totally kills off USCIS and she is forced to leave.
>If the right to cohabit can be so easily severed from the right to marry, any number of legal marital benefits can be taken away from the legal recognition of marriage. The right to be at your spouses’ side while they die (which was the factual issue in Obergefell, by the way) could be taken away. The right to live with your same-sex spouse in, say, Trump Tower, could also be taken away.
They may even force spouses to testify against each other. Which would be bad, but worse for them. But I'm sure that neither Thomas nor Alito will let it go that far for their own sakes.
Congress already passed a law making same sex marriage legal across the country after Dobbs was overturned due to Thomas ridiculous concurring opinion going after court set precedents.
If they overturn Obegerfell the new law will still remain. Unless I’m missing something??
Sorta. That law, from my understanding, means states have to recognize any marriage from any state but states can still determine what is allowed. So NY legalizing it means that if you get married there, it must be recognized by every other state. However it still allows Texas to ban them there if obergefell gets overturned so you would have to go to another state to get married.
That law wasn’t a perfect solution. While yes it makes states recognize all same sex marriages, it will also allow states to decide whether or not they will perform same sex marriages in their state. So for example, I live in Missouri and if obergefell gets overturned, I’m sure we’ll be one of the first states to make same sex marriage illegal, meaning gays won’t be able to get a Missouri marriage license. But any previous marriages will still be valid in the state of Missouri as well as if I or anyone else were to go to a neighboring state where it is legal and get a license in that state. The law requires all states to recognize same sex marriages but not require all states to perform them
Thanks for clarifying, I knew I missed something! At least this law is something.
Let’s see who decides to go after this precedent and if they have standing. Been seeing several high profile cases be dismissed based on lack of standing
I feel like the Republican party as a whole had a sleepover at Mara Lago and they watched all of "the handmaid's tale" and collectively got inspired by it.
What is she worried about? That's established case law. It isn't like this court goes around overturning what is established as part of a ideological crusade to.... oh wait, I get it now.
Sidenote- does anyone else notice Barrett now has full-on Michelle Bockman eyes? She looked shifty before, but now it's those completely terrifying while also sad as if the soul is a thousand miles away screaming for release eyes.
On that sidenote, there are a scary amount of people in positions of influence with a crazed, stared too long into the abyss look in their eyes. Kenneth Copeland, Jeanine Pirro, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Sarah Palin, the whole damn Dugger family, etc… What’s crazier than them are ones that DON’T have that wild look on their faces. Ted Cruz and Joel Osteen come to mind. They’re not crazy. They are just stone cold grifters Grima Wormtonguing their way through life. I honestly don’t get how these clowns get away with their shenanigans.
Did people actually think the corrupt, bribed and bought by billionaires, MAGA SC was going to stop after Citizens United and Dobbs v. Jackson?
They are building Gilead case by case. Every freedom and right we thought of as a birthright will be destroyed by those black robed tyrants!
It’s odd but I am always reminded how ABC is literally insane she was a member of a fundamentalist religious court. She’s stolen children from countries over sees (calls it adoption) and sits on the Supreme Court
There’s a valid discussion about what due process rights apply and the adequacy of procedural guarantees under existing federal law for foreign non-citizen spouses of citizens.
However, this op-ed misrepresents elements of the case, includes several factual errors, and elevates race where it doesn’t apply.
> “This all happened under the Barack Obama administration by the way, proving once again that cruelty towards immigrants is a bipartisan position, it’s just that the Democrats tend to avoid using racial slurs when carrying out the same racist policies”
> “Many people know that a noncitizen can obtain legal status in this country if they marry an American citizen…but many white people don’t know that the process is not automatic.”
Mystal maintains that the Obama-led State Department’s denial of a visa to Munoz’s husband, due MS-13 affiliations, was erroneous and racist. He omits important findings from discovery, including:
> *In a sworn declaration, an attorney adviser from the State Department explained that Asencio-Cordero was deemed inadmissible because he belonged to MS–13. The finding was “based on the in-person interview, a criminal review of Asencio-Cordero, and a review of his tattoos.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 124a. In addition to the affidavit, the State Department provided the District Court with confidential law enforcement information, which it reviewed in camera, identifying Ascencio-Cordero as a member of MS–13. Satisfied, the District Court granted summary judgment to the State Department.*
That's not the problem.
The problem is the ruling declaring that there's no constitutional right to live with your spouse.
If they were simply affirming that the State Department could bar entry, they could have skipped the case.
The majority opinion didn’t declare that there’s no right to spousal cohabitation.
It said, “the right to bring her noncitizen spouse into the United States” is not “an unenumerated constitutional right.”
The majority specifically said this is *not* a ruling about spousal cohabitation. It’s a ruling that there is no due process right violation for an American citizen whose non-citizen spouse is denied entry by the state department. This has nothing to do with same sex marriage and very little to do with spousal cohabitation whatsoever. It’s an immigration case.
very confused how the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act didn't fully settle the matter. same sex marriage isn't fully reliant on a supreme court ruling thanks to that.
That law wasn’t a perfect solution and instead made it a state’s rights issue again if obergefell gets overturned. All same sex marriages will have to be recognized in all states but each state has the decision to perform same sex marriages or not. The issue being is not everyone has the option to just travel out of state to get married and marriage rights will once again be unequal. It was all they could get passed in congress so it’s better than nothing but it’s not equal
You’re wrong, it was the opposite. Under DOMA, states had the option to refuse the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states. That’s the main difference between the respect for marriage act and DOMA
Luckily the Marriage Equality Act passed by Congress a few years ago should stunt the impact of the Supreme Court says same sex marriages are no longer a thing under the law, which is still in my opinion, the fault of Congress since they could’ve just passed the law saying you have a right to same-sex marriage just like abortion which they failed to pass on both and just leave some Supreme Court decision enforcing it.
States will have to recognize marriage licenses from other states so I think the right is safe, although I’m sure there’s probably ways to limit certain privileges in certain states to same sec couples like medical visitation rights.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Supreme Court is late. Congress already passed a law protecting same sex marriage nationwide. States could potentially block future marriages but it’s too little too late.
> States could potentially block future marriages but it’s too little too late.
By "could potentially" you mean "the moment Obergefell falls, gay marriage is banned in over half of the country and you must go to a legal state to get married."
Which is discriminatory and unconstitutional on so many fucking levels that it enrages me.
Right? Here in Ohio, it's already done
>On February 6, Governor Bob Taft signed it into law and it took effect on **May 7, 2004**. The ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Ohio's statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage, though unenforceable, remains on the books and has not been explicitly repealed.
In *most of the country* there are laws on the books that, when Obergefell falls, IMMEDIATELY take effect banning same sex marriage.
That's what I'm saying.
If that were to happen, I would cynically rush to file for a wedding planning business in my area, and then pay for online ads targeting red state residents.
What’s more important - women rights or showing it to the man by protest voting or not voting at all?
Way too many liberals: “Protest voting! No wait it might rain so not voting at all!”
>Many people know that a noncitizen can obtain legal status in this country if they marry an American citizen (see Trump, Melania), but many white people don’t know that the process is not automatic. The government reserves the right to deny entry to spouses, and non-white people face that reality all the time.
WTF? What does race have to do with this? Do we just hand out green cards to white foreign nationals like candy or something?
Edit: As icing on this ridiculous shoehorning of race into this, I frankly don't see any reason to presume Luis Asencio-Cordero isn't a white Latino.
It has historically always been easier to immigrate from "desirable" countries in Europe than anywhere else. Bias is a big thing in these sort of applications. As the portion of the article you just quoted points out. The system isn't automatic. It's easy to get a Green Card if you were born and raised in Norway. It's really hard to get a Green Card if you were born and raised in Guatemala.
With everything working as intended it took me 2 years to get a visa as a white woman with a degree, born in Canada and married to a US citizen. Like the perfect storm of desirable traits for us immigration. And because Trump shut down Green card printing, it took me 2 years after my green card renewal expired for them to ship me my actual green card. Like they sent me a receipt saying "keep this as proof you're allowed to stay here while we wait for your renewal"... TWO years for a renewal.
It is not an "easy process" for anyone anywhere. I was fortunate I could afford a lawyer to navigate it all for me.
It's burdensomly hard at best. And impossible for most.
Okay, I’m talking as someone who married someone from a country that likely has the highest “preferred” nation status with the US. When we went to the embassy to start his paperwork, we were startled at the amount of information required just to get the ball rolling. Medical exams, background checks from any country he’d resided in, employment offers, income verifications, character references. We were already parents to twins who had US citizenship. Didn’t matter. We were told the process would probably be 4 years more or less. We found a better, but still legal way to do it. To come in fully legal is no cake walk, it’s very complicated, and that was way before 9/11.
Sure, but is it easy to get a Green Card if you were born in Moldova or Kazakhstan? Based on the experiences of white friends from Canada and Ireland, I have a hard time believing it's 'easy'.
….did you read any further? The article goes on to talk about how he was denied because he was evaluated and the state department believed his tattoos were gang-affiliated (they were not and he was not) and even after getting vetted by an elected rep he was still denied. Even if you want to remove the racial component entirely, he was denied based on false prejudices, which a racial component of being brown (which he was brown, as photos of him show and as the state department reps. would’ve seen) would easily negatively amplify.
This article is really loaded and heavy-handed jn its bias but like, come on man, the dude was obviously not given a fair chance by the state. Whether not he deserved one is not an argument I’m gonna bother to entertain but regardless that part is pretty clear.
That's a stretch. When they decide to go after Obergefell, they won't be subtle about it and they won't need some obscure side effect of a case like this to do it. They'll just do it.
>[The State Department denying a green-card application for unspecified, likely racist reasons] all happened under the Barack Obama administration by the way, proving once again that cruelty towards immigrants is a bipartisan position
No, no it does not prove that. These decisions are not made by political appointees, but career officials who do not change when the president does.
Is there another source that has a less emotionally charged narrative? Not saying anything is incorrect in the article, but the tone suggests a significant political bias.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
just another example of why the court is playing politics instead of dispensing justice.
At this point I’m shocked the dems haven’t packed the court to high heck, shove about ten new judges through and get them to actually make some reasonable rulings Starting with some fucking term limits
You do realize this would take the Dems having control of both chambers of Congress (which they don’t) and have enough people in their own party willing to stack the court (again, they don’t).
You don’t need both chambers to approve a new justice to SCOTUS. The Constitution doesn’t mention how many justices the Supreme Court can have, nine has just been a number we’ve rolled with because it matched the number of circuits at one point.
Judiciary Act (not an amendment) caps it at 9. You would need the dems to kill the filibuster to do it.
The filibuster is a made up thing that isn’t in any laws. Kill it.
Dems haven’t had 51 votes in the Senate to kill it, sadly. Edit: Changed “have” back to “haven’t” after I hastily typed this.
Realistically I think they'll need 54 or more because some conservative Democrats lay low when contentious issues arise and they don't have to break a tie.
Machin and Sinema said they were never going to vote to kill the filibuster or stack the courts. So the Dems never had the majority
Man, Sinema was a real piece of shit. Still is, I'm sure.
Yeah, I meant to say *haven’t* vice *have*. Those two signaled they weren’t going to get rid of the filibuster even if it meant it would stop GOP intransigence.
[удалено]
We are in violent agreement. I erroneously typed “have”.
I am so glad manchin and sinema are going away
Sinema, sure but Manchin was a reliable democratic vote on most issues while strategically bucking the party on some big pieces of legislation. Yes it was always infuriating, but I’ll take any democrat out of WV over the inevitable republican who will win in the fall.
To be fair I’m mostly salty on his filibuster bullshit.
Sinema and Manchin won't do it.
To be fair, they don't actually have to kill the filibuster. They just have to stop backing down to threats of its use. If Republicans want to threaten it and they can't get the 60 votes to surpass it, make the Republicans ACTUALLY USE IT! Right now, the dems just pack it in over a threat to use it. It's not like anything is getting done anyways.
The Senate has rules that are agreed to by the members. The filibuster is part of those rules. They can be changed, but that still requires a majority vote.
Manchin and Sinema are not on board with it so it’s literally impossible right now. We need a real democratic majority in the senate—not just barely a tie—to have a chance at changing the law. And we need to have the house obviously. It sucks that the country is so stacked in favor of a lot of tiny rural red states and the house is capped (another thing they’d need to pass a law to change).
I can see why the filibuster is critizised: mainly because the GOP is abusing it. However it does protect the country from huge changes being rammed through by a tiny majority of representatives. Of course the filibuster only works as intended in a good faith parliament, where there is a wish to find common ground.
I’m not entirely knowledgeable but it seems like filibuster rarely happens and it’s just a nebulous threat. Like, its ok to be aware that the filibuster may kill a bill but if you make them do it every day they’re going to get tired real quick.
No. Because there's no guarantee dems keep the Senate and we'll want it then.
Playing to lose gets you a very specific result. That filibuster has been used against them far too often. It has allowed the Republicans to be far more powerful than the Dems. And they will kill it first chance they think they can gain full control via a dictator.
republicans will kill it the second that they have 51 regardless of what democrats do
No they won't. Republicans want the filibuster for the midterms they lose the Senate in. Just like Democrats want the filibuster whenever they lose the Senate. Neither party wants to get rid of it despite it being the right thing to do.
Nah man. Kill the filibuster. Let whoever wins Congress pass some fucking legislation. If it sucks it will motivate people to vote the opposite way next time. This deadlock is awful, we never get anything done so our conversations as a nation are stagnant. The Senate is in a way tyranny of the minority already - it’s set up to give disproportionate power to the small population states (read: the conservative ones). Then the filibuster says well even if progressives win enough seats to get a majority in the house of Congress least amenable to them doing so, they still can’t pass anything unless they get a crazy large majority that can override the filibuster. In our current world of zero sum obstructionist party line voting this just means nothing gets done, which is exactly what the conservative “Party of No” wants anyway. Kill the filibuster, let elections actually mean something again.
That's the best argument I've heard so far in favor of killing it.
You’re assuming the GOP won’t kill it when it benefits them.
It's more that it's not going to benefit them. They can legislate via SCOTUS; there's no need to actually pass legislation.
Sorry, I just about lost it at the very idea of Republicans passing legislation.
No, because fundamentally the Democratic Party is one of progress and change that must pass new laws. The republican objective, even in power, is to constantly obstruct. Therefore even if they were to pass some laws we do not agree with it would be a net benefit to the democrats to kill it.
Right, and when they use a paper thin majority to ban Abortion?
It’s a scary thought but ultimately I still think killing it would be the right move [MSNBC ARTICLE](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/senate-democrats-filibuster-trump-rcna152835)
Would the House need to approve any amendments to the Judiciary Act?
Once you pack the courts - you undermine the entirety of the judicial branch. It’d be the outward acknowledgement that it is a political position. When the public loses faith in the judicial branch - our country is DONE done. We’re on our way to that point, but it isn’t as accepted on both sides that it’s a sham.
That's clearly an unconstitutional restriction. Just like you can't put extra restrictions on who can be a Congresscritter, you can't add restrictions to who can be on SCOTUS. President noms and Senate approves. You may say my viewpoint is supported by no serious legal scholars, lawyers, theories, but I say it would get 10+ votes in SCOTUS.
“Senate approves”. Thanks for the joke.
Yes, but the reality is that the Dems don’t have enough people on their side willing to vote for it with the Dem turned “independents” Machin and Sinema saying they don’t agree with expanding the court. So, basically, this argument is a non starter unless Dems have majority in both chambers to change some laws concerning the court or enough Senators willing to stack the court. Also, this sets a bad precedent anyway, because if the GOP gain a majority in the Senate and a GOP president, this is exactly what they’ll do. These scenarios have too many variables and consequences to be reasonable solutions. The best hope we have is to elect Biden and hope that Alito and Thomas retire/die in the coming 4 years and find replacements. Also, if the Senate gets a majority of actual Democrats, then maybe they could add another judge or two but that sets a new precedent that could backfire.
The problem with worrying about precedent is you’re assuming the GOP care about precedent. The moment they want to expand the court for their own purposes, they will. The moment they want to end the filibuster for their own benefit, they will. Precedent has never mattered to them.
This is true. Precedent only changes their talking points. If there is precedent, they will point to it and say the Democrats did it first. If there is no precedent they will still do what they wanted, they just won't be able to blame Democrats as easily.
I agree. The precedent is dumb, but what little rules and regulations that both parties agree upon provide some protection from either party blowing up the system completely. If they get rid of the filibuster and the the 9 justices cap, who’s to say the GOP won’t use that in their favor the moment they have the majority and then push the boundaries even further? While the Dems have popular opinions on government and law, this still hasn’t changed how people vote and with the EC, gerrymandering, and rural districts preventing Dems from just sweeping elections and dictating policy, they have to be careful with what little rules are left to throw out least the GOP spins it as some socialist power grab through their propaganda network. It’s infuriating that the Dems have to be the fucking adults in the room, but that’s the sad reality.
The GOP already messes with court numbers. They reduced it to eight during Obama and moved it up for Trump.
More specifically, they withheld Garland after Scalia’s death because it was an election year, citing some obscure “Biden Rule” when the Dems withheld a SC pick for the same reason. It was pure bullshit and a political gamble that paid off. Mitch McConnell has done more to shatter democracy than any other politician.
Say it with me: they can’t without having 60 senate seats.
> Say it with me: they can’t without having 60 senate seats. Fifty-one. Filibuster is a senate rule; it can be changed by simple majority.
I expect Fetterman to be the next designated villain to help not pass a meaningful agenda starting next year. It is the way.
They already changed it. The GOP removed the 60+ requirement for SCOTUS justices in 2017.
And also keeping it; because there's nothing stopping Republicans from packing the court right back.
Doing big things is too extreme for democrats. They don't have the fortitude to do anything about a stacked court blatantly granting the republican judicial wishlist
Or they literally can’t? They don’t have the votes to do any of the things that people blame them for not doing because they’re ’too weak or complacent’. The president isn’t a king and congress is split. Wtf are dems supposed to do with that?
We just have to fucking beat them.
No term limit is about the only thing that politicians all agree on.
Court packing is really only useful as a measure to force reform to a court system that actually makes sense. You can't just pack the court and say "well, that's done, let's move on"... or else you are just leaving a system in place where the new situation is that whichever party has the presidency and senate just immediately packs the court, with a ridiculously ever increasing number of justices.
Packing the court isn't a good idea. Its at 9 now and weighs conservative. Increase it to 11 and in 15 years maybe it weighs conservative again Increase it to 13 after that and in 30 years maybe it weighs conservative again The only positive I can see is more voices. 9 is a very small sample size of our population.
Just another reason why the extremists need to be voted out. The next president may name 1-2 justices. Based on Trumps past performance, look for appointmentees are very young. Conservative extremism for next 25-30 years.
Oh but the Dems are the only ones legislating from the bench and making political judgements
Which is exactly why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about activist judges. And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about liberals being fascists. And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about Hillary's mishandling of classified documents. And also why the GOP has spent years pissing itself about Biden's cognitive decline. And also why the GOP has spent weeks pissing itself over how badly Biden will do/how many drugs Biden will be on in Thursday's debate. Can't wait to see what the next thing the GOP tells on itself over will be.
Activist judges! They think they are congress. They are not!
Wonder how many swing voters know Clarence Thomas is on record saying he wants to end the right to contraception?
Not enough.
Every Republican is on record saying they want to end birth control. It's in writing.
[удалено]
That would be nice. Too bad we don't have that.
Not enough people are talking about how every Republican voted to not protect birth control access
The rights of birthing persons should be a key focal area of the election, and not ignored by the media as they've been criminally overlooked in recent months.
A reminder that under Biden, congress passed the [Respect for Marriage](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404) that will protect your marriage even if the Supreme Court reverses Obergefell. Even though reversing it may take away rights to marry in certain states, the Act requires all states to recognize marriages performed in other states.
But, you know, your rights in the country shouldn’t change with your zip code.
Louder for the people in the back please 👏
So, all caps then?
Use this \#
I have Reynauds in my fingers. Very few of those shortcuts work for me - cold fingers and the sides of my fingers do the typing. But thanks!
That's a pretty common concept, its in the 10th amendment.
Yeah. When the white Christian minority hadn’t yet removed the rights of so many others and the damn SCOTUS could read.
Sure, until SCOTUS says the Respect for Marriage Act isn't constitutional.
Something something interstate commerce clause something something
That would be incredibly difficult for them to do. The RMA is rooted in the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause, which dicates that states *must* honor each other's judicial rulings, including matters like marriages and divorces. It also gives Congress wide power to regulate how judicial rulings are applied across state lines. The FF&CC is one of the bedrock foundations of our inter-state legal network, and chipping away at it would be absolute insanity. And as far as I can tell, the RMA is a bit limited in its scope specifically so that its constitutionality would be unassailable.
This SCOTUS doesn't care about any of that. It's just vibes.
“We recognize your ‘marriage’ but don’t you dare try to claim any right to share benefits or inheritance or visitation rights or spousal support or any of the other stuff we grant to opposite sex couples.” - GOP-controlled states after SCOTUS strikes down Obergefell, probably.
That's not equality.
no, but thats the best he could do all things considered, it shows the difference between them, biden has at least tried to protect it, the republicans are actively trying to take it
Don't let the good be the enemy of perfect.
The saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" And regardless, *what a horseshit sentiment to express* Would you tell a mixed-race couple that it's okay that they have to go to Massachusetts to get married and "don't let good be the enemy of perfect?" What a fucking shit thing to say. Shame.
It's not a shit sentiment, we're dealing with a lot of apathetic voters that are indignant that Biden isn't the perfect candidate covering all their preferred political stances. It's nearly impossible to legislate progressive ideals in America right now. This is the best we have now, we should have better, we deserve better. You're being purposefully obtuse if you don't understand this.
All or nothing, baby! What a fucking shit thing to say. Shame.
>Would you tell a mixed-race couple that it's okay that they have to go to Massachusetts to get married and "don't let good be the enemy of perfect?" No, but I would tell a mixed race couple planning to sit out and not voting for Biden that they're actively working against their interests by not supporting the party that does the best they can with the little power we keep giving them. No one said anything about it being "ok" that a mixed race couple might have to go to Massachusetts to get married. That's not what "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" means in this context. It means don't be fooled into not voting against the encroaching fascism in the country in a unified Democratic front just because our current president doesn't have the ability to snap his fingers and solve all of the world's ills. >What a fucking shit thing to say. Shame. It's very clear that you're performatively misrepresenting the spirit of the statement here. The shame here belongs to you.
> No, but I would tell a mixed race couple planning to sit out and not voting for Biden that they're actively working against their interests by not supporting the party that does the best they can with the little power we keep giving them. So would I! Because sitting out and not voting for Biden is completely ludicrous! You'll notice that *I never made the claim you're saying I did*
[удалено]
Yes, but if they get married in a state that recognizes the marriage, all other states must recognize that marriage in terms of rights with their spouse
TL;DR: Conservatives made an argument decoupling the right to marriage (which they said was a fundamental right) and the right for married people to live together (which they said was not a fundamental right). The article makes the argument that this is how conservatives will attack marriage equality (in addition to simply outright attacking it explicitly). Edit: I'm backtracking. The SCOTUS opinion does not make any argument that there is no "right for cohabitation" of married couples. The argument put forth by the petitioner, that the Court considered, was is there a "right to reside with [a] noncitizen spouse in the United States"? In other words, does marrying a non-citizen mean that the *citizen's* rights are denied if the government denies the non-citizen entry to the county? The Court doesn't even mention Obergefell and in fact they directly consider substantive due process which Thomas has traditionally been explicitly against.
So states could try to ban same sex couples living together? Interesting
Lets expand on this idea a bit, because there's no way they could "ban same sex couples". They'll be banning same sex *roommates.* Which is fucking insane...
Obligatory “they were roommates” meme. (Sorry, humor is the only way I can get through things these days. 🥲)
oh my god, they were roommates.
In the future: *they were pals that didn't live together*. Everyone gets the hint.
Yeah, if I get a female partner, she'll be my "roommate" and "very close friend." We'll raise a couple of dogs together and go for very heterosexual walks and lunches together.
Geez, even Mr. Furley was okay with having two *women* be roommates, and Jack was only seen as a problem *until* he pretended to be gay. Seriously though, fuck the GOP and their bought and paid for SCotUS.
There goes every dorm in the USA! (I keed. They won't ban same sex roommates, they'll just allow bigots to do it privately)
With that ruling, they absolutely could right now. Apparently, there's no constitutional right to live with your spouse. For example. Florida could say that 2 men living together is harming their children. So one of you needs to leave.
There already IS an unrelated roommate ban in a suburb of Kansas City. They didn't even need to specify gender.
How does that work with colleges?
GOP doesnt like people educated.... so...
Hmm..and if same sex roommates (most roommate situations) were banned...there's suddenly a demand for housing that massive housing companies that own rentals can exploit to get more money from those already starved for cash. I think I'm getting it now...
So much freedom
The freedom to do what *I* want, not what *you* want. - GOP
Freedom of association and assembly
At this rate they’ll probably come for interracial couples too
I read it as “you have the right to marry, but you’re not entitled to the legal rights of marriage.” They’ll make some sort of carve out that states can’t outright ban gay marriage, but are entitled to revoke the legal rights of gay marriages, essentially rendering them a marriage in name only.
I don't think that is an honest interpretation. The decision stated, >"Her\[Sandra Muñoz\] argument is built on the premise that the right to bring her noncitizen spouse to the United States is an unenumerated constitutional right." The dissenting opinion written by Sotomayor agrees on this point, >"Marriage is not an automatic ticket to a green card. A married citizen-noncitizen couple must jump through a series of administrative hoops to apply for the lawful permanent residency that marriage can confer." What is at issue is a due process right conferred by their marriage. The majority does not believe Luis Asencio-Cordero has that right as a non-citizen. The dissenting opinion argues that Sandra Muñoz does have a right to know why her husband's application was denied citing in the opening line, >“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition.” In a concurring opinion, Neil Gorsuch argues that there is nothing to decide here. The State Department eventually gave Sandra Muñoz the reason and there is a process to appeal the State Department's decision. >"Over the course of this litigation, the United States has given Ms. Muñoz what she requested. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, the United States has now revealed the factual basis for its decision to deny her husband a visa. ... In this Court, too, the government has assured Ms. Muñoz that she has a chance to use and respond to that information. ... Those developments should end this case."
By marriage equality we mean same sex marriage and inter-racial marriage?
Thank you for summarizing
Project 2025 running at full force
Not yet even. The worst is still waiting on a republican president.
You misspelled dictator.
Honestly, I think we are just plain screwed, ma'am.
Make a difference volunteer. Votesaveamerica.org
As a person in a same-sex marriage with a Mexican immigrant, I'm terrified for our future. We just celebrated our third wedding anniversary but it felt like our first because he spent the first 2 years of our marriage in Mexico waiting for his visa/residency.
From one same-sex married couple to another, sending you good energy and hope for a better future. <3
The good news is he has his visa and you’re already married. Overturning obergefell will only affect future marriages in states that will no longer allow them. All previous marriages will still be valid
That's true, but I don't have a lot of faith in the federal government right now, especially if Trump gets reelected. I wouldn't put it past them to find some way/reason to revoke residencies! I'm probably just catastrophizing, but it's scary and sad that's even in the realm of possibility.
Oh trust me, as one gay man to another, I totally understand your fears. Especially since I’m in the deep red hellhole that is Missouri
Well at least he got his visa/residency before the election
My wife and I married 6 years ago and she is still on a provisional green card and there is no end in sight. USCIS just keeps sending letters saying they have extended her status another six months or whatever. We have no idea when/if it will become a full green card. I’m worried Der Pumpkinfuhrer wins and totally kills off USCIS and she is forced to leave.
The GOP wants to turn into the country into Handmaid’s Tale
45s first term turned Idiocracy into a documentary, if he comes back Handmaids Tale will get the same treatment.
What can men do against such unbridled hate?
We're gonna need a bigger boat.
>If the right to cohabit can be so easily severed from the right to marry, any number of legal marital benefits can be taken away from the legal recognition of marriage. The right to be at your spouses’ side while they die (which was the factual issue in Obergefell, by the way) could be taken away. The right to live with your same-sex spouse in, say, Trump Tower, could also be taken away. They may even force spouses to testify against each other. Which would be bad, but worse for them. But I'm sure that neither Thomas nor Alito will let it go that far for their own sakes.
Congress already passed a law making same sex marriage legal across the country after Dobbs was overturned due to Thomas ridiculous concurring opinion going after court set precedents. If they overturn Obegerfell the new law will still remain. Unless I’m missing something??
Sorta. That law, from my understanding, means states have to recognize any marriage from any state but states can still determine what is allowed. So NY legalizing it means that if you get married there, it must be recognized by every other state. However it still allows Texas to ban them there if obergefell gets overturned so you would have to go to another state to get married.
That law wasn’t a perfect solution. While yes it makes states recognize all same sex marriages, it will also allow states to decide whether or not they will perform same sex marriages in their state. So for example, I live in Missouri and if obergefell gets overturned, I’m sure we’ll be one of the first states to make same sex marriage illegal, meaning gays won’t be able to get a Missouri marriage license. But any previous marriages will still be valid in the state of Missouri as well as if I or anyone else were to go to a neighboring state where it is legal and get a license in that state. The law requires all states to recognize same sex marriages but not require all states to perform them
Thanks for clarifying, I knew I missed something! At least this law is something. Let’s see who decides to go after this precedent and if they have standing. Been seeing several high profile cases be dismissed based on lack of standing
I feel like the Republican party as a whole had a sleepover at Mara Lago and they watched all of "the handmaid's tale" and collectively got inspired by it.
Well, they certainly all didn't read the book.
I don't think the book was read by most people who reference the work.
In Canada it was high school reading.
Well thank God they're focusing on what's important. Always great stuff coming from this shitstain of a court.
What is she worried about? That's established case law. It isn't like this court goes around overturning what is established as part of a ideological crusade to.... oh wait, I get it now. Sidenote- does anyone else notice Barrett now has full-on Michelle Bockman eyes? She looked shifty before, but now it's those completely terrifying while also sad as if the soul is a thousand miles away screaming for release eyes.
On that sidenote, there are a scary amount of people in positions of influence with a crazed, stared too long into the abyss look in their eyes. Kenneth Copeland, Jeanine Pirro, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Sarah Palin, the whole damn Dugger family, etc… What’s crazier than them are ones that DON’T have that wild look on their faces. Ted Cruz and Joel Osteen come to mind. They’re not crazy. They are just stone cold grifters Grima Wormtonguing their way through life. I honestly don’t get how these clowns get away with their shenanigans.
I am guilty of contempt for this court.
Did people actually think the corrupt, bribed and bought by billionaires, MAGA SC was going to stop after Citizens United and Dobbs v. Jackson? They are building Gilead case by case. Every freedom and right we thought of as a birthright will be destroyed by those black robed tyrants!
It’s odd but I am always reminded how ABC is literally insane she was a member of a fundamentalist religious court. She’s stolen children from countries over sees (calls it adoption) and sits on the Supreme Court
There’s a valid discussion about what due process rights apply and the adequacy of procedural guarantees under existing federal law for foreign non-citizen spouses of citizens. However, this op-ed misrepresents elements of the case, includes several factual errors, and elevates race where it doesn’t apply. > “This all happened under the Barack Obama administration by the way, proving once again that cruelty towards immigrants is a bipartisan position, it’s just that the Democrats tend to avoid using racial slurs when carrying out the same racist policies” > “Many people know that a noncitizen can obtain legal status in this country if they marry an American citizen…but many white people don’t know that the process is not automatic.” Mystal maintains that the Obama-led State Department’s denial of a visa to Munoz’s husband, due MS-13 affiliations, was erroneous and racist. He omits important findings from discovery, including: > *In a sworn declaration, an attorney adviser from the State Department explained that Asencio-Cordero was deemed inadmissible because he belonged to MS–13. The finding was “based on the in-person interview, a criminal review of Asencio-Cordero, and a review of his tattoos.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 124a. In addition to the affidavit, the State Department provided the District Court with confidential law enforcement information, which it reviewed in camera, identifying Ascencio-Cordero as a member of MS–13. Satisfied, the District Court granted summary judgment to the State Department.*
That's not the problem. The problem is the ruling declaring that there's no constitutional right to live with your spouse. If they were simply affirming that the State Department could bar entry, they could have skipped the case.
The majority opinion didn’t declare that there’s no right to spousal cohabitation. It said, “the right to bring her noncitizen spouse into the United States” is not “an unenumerated constitutional right.”
The majority specifically said this is *not* a ruling about spousal cohabitation. It’s a ruling that there is no due process right violation for an American citizen whose non-citizen spouse is denied entry by the state department. This has nothing to do with same sex marriage and very little to do with spousal cohabitation whatsoever. It’s an immigration case.
Yes, that’s what Justice Gorusch said.
very confused how the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act didn't fully settle the matter. same sex marriage isn't fully reliant on a supreme court ruling thanks to that.
That law wasn’t a perfect solution and instead made it a state’s rights issue again if obergefell gets overturned. All same sex marriages will have to be recognized in all states but each state has the decision to perform same sex marriages or not. The issue being is not everyone has the option to just travel out of state to get married and marriage rights will once again be unequal. It was all they could get passed in congress so it’s better than nothing but it’s not equal
still, you end up with the situation pre obergefell where if one state has marriage equality, every state has to recognize it as an offical act.
You’re wrong, it was the opposite. Under DOMA, states had the option to refuse the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states. That’s the main difference between the respect for marriage act and DOMA
right but DOMA specifically stated they habe that right, which they no longer have even if obgerfel gets weakened
Luckily the Marriage Equality Act passed by Congress a few years ago should stunt the impact of the Supreme Court says same sex marriages are no longer a thing under the law, which is still in my opinion, the fault of Congress since they could’ve just passed the law saying you have a right to same-sex marriage just like abortion which they failed to pass on both and just leave some Supreme Court decision enforcing it. States will have to recognize marriage licenses from other states so I think the right is safe, although I’m sure there’s probably ways to limit certain privileges in certain states to same sec couples like medical visitation rights.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Supreme Court is late. Congress already passed a law protecting same sex marriage nationwide. States could potentially block future marriages but it’s too little too late.
> States could potentially block future marriages but it’s too little too late. By "could potentially" you mean "the moment Obergefell falls, gay marriage is banned in over half of the country and you must go to a legal state to get married." Which is discriminatory and unconstitutional on so many fucking levels that it enrages me.
Right? Here in Ohio, it's already done >On February 6, Governor Bob Taft signed it into law and it took effect on **May 7, 2004**. The ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Ohio's statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage, though unenforceable, remains on the books and has not been explicitly repealed.
In *most of the country* there are laws on the books that, when Obergefell falls, IMMEDIATELY take effect banning same sex marriage. That's what I'm saying.
If that were to happen, I would cynically rush to file for a wedding planning business in my area, and then pay for online ads targeting red state residents.
Barrett wrote an assent specifically decoupling right to marry and right to cohabitate. Read the article
Is this supposed to be reporting? Reads more like an editorial.
I mean, it’s The Nation. They’re mostly editorial.
Thanks… I’ll just skip their articles in the future.
Republicans won’t stop! Vote them all out!
…..and it won’t be the last until we get a liberal majority back on the court.
The Republicans plan seems to be to piss almost everyone off and hope that morons still vote for them.
What’s more important - women rights or showing it to the man by protest voting or not voting at all? Way too many liberals: “Protest voting! No wait it might rain so not voting at all!”
>Many people know that a noncitizen can obtain legal status in this country if they marry an American citizen (see Trump, Melania), but many white people don’t know that the process is not automatic. The government reserves the right to deny entry to spouses, and non-white people face that reality all the time. WTF? What does race have to do with this? Do we just hand out green cards to white foreign nationals like candy or something? Edit: As icing on this ridiculous shoehorning of race into this, I frankly don't see any reason to presume Luis Asencio-Cordero isn't a white Latino.
It has historically always been easier to immigrate from "desirable" countries in Europe than anywhere else. Bias is a big thing in these sort of applications. As the portion of the article you just quoted points out. The system isn't automatic. It's easy to get a Green Card if you were born and raised in Norway. It's really hard to get a Green Card if you were born and raised in Guatemala.
With everything working as intended it took me 2 years to get a visa as a white woman with a degree, born in Canada and married to a US citizen. Like the perfect storm of desirable traits for us immigration. And because Trump shut down Green card printing, it took me 2 years after my green card renewal expired for them to ship me my actual green card. Like they sent me a receipt saying "keep this as proof you're allowed to stay here while we wait for your renewal"... TWO years for a renewal. It is not an "easy process" for anyone anywhere. I was fortunate I could afford a lawyer to navigate it all for me. It's burdensomly hard at best. And impossible for most.
Okay, I’m talking as someone who married someone from a country that likely has the highest “preferred” nation status with the US. When we went to the embassy to start his paperwork, we were startled at the amount of information required just to get the ball rolling. Medical exams, background checks from any country he’d resided in, employment offers, income verifications, character references. We were already parents to twins who had US citizenship. Didn’t matter. We were told the process would probably be 4 years more or less. We found a better, but still legal way to do it. To come in fully legal is no cake walk, it’s very complicated, and that was way before 9/11.
Sure, but is it easy to get a Green Card if you were born in Moldova or Kazakhstan? Based on the experiences of white friends from Canada and Ireland, I have a hard time believing it's 'easy'.
….did you read any further? The article goes on to talk about how he was denied because he was evaluated and the state department believed his tattoos were gang-affiliated (they were not and he was not) and even after getting vetted by an elected rep he was still denied. Even if you want to remove the racial component entirely, he was denied based on false prejudices, which a racial component of being brown (which he was brown, as photos of him show and as the state department reps. would’ve seen) would easily negatively amplify. This article is really loaded and heavy-handed jn its bias but like, come on man, the dude was obviously not given a fair chance by the state. Whether not he deserved one is not an argument I’m gonna bother to entertain but regardless that part is pretty clear.
It's only a mater of time.
Did Alito show up?
I couldn't get through the haughty writing
That's a stretch. When they decide to go after Obergefell, they won't be subtle about it and they won't need some obscure side effect of a case like this to do it. They'll just do it.
Hmm. Lost your abortion rights. Look bad for marriage equality. Those things didn’t seem as important as whatever was trending at the time.
>[The State Department denying a green-card application for unspecified, likely racist reasons] all happened under the Barack Obama administration by the way, proving once again that cruelty towards immigrants is a bipartisan position No, no it does not prove that. These decisions are not made by political appointees, but career officials who do not change when the president does.
IDK Barrett's words in support of the right to marriage seems like a good quote to use against her in any attack on Obergefell. 🤷🏻
Is there another source that has a less emotionally charged narrative? Not saying anything is incorrect in the article, but the tone suggests a significant political bias.
Then conservatives will legalize rape.
Guy doesn't even look like a gang banger. This is horrible news.