So, is the SCOTUS Looking to Destroy the Country….

[discolé monade]

which will ultimately make mixed marriages back to being illegal. 

XD

never in my lifetime. 

i was a loving v. va. era baby. my parents had to move and keep things hush. small ceremony at my grandparents, and move to d.c. it was the 'safest' place mixed couples and their spawn were 'safest'. 

Edited April 24 by discolé monade
every time

[1pooh4u]

Injustice Thomas doesn’t care that his own marriage could be undone 

[1pooh4u]

There is literally no reason why a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Religious beliefs are irrelevant. Everyone that gets married in the US has to get paperwork through the county clerk too. If you just have the religious ceremony you’re not legally married.  

[MasqueradeOverture]

Counterpoint: Criminalize marriage across the board. 

No more of this dual bank account shit.

[1pooh4u]

12 hours ago, MasqueradeOverture said:

Counterpoint: Criminalize marriage across the board. 

No more of this dual bank account shit.

Wife to soon to be Ex Husband “I no longer want my money in bed with your fuckin money. Just gimme my money!”

[1pooh4u]

SCOTUS heard arguments on ending birth right citizenship and I think more broadly if lower courts can make national decisions?  I’m sure Pat can explain that because I don’t think I’m wording it correctly. Anywho MAGA getting pissy cuz AOC layed into a Trump lawyer for being an asshole to Justice Keagan

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/no-clear-decision-emerges-from-arguments-on-judges-power-to-block-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order/
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-trump-bid-restrict-birthright-citizenship-2025-05-15/

[1pooh4u]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5398025/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship

[1pooh4u]

Ofc Injustice Thomas would be “receptive” to the Trump lawyer argument. He probably was promised unlimited access to Qatar Force None “we did fine without nationwide injunctions until the 1960s”  fuckin jerk 

[Raptorpat]

30 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

 I’m sure Pat can explain that because I don’t think I’m wording it correctly.

Republicans spent four years going to the same judge in some podunk corner of Texas over and over to get national injunctions to stop Biden policies and now they've suddenly decided turnabout isn't fair play.

[katt_goddess]

29 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Ofc Injustice Thomas would be “receptive” to the Trump lawyer argument. He probably was promised unlimited access to Qatar Force None “we did fine without nationwide injunctions until the 1960s”  fuckin jerk 

Corporations also paid all their taxes until the 1960's. If you want to go back to those good ol' days, you'll be looking at both businesses paying their share and lynchings, neither of which I can see that deflating toad being for. 

[1pooh4u]

2 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

Republicans spent four years going to the same judge in some podunk corner of Texas over and over to get national injunctions to stop Biden policies and now they've suddenly decided turnabout isn't fair play.

Ah, so I was understanding correctly. I don’t get it though because a federal court ruling or injunction should apply to every state. 
 

Mike Johnson says corruption is ok as long as you’re not hiding it. Next time I commit a crime I’ll be sure to remember that. This doesn’t have anything to do with the topic just wanted to point out some more hypocrisy and extreme mental gymnastics 

[Raptorpat]

2 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Ah, so I was understanding correctly. I don’t get it though because a federal court ruling or injunction should apply to every state.

there's an argument to be made that because the federal appellate courts are divided into circuits and below that they are divided into districts, an emergency injunction pre-trial should only apply to that judge's own district 

[1pooh4u]

25 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

there's an argument to be made that because the federal appellate courts are divided into circuits and below that they are divided into districts, an emergency injunction pre-trial should only apply to that judge's own district 

Can’t do that with this administration because we will wind up bogging down the federal courts with cases already being considered because they will just keep doing the questionable things just elsewhere 

[tsar4]

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/justice-sotomayors-message-to-lawyers-stand-up-fight-and-win/

[tsar4]

Wrong thread

Edited Friday at 01:27 AM by tsar4

[1pooh4u]

Look what’s happening as a result of anti abortion laws. A mother must keep her brain dead daughter alive because she’s pregnant. They are forcing birth on a vegetable. What happens after the baby is born?  People who had no intention of being the child’s primary care giver are forced to raise it. How can anyone justify treating someone like this?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna207002

[1pooh4u]

The family is stuck paying the medical bills to keep their daughter alive and they’re not even being given a choice 

[[classic swim]]

It’s an animated corpse that’s gonna sloosh out a fucked up baby or a baby that’s gonna die within seconds.

[1pooh4u]

42 minutes ago, [classic swim] said:

It’s an animated corpse that’s gonna sloosh out a fucked up baby or a baby that’s gonna die within seconds.

No way the baby will be born A OK. Very unfortunate 

[1pooh4u]

[katt_goddess]

6 hours ago, [classic swim] said:

It’s an animated corpse that’s gonna sloosh out a fucked up baby or a baby that’s gonna die within seconds.

They are planning a c-section which means they are going to pretty much chop open a living corpse that is incapable of having uterine contractions to remove something that is already showing signs of developmental distress. 

The family will be stuck with the bill for the hospitalization, the operation, any care that blob requires before it screams itself to death, and two funerals.