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 May 16 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. 

[scoobdog]

Horrifying.

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

How is it an abortion when you're letting a braindead adult go and just letting whatever happens to the baby?

And here's a hypothetical, what if the woman had a DNR?

[scoobdog]

5 hours ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

How is it an abortion when you're letting a braindead adult go and just letting whatever happens to the baby?

And here's a hypothetical, what if the woman had a DNR?

It isn't an abortion.  The hospital's administrators are simply being cowardly and justifying a decision to rack up a huge bill on a grieving family.

[Raptorpat]

 

[1pooh4u]

SCOTUS upholds a ban on gender affirming care for transgender youth 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-transgender-health-care-trump-79fc6f3bbdab2e92d6f0184201a468a9#
 

If these fuckin assholes are going to dictate what people can do with their bodies and what medical care they can receive then they need to have medical doctors and scientists explaining to them what “cherry picked studies” means 

[katt_goddess]

And yet I can't go a single day without seeing that damn Limitless Male commercial pushing gender affirming care for old farts in my face.  

[1pooh4u]

SCOTUS decided that states can block funds from going to planned parenthood. A lot of women are going to not have healthcare anymore because PP is where they go for their health and they’re going to close 

[1pooh4u]

On 6/19/2025 at 9:14 PM, katt_goddess said:

And yet I can't go a single day without seeing that damn Limitless Male commercial pushing gender affirming care for old farts in my face.  

I never saw that commercial yet. Is it a “get your penis pills online” type of shit?

[discolé monade]

 it is. 

and the penis pumping pills, if i remember from commercial t.v ran ALL day ery'day. 

but anything to do with women only between 0300-0305 every 2nd wednseday. 

[mthor]

4 hours ago, discolé monade said:

 it is. 

and the penis pumping pills, if i remember from commercial t.v ran ALL day ery'day. 

but anything to do with women only between 0300-0305 every 2nd wednseday. 

Unless it's urinary incontinence supplies.

[katt_goddess]

10 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

I never saw that commercial yet. Is it a “get your penis pills online” type of shit?

Limitless Male is a clinic franchise specializing in male anything but specifically penis pills and supplements for low-t sufferers. They do exams and assessments to 'get your manliness back in fighting shape'. 

I find them insufferable because in all the fighting over whether or not people should be allowed gender affirmative care or women allowed to seek out the types of medical assistance they need in a time of crisis, Limitless Male has remained completely silent because it doesn't affect their preferred cliental and have merely increased the number of commercials they aire for men. They have the audience reach to just say 'Who the hell cares, health care is health care and it's your choice not your redneck neighbor. Billy wants to be Mandy doesn't end the world. Now buy some penis pills and shut up.'

[1pooh4u]

The Supreme Court limits district courts from imposing nationwide injunctions 

@Raptorpat does this mean any stay only applies to the people the case is about and not the nation as a whole or anyone the injunction would apply to? 
 

 

[Raptorpat]

I don't know offhand how limited the injunction is now, but the majority basically said judges have to analyze how broad a proposed injunction can be without being too broad.

[1pooh4u]

50 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

I don't know offhand how limited the injunction is now, but the majority basically said judges have to analyze how broad a proposed injunction can be without being too broad.

It doesn’t make sense to me 🫠

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I don't know offhand how limited the injunction is now, but the majority basically said judges have to analyze how broad a proposed injunction can be without being too broad.

That sort of sounds like the direction they were heading when they were hearing arguments.  Trump was making it sound like a win, and that it wouldn't stop denial of birthright citizenship even in places where an lawsuit in a district where a lawsuit had been filed.

[katt_goddess]

10 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

It doesn’t make sense to me 🫠

An easier way to look at it is it's a backdoor for him to continue to be a shithead and a way for 6 of the 9 to kiss his ass. 

His EO to end birthright citizenship and use that to deport anyone and everyone is absolutely unconstitutional and putting that directly in front of the SCROTUS might actually bite him hard. But by challenging the lesser courts abilities to curb that shit through national injunctions, he can get around that pesky little inconvenience and keep deporting legal citizens while a patchwork of scattered judges are limited to how large an area they can attempt to protect and how much they can do. 

This is also part of a holding pattern - there's garbage in that Big Shitty Bill that would make it illegal for judges to negatively judge anything done by the executive branch, effectively neutering any way of stopping an out-of-control megalomanic through the courts. SCROTUS gave him time to screw around; if that bill goes through and gets signed into law, it'll be signed 'King Drumpf'.

[tsar4]

 

[tsar4]

[1pooh4u]

Kim Davis that bitch county clerk that refused to give married licenses to same sex couples has formally asked the SCOTUS to overturn their landmark ruling 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302
 

Injustice Thomas and the rest of the conservative goons have been itching for this day

[Top Gun]

Can that irredeemable cunt just fucking die?

[Raptorpat]

It only takes four judges to agree to hear a case, three of the original dissenters are still on the bench and Thomas was openly calling for this in concurrence in the abortion case.

[katt_goddess]

49 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

Can that irredeemable cunt just fucking die?

She's addicted to the spotlight & thinks she'll still have rights after demanding everyone else's be taken away. 

We had a similar but not person in this state. Similar because they also wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples 'for religious reasons'. And not because what they did was ensure that their other employee on duty [ it was a small area ] had no problem doing so. All such licenses were then scheduled for the days when that person was working the front. They got to save face with their intolerant church group and every one got their licenses anyway because who cares what two of-age consenting adults want to do in private.  

[1pooh4u]

20 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

It only takes four judges to agree to hear a case, three of the original dissenters are still on the bench and Thomas was openly calling for this in concurrence in the abortion case.

If same sex marriage gets undone won’t that also undo interracial marriages as well?  I thought they were based off the same legal principle or theory idk what you call it. I know for sure the 14th amendment was involved 

[1pooh4u]

Does the Respect of Marriage Act protect these marriages jic they decide to overturn same sex marriage and interracial marriages as protected rights 

[Raptorpat]

They are all based off the same legal principal, but they were separate cases decades apart. To make it official they would have to write "we're overturning all cases relying on this legal theory, including Obergefell, Loving, Grizwold", otherwise gremlins would have to bring up a subsequent case for each one down the highway that's being paved to do so.

3 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Does the Respect of Marriage Act protect these marriages jic the decide to overturn same sex marriage as a protected right 

If I recall correctly, that law requires red states to accept and acknowledge same sex marriage licenses from blue states, but it doesn't require the red states to provide same sex marriage licenses themselves. Which honestly in hindsight might actually have greased the wheels and make it easier to overturn Obergefell because it preempts the worst of the chaos.

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, Raptorpat said:

They are all based off the same legal principal, but they were separate cases decades apart. To make it official they would have to write "we're overturning all cases relying on this legal theory, including Obergefell, Loving, Grizwold", otherwise gremlins would have to bring up a subsequent case for each one down the highway that's being paved to do so.

If I recall correctly, that law requires red states to accept and acknowledge same sex marriage licenses from blue states, but it doesn't require the red states to provide same sex marriage licenses themselves. Which honestly in hindsight might actually have greased the wheels and make it easier to overturn Obergefell because it preempts the worst of the chaos.

Does than mean they can repeal it and say “Obergefell is no longer necessary because there exists legislation that offers a sort of remedy”?

[Raptorpat]

Republican judges with all their fake "textualism" and "originalism" etc. pretend they don't weigh the practical consequences, but yeah.

They can say (paraphrasing) "we are overturning Obergefell on the premise that the underlying legal principal that opinion is based on is bullshit" and there may be dicta or a concurrence that says "plus, hey look, congress already resolved the debate statutorily so secular society won't crumble!"

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, Raptorpat said:

Republican judges with all their fake "textualism" and "originalism" etc. pretend they don't weigh the practical consequences, but yeah.

They can say (paraphrasing) "we are overturning Obergefell on the premise that the underlying legal principal that opinion is based on is bullshit" and there may be dicta or a concurrence that says "plus, hey look, congress already resolved the debate statutorily so secular society won't crumble!"

Sounds like bullshit dbag right wing shenanigans to me 

[1pooh4u]

To anyone who has children 

how does it make you feel knowing that it’s very likely this country will be fucked all the way to the great grandchildren? Possibly great-great