The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 19, 2020, 03:57:05 pm
-
Buttigieg claims Amy Coney Barrett confirmation puts his marriage in danger
Buttigieg said a conservative majority on the Court might seek to dismantle the 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage
By Yael Halon | Fox News
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who now serves on Joe Biden's transition team, suggested Sunday that President Trump’s supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, poses a threat to his marriage.
"There are all kinds of interesting questions about the future of the American judiciary, but right now, as we speak, the preexisting condition coverage of millions of Americans might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice," Buttigieg told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.
Buttigieg, who married his husband in 2018, then suggested that the Obama-era same-sex marriage ruling could be considered among the rulings that a conservative court would seek to dismantle.
"My marriage might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice," he said. "So many issues are on the line."
more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/buttigieg-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-marrige-fox-news-sunday (https://www.foxnews.com/media/buttigieg-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-marrige-fox-news-sunday)
-
Buttigieg claims Amy Coney Barrett confirmation puts his marriage in danger
Buttigieg said a conservative majority on the Court might seek to dismantle the 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage
By Yael Halon | Fox News
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who now serves on Joe Biden's transition team, suggested Sunday that President Trump’s supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, poses a threat to his marriage.
"There are all kinds of interesting questions about the future of the American judiciary, but right now, as we speak, the preexisting condition coverage of millions of Americans might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice," Buttigieg told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.
Buttigieg, who married his husband in 2018, then suggested that the Obama-era same-sex marriage ruling could be considered among the rulings that a conservative court would seek to dismantle.
"My marriage might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice," he said. "So many issues are on the line."
more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/buttigieg-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-marrige-fox-news-sunday (https://www.foxnews.com/media/buttigieg-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-marrige-fox-news-sunday)
:3:
-
:3:
I agree. The PURPOSE of marriage was to protect any children born of that union, between a man & woman. I don't believe in surrogacy or using some sperm, egg, to create a child, for THEIR GRATIFICATION. They are not thinking of the child's feelings, who desire a mom and dad. The need to know WHO, those people are: mom & dad. Same sex does not need anything like 'marriage'. They have legal recourse if they want someone protected legally. They can even adopt each other! Just trying to 'make' a perversion seem normal.
-
BTW. NINE S.C. They think, one person, has that much power?
-
I know a professional woman who is married to another professional woman and they are also worried the Supreme Court could/may dissolve their marriage.
-
I know a professional woman who is married to another professional woman and they are also worried the Supreme Court could/may dissolve their marriage.
What fiat law giveth, fiat law can taketh away. Next time use the Legislature if you wanna pass a law. I have no sympathy, sorry. I've sure they're nice people.
-
No matter what the SCOTUS ends up doing, the result can be ratified or undone by the act of the legislature (the peoples' elected representatives). What liberals most fear is that their ideas do not have the support of the people, and can only be imposed by fiat.
-
BTW. NINE S.C. They think, one person, has that much power?
That's what's so funny about this. They're so skeered of that one little mean ol' woman Amy Barrett. She's going to ruin everything! *****rollingeyes*****
-
BTW. NINE S.C. They think, one person, has that much power?
YES.
Replacing Scalia drove the court left. Kavanagh, and Gorsuch, coming out of Souter's house, drives the court leftward. We have basically replaced Scalia and Souter with two Souters.
So YEAH... A conservative justice out of the house of Scalia means something... and will bring the court back to the right.
-
What fiat law giveth, fiat law can taketh away. Next time use the Legislature if you wanna pass a law. I have no sympathy, sorry. I've sure they're nice people.
That's right. Packing the court is a cheat, plain and simple.
-
YES.
Replacing Scalia drove the court left. Kavanagh, and Gorsuch, coming out of Souter's house, drives the court leftward. We have basically replaced Scalia and Souter with two Souters.
So YEAH... A conservative justice out of the house of Scalia means something... and will bring the court back to the right.
Watch yourself @roamer_1 as that was ALMOST a pro Trump statement. happy77
-
Watch yourself @roamer_1 as that was ALMOST a pro Trump statement. happy77
@mrpotatohead
Only if ACB turns out to be as she seems - Which is far from proven...
One thing you can count on... I call em as I see em. If I have praise for Tumpy, it is damn well deserved. :seeya:
-
The Alphabet people are going apoplectic over ACB!
Kind of Ironic isn't it.
-
Let's hope that Barrett is as conservative as Scalia.
-
Let's hope that Barrett is as conservative as Scalia.
I do, and that ain't faint praise.
-
Stuff it, Pete.
You -- of all people -- know just where...
-
YES.
Replacing Scalia drove the court left. Kavanagh, and Gorsuch, coming out of Souter's house, drives the court leftward. We have basically replaced Scalia and Souter with two Souters.
So YEAH... A conservative justice out of the house of Scalia means something... and will bring the court back to the right.
You have already decided Kav is a Souter? Well, OK.... **nononono*
-
Watch yourself @roamer_1 as that was ALMOST a pro Trump statement. happy77
Does it really count as "pro-Trump" when he smears the two Justices Trump appointed?
-
You have already decided Kav is a Souter? Well, OK.... **nononono*
He is out of Souter's house... so...
And yeah - I take a cynical view... Which is why I only have hope for ACB
So sue me. :shrug:
-
That's what's so funny about this. They're so skeered of that one little mean ol' woman Amy Barrett. She's going to ruin everything! *****rollingeyes*****
Hey, we agree! 888high58888
-
He is out of Souter's house... so...
And yeah - I take a cynical view... Which is why I only have hope for ACB
So sue me. :shrug:
In that case, you may as well come out right now and smear her too. I am sure you will declare one of her first three decisions as "Tumpy-pick."
Why wait?
-
Same-sex marriage is not recognized under Indiana State Law.
-
In that case, you may as well come out right now and smear her too. I am sure you will declare one of her first three decisions as "Tumpy-pick."
Why wait?
Because they haven't happened yet.
Funny ain't it, how I don't have such worries for Alito or Thomas... Or Scalia 'fore he went...
-
He is out of Souter's house... so...
And yeah - I take a cynical view... Which is why I only have hope for ACB
So sue me. :shrug:
I hate to agree with you. Kavanaugh has always seemed TOO WEAK, for my taste. I am afraid, if liberals gang up on him, he will cave. NOT AS STRONG AS BARRETT. btw Scalia was murdered.
-
Because they haven't happened yet.
Funny ain't it, how I don't have such worries for Alito or Thomas... Or Scalia 'fore he went...
I'm just fascinated that you consider Kavanaugh to be another Suitor (along with Gorsuch), when he hardly has any decisions under his belt. That strikes me a little fast off the starting line, and not willing to give the fellow a chance. Like Tumpy. he didn't get one either.
-
I'm just fascinated that you consider Kavanaugh to be another Suitor (along with Gorsuch), when he hardly has any decisions under his belt. That strikes me a little fast off the starting line, and not willing to give the fellow a chance. Like Tumpy. he didn't get one either.
You are kidding, right? Look up his RECORD.
Tumpy didn't get a chance? That's bullshit right there.
-
You are kidding, right? Look up his RECORD.
Tumpy didn't get a chance? That's bullshit right there.
That is MR. PRESIDENT TO YOU. And Cyber. WWW.MAGAPILL.COM (http://WWW.MAGAPILL.COM)
POTUS HAS BEEN SLANDERED, VILIFIED FOR DECADES, NONE STOP, 24/7. WORSE AFTER HE BECAUSE POTUS.
-
You are kidding, right? Look up his RECORD.
Tumpy didn't get a chance? That's bullshit right there.
Sorry, you were Never Tump on day -1. But that's OK. And I fully expect you to be the same way on the very first decision you didn't like from Barrett. Like Gorsuch. :shrug:
-
That is MR. PRESIDENT TO YOU. And Cyber. WWW.MAGAPILL.COM (http://WWW.MAGAPILL.COM)
POTUS HAS BEEN SLANDERED, VILIFIED FOR DECADES, NONE STOP, 24/7. WORSE AFTER HE BECAUSE POTUS.
You can post that link until the bovne are repatriated to their domiciles and it won't do.
And STOP BLEEPING SHOUTING AT ME! It pisses me off, and you would not like me when I'm pissed.
-
I know a professional woman who is married to another professional woman and they are also worried the Supreme Court could/may dissolve their marriage.
That people fear immediate policy consequences of a change in the US Supreme Court's composition proves the point made in this thread by @Cyber Liberty and @Jazzhead - the court has over-stepped its authority and it needs to be restored to its proper function. Those who wish to perpetuate a novel definition of marriage should look to the will of the electorate as expressed through the legislature of each of the several states rather than insisting on a judicially-enforced progressive ratchet effect. Not only would they improve jurisprudence, they might also recognize that if a marriage *is* dissolved, it will be by act of a state legislature, not by act of the USSC.
-
I know a professional woman who is married to another professional woman and they are also worried the Supreme Court could/may dissolve their marriage.
I know many professionals, men and women, who were worried when men were allowed to marry men and women allowed to marry women.
There's little sympathy for Buttigieg or your professional women friends @Victoria33 --- no matter what you hear from CNN :shrug:
-
You can post that link until the bovne are repatriated to their domiciles and it won't do.
And STOP BLEEPING SHOUTING AT ME! It pisses me off, and you would not like me when I'm pissed.
I have bad eyes and typing skills. If you can hear my caps, you need to go into SMITHSONIAN...as someone rare. I am not shouting at you. I did not, even post to you. Not about...you. Stop getting pissed. You aren't my favorite person either.
You & I do not communicate well...at all. Wonder why that is?
-
I know many professionals, men and women, who were worried when men were allowed to marry men and women allowed to marry women.
There's little sympathy for Buttigieg or your professional women friends @Victoria33 --- no matter what you hear from CNN :shrug:
Certainly none from me. You want the law changed? Do it the right way and stop relying on the bleep courts to pass your laws.
-
I have bad eyes and typing skills. If you can hear my caps, you need to go into SMITHSONIAN...as someone rare. I am not shouting at you. I did not, even post to you. Not about...you. Stop getting pissed. You aren't my favorite person either.
You & I do not communicate well...at all. Wonder why that is?
The difference is, I don't care. But you should.
-
I have bad eyes and typing skills. If you can hear my caps, you need to go into SMITHSONIAN...as someone rare. I am not shouting at you. I did not, even post to you. Not about...you. Stop getting pissed. You aren't my favorite person either.
You & I do not communicate well...at all. Wonder why that is?
:pop41: :2popcorn:
-
:pop41: :2popcorn:
Indeed. Non-working links are posted lieu of keeping us legal, and SOMEHOW IT'S MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(@LegalAmerican please don't lock horns with management.)
-
Heartwarming: Amy Coney Barrett Just Adopted A Local Troubled Youngster Named Hunter
October 19th, 2020
(https://babylonbee.com/img/articles/article-7226-3.jpg)
Babylon Bee (https://babylonbee.com/news/seeking-to-quell-controversy-joe-biden-places-hunter-up-for-adoption/?utm_content=buffer48649&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
:silly:
-
Indeed. Non-working links are posted lieu of keeping us legal, and SOMEHOW IT'S MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(@LegalAmerican please don't lock horns with management.)
@Cyber Liberty maybe a few brewskis from the Castle bar happy77
-
@Cyber Liberty maybe a few brewskis from the Castle bar happy77
I think this one calls for golf balls and fire. :smokin:
-
That is MR. PRESIDENT TO YOU.
Oh hell no. Respect is earned.
-
Oh hell no. Respect is earned.
Agreed. And I'm not there either. :beer: :beer:
-
I think this one calls for golf balls and fire. :smokin:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: Go for it!!!
-
Sorry, you were Never Tump on day -1. But that's OK.
Well yeah - from before day 1... Likely from sometime in the 80's... I think he is of low character, as proven in his rise in the primaries... And I think he is a con.. As proven his whole life.
But that damn well does not mean I gave him no chance. That's bullshit. He has done NOTHING to change my mind. That's the problem here, not me.
To be sure, I am willing to change my mind, as demonstrated wrt his wife, who I thought very poorly about, but who has truly risen to the occasion and been an admirable FLOTUS. SHE has won me over.
Tumpy, not so much. Performing as expected and predicted. And doing so poorly.
And I fully expect you to be the same way on the very first decision you didn't like from Barrett. Like Gorsuch. :shrug:
My position remains the very same as it always has been wrt justices... A long view. You never know what you have for a while. I have stayed completely OFF of knocking either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, except to reiterate their record and from whence they come, which is what I know to be true.
The very SAME for ACB... But from a more hopeful stance, BECAUSE of her close connection to Scalia.
I do not judge anyone on one decision one way or the other. Very seldom do I get to 'oh, hell no' in a one-off, Tumpy included. And it is an insult that you would think it of me.
-
I hate to agree with you. Kavanaugh has always seemed TOO WEAK, for my taste.
Ain't that. He's just a moderate wing wonk out of souter and ken starr. And he will sing the Republican moderate theme song, which is corporate globalism and foreign policy corporate unity in harmony with the big-daddy defense corporations... He'll likely be good for nothing more than a typical Turtle yes-man, preaching the Bush and company line. Just like Souter.
-
Well yeah - from before day 1... Likely from sometime in the 80's... I think he is of low character, as proven in his rise in the primaries... And I think he is a con.. As proven his whole life.
But that damn well does not mean I gave him no chance. That's bullshit. He has done NOTHING to change my mind. That's the problem here, not me.
To be sure, I am willing to change my mind, as demonstrated wrt his wife, who I thought very poorly about, but who has truly risen to the occasion and been an admirable FLOTUS. SHE has won me over.
Tumpy, not so much. Performing as expected and predicted. And doing so poorly.
My position remains the very same as it always has been wrt justices... A long view. You never know what you have for a while. I have stayed completely OFF of knocking either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, except to reiterate their record and from whence they come, which is what I know to be true.
The very SAME for ACB... But from a more hopeful stance, BECAUSE of her close connection to Scalia.
I do not judge anyone on one decision one way or the other. Very seldom do I get to 'oh, hell no' in a one-off, Tumpy included. And it is an insult that you would think it of me.
Then Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are bad because of the poisoned tree? Or did you do painstaking research on their previous decisions to decide they're Souters right away?
I'm trying to understand your calling Gorsuch and Kavanaugh "Souters." I just don't see it, and don't expect to for a few years.
-
Then Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are bad because of the poisoned tree? Or did you do painstaking research on their previous decisions to decide they're Souters right away?
I'm trying to understand your calling Gorsuch and Kavanaugh "Souters." I just don't see it, and don't expect to for a few years.
YES. The record. Go look.
-
YES. The record. Go look.
Where? Aw, never mind. Tump can't get nuffin right.......
I'll just take your word for it.
-
Where? Aw, never mind. Tump can't get nuffin right.......
I'll just take your word for it.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Indeed. Non-working links are posted lieu of keeping us legal, and SOMEHOW IT'S MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(@LegalAmerican please don't lock horns with management.)
Getting that Seinfeld "that's a shame" gif all ready. :smokin:
-
No Forum Community (or Family, for that matter) is complete without a Crazy Uncle or Drunk Aunt. That's what makes this place so unpredictable AND fun.
-
You & I do not communicate well...at all. Wonder why that is?
Because you are differently clued.