10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean? I’m sure the criticism of democrats here is warranted (I am not defending them at all), but when the fascists are pissing and shitting on every law and social norm we have, all this legal jargon just sounds like nonsense.
There is always a card up a sleeve, some antique law cited. The “No-Takesies-Backsies Clause” was overturned because some dickhead found the “Writ of Nuh-Uh”. It’s was written on piece of parchment and is barely legible. It conveniently fell out of a dusty old tome in the Library of Congress last week and yet somehow it carries more legal weight than any other document on Earth.
Even worse, now the Republicans in a lot of cases are seemingly just skipping all the preamble and just going straight to the “fuck you please die” part.
Liberals constantly mock SovCits but their understanding of how power works is fundamentally identical.
They literally believe they can stop the government from doing what it wants to do by going into a special building and saying the right words in the right order.
The exact opposite judgements can be reached with the exact same level of support from whatever sacred ancient slaver document they want to cite. It’s constitutional if you like it and unconstitutional if you don’t.
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean?
Congress can pass a law (of course, the Senate Parlimentarian can be a convenient obstacle when they don’t want to) explicitly declaring its intent to allow abortions, gay marriage, etc. at the federal level so that the courts can’t simply change their mind and return it back to the states like before the court decisions making them federally legal happened but would have to actually declare a federal law doing that is unconstitutional. This court doesn’t seem like it would have had much issue with doing that anyways though by claiming it’s not what the genociders who founded would have wanted, but it might have caused someone to hesitate or infight a little more or something
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean? I’m sure the criticism of democrats here is warranted (I am not defending them at all), but when the fascists are pissing and shitting on every law and social norm we have, all this legal jargon just sounds like nonsense.
There is always a card up a sleeve, some antique law cited. The “No-Takesies-Backsies Clause” was overturned because some dickhead found the “Writ of Nuh-Uh”. It’s was written on piece of parchment and is barely legible. It conveniently fell out of a dusty old tome in the Library of Congress last week and yet somehow it carries more legal weight than any other document on Earth.
Even worse, now the Republicans in a lot of cases are seemingly just skipping all the preamble and just going straight to the “fuck you please die” part.
Liberals constantly mock SovCits but their understanding of how power works is fundamentally identical.
They literally believe they can stop the government from doing what it wants to do by going into a special building and saying the right words in the right order.
The exact opposite judgements can be reached with the exact same level of support from whatever sacred ancient slaver document they want to cite. It’s constitutional if you like it and unconstitutional if you don’t.
Congress can pass a law (of course, the Senate Parlimentarian can be a convenient obstacle when they don’t want to) explicitly declaring its intent to allow abortions, gay marriage, etc. at the federal level so that the courts can’t simply change their mind and return it back to the states like before the court decisions making them federally legal happened but would have to actually declare a federal law doing that is unconstitutional. This court doesn’t seem like it would have had much issue with doing that anyways though by claiming it’s not what the genociders who founded
would have wanted, but it might have caused someone to hesitate or infight a little more or something
It means to enshrine in law a won court victory.