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.
So, yet another excuse from the glorious separation of powers and checks and balances? What’s the point of getting “a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage”? If they need people to sue the state, then fucking organize your Democrat media apparatus into making people do that. Saying this as a non-USian btw
My point stands, though? How is it misinformation in the first place if the rights can be taken away at any notice because the democrats didn’t care to make it otherwise?
My point isn’t really that the law doesn’t matter (which is also true but that’s beyond the scope of this conversation). My point is “democrats didn’t codify it” seems to me a true statement if the law still can be repealed. If they wanted they could have organized a freaking show trial or something if the mechanism needs to be through a lawsuit, the point is that they didn’t do any of that, they just wrote some stuff in a book that can be repealed at a moment’s notice. Am I wrong here and just being dumb and not understanding something?
Codify to statesian means to put a law on the books. Abortion was legal because of a court ruling not a law. That’s why the supreme court could do what they did.
As far as this law goes it can’t just be revoked. Either the us supreme court would need to strike it down as unconstitutional (this would likely be a lengthy court battle), or Congress needs a “supermajority” to pass a new law that invalidates the previous gay marriage law. This law can’t just be “revoked” from my understanding.
Now there is a whole lot of bs the govt can pull to still get its way but technically it will still have to follow this law.
You’re right that it’s not impervious, but it’s at least a roadblock versus there being nothing in the way. You know what I mean?
No worries, the United States legal system and the way we create laws and try to enforce them is incredibly archaic, and even most people here don’t understand how it works.
So, yet another excuse from the glorious separation of powers and checks and balances? What’s the point of getting “a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage”? If they need people to sue the state, then fucking organize your Democrat media apparatus into making people do that. Saying this as a non-USian btw
I didn’t say it was good way to legalize it but it’s completely in line with how the rest of us citizens rights are enforced.
This is how it works in the US.
Yes it does mean the burgeoisie can basically ignore the law.
Yes it does fucking suck. This is part of what makes the us an authoritarian hell hole.
My point stands, though? How is it misinformation in the first place if the rights can be taken away at any notice because the democrats didn’t care to make it otherwise?
Well, then that would be true for every right in the United States. The enforcement mechanism for “rights” is to sue the infringing party.
That means if the govt infringes your rights you sue them to be “made whole”.
Thats how it works for every right including the first amendment rights. 🤦
What you’re saying is the law doesn’t matter regardless of what is passed. Which I agree with but it’s different then your initial point
My point isn’t really that the law doesn’t matter (which is also true but that’s beyond the scope of this conversation). My point is “democrats didn’t codify it” seems to me a true statement if the law still can be repealed. If they wanted they could have organized a freaking show trial or something if the mechanism needs to be through a lawsuit, the point is that they didn’t do any of that, they just wrote some stuff in a book that can be repealed at a moment’s notice. Am I wrong here and just being dumb and not understanding something?
Codify to statesian means to put a law on the books. Abortion was legal because of a court ruling not a law. That’s why the supreme court could do what they did.
As far as this law goes it can’t just be revoked. Either the us supreme court would need to strike it down as unconstitutional (this would likely be a lengthy court battle), or Congress needs a “supermajority” to pass a new law that invalidates the previous gay marriage law. This law can’t just be “revoked” from my understanding.
Now there is a whole lot of bs the govt can pull to still get its way but technically it will still have to follow this law.
You’re right that it’s not impervious, but it’s at least a roadblock versus there being nothing in the way. You know what I mean?
Got it. I didn’t quite understand it at the beginning. Thanks a lot for the explanation
No worries, the United States legal system and the way we create laws and try to enforce them is incredibly archaic, and even most people here don’t understand how it works.