US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Strange then, that for 226 years, the Constitution was in operation and yet gay marriage was not legal.
Bitches... Good luck with that.
Republicans sue Detroit for hiring more Democratic election inspectors than Republicans
The Republican National Committee is suing Detroit's election commission alleging it hired an insufficient number of Republican election inspectors.
www.freep.com
So...? It looks like only 3 justices would vote to overturn possibly. Plus, the marriage law that passed would still let gay people get married, they'd have to travel to a state then that allows it. Why are you so worried about it?Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have all explicitly been against Obergefell and Kavanaugh would likely vote against it as well.
What each Supreme Court Justice has said about gay marriage
While the Supreme Court discusses 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Newsweek looks at how each judge stands on same-sex marriage.www.newsweek.com
So significantly more than one justice.
Sure, except Republicans are explicitly against most of those things as well. Wealth equality? Public healthcare options? Those are for dirty socialists. Remember, Republicans are actively trying to prevent the government from capping medication costs.
Republicans block cap on insulin costs for many Americans from Democratic deal
Republicans stripped out a provision to cap insulin costs at $35 for private insurers, but the Inflation Reduction Act still includes an insulin price cap for seniors on Medicare.www.nbcnews.com
If supreme court justices started talking about reexamining whether having a federal statute on murder was constitutional I would find that to be pretty concerning.
But Trump initiated an insulin cost reduction that Biden then froze...
Again, that's why I said it's nonsense. Only laws that are actually against the constitution could be ruled unconstitutional. As long as the law doesn't go against the constitution, you can make it a federal law. If that wasn't the case, then the entire federal legislative body would be pointless. You're worrying about something that literally makes no sense.
You have to challenge it... I'm sure there's more things that will be deemed as protected by the constitution in the future as well.
The Election-Interference Merry-Go-Round
Claims and counterclaims of “election interference” are ubiquitous these days. What does the term actually mean?
Elon Musk’s X tweaks chatbot after warning over US election misinformation
Social media platform alters Grok after complaint it produced false information about ballot deadlines in US states.
And what do you think the effect of such a challenge would've been (for example) 150 years ago?
So right now, they're not constitutionally protected, are they?
This vaguely reminds me of the time I read someone make an argument that the Constitution had been written with foresight by the Founding Fathers to outlaw slavery, it just took three generations before anyone noticed and tried to do anything about it.
To this day, I remain deeply unconvinced by that argument.
Would there have been much of a point to it 150 years ago? Did married couples get that much benefits back then?
They are in theory protected. My company for example breaks federal labor law, I challenged it and got paid all my money.
There is literally a slavery amendment added to the constitution so the constitution to that point didn't outlaw slavery or at least no one thought it would or else they would've just challenged that vs making an amendment (and amending the constitution is a lot harder than challenging it so...).
Answer the question.
In what theory? Do you mean they're protected in an interpretation of the Constitution that you hold, but which is not legally in operation?
I don't know, I'd need a time machine.
There's many things that are discovered to be constitutional or unconstitutional.
You do know. I think you know as well as I do that such a challenge would've never been successful 150 years ago. Under the same constitution.
In fact, Obergefell probably would have been unsuccessful even 6 years prior. Because if a single judge had voted the other way, it would've failed. So if it was launched in 2010, and Stevens was there instead of Kagan, it would likely have failed. And you'd then be here arguing that gay marriage is obviously unconstitutional.
When you say "discovered", that's an interesting choice of word. Because they're not "discovering" anything, are they? They haven't found anything new, buried under rubble. The exact same words are still on the same legally-operational document as before.
What you mean is that they're choosing to interpret those words in a different way. Justified in legalese, but ultimately dictated by the political situation in the country and the personal dispositions of the judges.
Last edited:
Election Live Updates: Trump Plans to Put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard on Transition Team
Mr. Kennedy, a former rival who backed Donald J. Trump when he dropped out, and Ms. Gabbard will be made honorary co-chairs, according to a campaign senior adviser.
Tell us something we don't know.
Former Trump official warns ex-president is gearing up to claim 'rigged' election again
Former Trump White House national security advisor warns the GOP nominee is planning to claim the election was rigged - again.
www.usatoday.com
Somebody is in trouble.
Pennsylvania county broke law by refusing to tell voters if it rejected their ballot, judge says
A judge has ruled that a Republican-controlled county in Pennsylvania violated state law when election workers refused to tell voters that their mail-in ballot had been rejected and wouldn’t be counted in last April’s primary election.
apnews.com
Want faster election results? Michigan’s new absentee ballot count option helps | Bridge Michigan
Pre-processing absentee ballots means faster results. Why isn’t every Michigan clerk trying it?
It's based on arguments as well. Just because something goes to the Supreme Court and they rule that it's not constitutionally protected, doesn't mean that is indeed the case. It means the argument was weak/invalid. Just because they overturned Roe doesn't mean that abortion as a right isn't protected by the constitution, it means the argument from Roe does not prove it to be constitutionally protected. You can make another argument. Or, you know, just make a law. And yes, the way people look at and interpret things changes over time as well.
Look at it like a game for example. People discover a new technique or strategy in a game all the time, and a lot of times the developers didn't even intend it. It's something that was always in the game but people discovered it.
If the law doesn't actually stop anyone from banning it, then you cannot say it's "protected". If you or I can make a perfectly rationally solid argument for something to be protected by the Constitution, but the Courts haven't said so and states/orgs can ban all they want, then where's the protection? I literally could not exercise the right.
Riiiight, but in that analogy, if someone just discovered it before, they could have done it with the same tools. A better analogy would be the developers introducing a patch, mechanically changing what people could do.
Let's say there was an item, the description of which said it provided a 20% buff to all classes. Except.... it didn't actually work on Rangers. Then 250 years later, the devs patch it so the item now properly functions with all classes. And you try to convince me that the item always worked on all professions, because it's right there in the description!
Trump the anti-Asian racist...
Who cares what he eats, he doesn't hate Asians as is commonly preached by the Dems. Also, where's Asians for Kamala, Asian Men for Kamala, That's what I thought.
The DNC Story No One's Talking About
The 2024 Democratic Platform was quietly released Monday at the DNC, and again ignored men
menandthe2024election.substack.com
Common DNC-2024 L.
I love not living in a swing state where the top of the ticket does matter. Still, I am voting for Harris, and leaving the Senate vote blank.
You can expect it to be all over the news tomorrow or possibly Thursday. Trump Media is about to drop under $20.
Trump will be able to start selling what stock he owns in sept, I believe stocks just released for his early investors.
I think I mentioned this before but the reason this relevant to the election is that speculation on the stock value based on likely hood of Trump becoming president. The above article talks about it, but essentially wall street is betting against a Trump presidency.
Trump just released 3 million more shares for exchange.
Expect Trump to put out a statement to his supporters essentially telling them to buy stock to show loyalty.
Donald Trump's DJT slips to new low. Are investors and voters less bullish?
Shares of Truth Social owner Trump Media fell to a new low Tuesday. Here's why.
www.usatoday.com
Trump will be able to start selling what stock he owns in sept, I believe stocks just released for his early investors.
I think I mentioned this before but the reason this relevant to the election is that speculation on the stock value based on likely hood of Trump becoming president. The above article talks about it, but essentially wall street is betting against a Trump presidency.
Trump just released 3 million more shares for exchange.
Expect Trump to put out a statement to his supporters essentially telling them to buy stock to show loyalty.
And, of course, both calling the falling stock prices "fake news" and blaming them on Democrats.