Posted on 06/25/2015 5:12:39 PM PDT by Kaslin
Still looking for that “brilliant Roberts strategy” thread after the original decision...which claimed he was basically another “magnificent bastard” too smart for the rest of us.
So, he’s having lunch with some friends
Look at his college pics. I’d be surprised if he never walked on the wild side..
That lobster is the most hetero thing in that photo.
Or abortion.
People forget but if Bush’s first choice (the female) for SC had been confirmed instead of Alito it would likely have been 7-2. No more Bushes.
It’s in Article III section 1 of the Constitution
Roberts is a HUGE disappointment. He rules on what he “thinks” someone meant writing a law rather than what the law actually says. The Supreme Court has been lessened to the court of jesters.
HeteroLobster: great name for a band.
I don’t believe in anything anymore. I was about 76% sure today’s ruling would favor us, now I expect SSM to be the twisting of the knife.
If for some reason they kill SSM, at least we can repeal zerocare is the only dim bright spot for me.
No doubt about it.
That’s not the Pope. That’s a bear.
Does the Pope poop in the woods?
The pope uses a pay toilet.
I agree that the government needs to stay out of marriage approval biz. If I were getting married today, I would have serious second thoughts about it. I would seek to get married in a church with the blessing of God, but I would not register my marriage with the government.
Yes. It will be 6 to 3. How tragic.
Probably. I expect a concurring opinion while not agreeing entirely with the Majority. I expect Kennedy to be assigned the opinion.
LOL
Because of a person’s intent, a man can be interpreted as a woman and a woman as a man.
Yes. America is doomed.
So you are against “married filing jointly”? There are hundreds of ways marriage affects government policy. It is entirely woven into the civil system, and even to some degree criminal system. Marriage greatly reduces the need for government. It is a great good for society. Perverting its meaning to mean any two people who like to assist each other in achieving org*sm is a travesty that ignores the whole purpose of marriage to begin with. We might as well just hand out government benefits for any random ridiculous reason.
“It’s in Article III section 1 of the Constitution”
It is. And including it was a huge mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.