Intriguing. Are you inferring some of this from his opening statement on Kennedy’s “legacy of liberty.” Those seemed like choice words (also not mentioning “dignity, contra AMK’s ‘87 hearings)
-
-
-
I actually hadn't thought about that, but you're right -- his opening statement reinforces my view. If I wanted Obergefell to be overruled (I do not), I wouldn't be happy about the tenor of Kavanaugh's testimony.
-
I hear you. I think you could also read it the other way — Kavanaugh has pointedly not mentioned dignity or Kennedy’s approach to constitutional interpretation/advocacy
-
Ha, true -- I viewed your mention of liberty as about freedom to marry, but it could also be about religious liberty. I'm not surprised by his not mentioning "dignity," though; I think that's tied to a more freewheeling approach he wouldn't follow.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
With respect, I couldn't disagree more. His focus on Masterpiece – even including it in the list of cases – is telling.
-
Fair enough; time will tell (assuming he's confirmed). My prediction is that we'll see a few more
#SCOTUS rulings in favor of religious liberty claims, but nothing more than that. -
Thanks. I appreciate your response. Maybe someday we can have a chat about religious liberty also :-)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Tone?
-
He sounded like what? Nice? Roberts is nice. It didn’t stop him from saying to loving couples that the constitution have nothing to do with their right to marry.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
My reading is that Kavanaugh would even join the per curiam opinion in Pavan v. Smith-- not Gorsuch's dissent. He doesn't have "owning the libz" attitude as Gorsuch.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just as a matter of precedent analysis, the reliance interest in Obergefell, in contrast to Roe/Casey, completely prohibitive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As I’ve said since Kennedy retired, Roe is in trouble; Obergfell (which stands on far firmer Con grounds) is not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, you will be allowed to continue to remain married.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s a lot of wishful reading into nothing. That would not be my reading at all of either content or tone.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The court is simply stuck with same gender marriage. What can they do, void the marriages in place?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I can’t see the Court ever revisiting the SSM issue but I can see some eventual strong carve outs for private companies on free exercise grounds.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.