To start: Yes, the Chief's sex discrim question yesterday was interesting. It's not a new thought, not by a long shot, but it could ...
-
-
-
... give him a way to write a concurrence to Kennedy's majority opinion that would allow him to distinguish his Windsor vote. And while ...
-
... that sounds crazy, it's pretty much exactly what O'Connor did from Bowers to Lawrence.
-
@chrisgeidner I would think he would have pursued the question further if that was his plan. -
@chrisgeidner The only on-point SCOTUS case on that was Baker v. Nelson, which was a summary dismissal, so it's underdeveloped to begin w/. -
@nharpermn I mean, perhaps you don't know this, but I am very well aware. -
@chrisgeidner Sorry, I figured you did. I just view it being a single question as a cut against that happening, rather than likely. -
@nharpermn Agree it wasn't his big plan. But, assuming he sees AMK vote yes at conf, it's hard to decide to dissent into history. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner ohhh boy. I actually wish someone would do a serious analysis of alito's polygamy questions -
@chrisgeidner I think ssm supporters dismiss/shy away from it because it's so socially unpalatable -
@chrisgeidner but I think the questions about where one draws the line, legally is sort of a fair one -
@cerealcommas I can't find it right now, but (I think) Verrilli (?) actually had a very interesting answer to one of those questions. -
@chrisgeidner he said something about how it would complicate child custody issues, I think? -
@cerealcommas No. I'll find it. I said "interesting," not expected.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner did you listen to the arguments in Yates v. US? Aka the "over-sided fish case"? -- sounds lame but SO interesting and fun!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.