Reading a lot of, what I would view as, #badanalysis vis-a-vis marriage, of Kerry v. Din, which I just finished reading.
-
-
Here's the opinion in Kerry v. Din: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf … (I will continue.)
-
First of all, six justices do NOT determine that Din lacked the constitutional right in question in the immigration case.
-
And the right that three justices determined Din lacked is NOT a right to marriage. Scalia, w Roberts & Thomas:pic.twitter.com/vgFuB8E1gN
-
The three-justice opinion later notes how different it sees this case is from marriage rights themselves:pic.twitter.com/L51XG5mT7Y
-
And then, again, details the right it viewed as being at issue:pic.twitter.com/cjhP7nol1C
-
Kennedy's opinion concurring in judgment, joined by Alito, assumes even ~this expansive liberty interest~ exists:pic.twitter.com/2GCFiNdYIj
-
Then, the Breyer dissent goes even further, finding that the expansive liberty interest here ~does~ exist:pic.twitter.com/Vuzsau6BGv
-
So, while I don't think one can read much of anything about Obergefell into Din, if you ~insisted~ on doing so, it goes the other way.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner Welp, thanks for reading anyway. :)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@chrisgeidner who said that?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.