CEO of the Trevor Project, Amit Paley, and former Federal and State Prosecutor in New York, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, join Chris Jansing to discuss concerns sparked by the leaked SCOTUS draft opinion, regarding other rights, including same-sex marriage.
Border Patrol officers in Roma, Texas, on Thursday process a migrant family after the family crossed the Rio Grande into the United States.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says his state shouldn’t have to provide free public schooling to undocumented students, despite a long-standing Supreme Court decision that says the opposite.
The high court’s Plyler v. Doe ruling of 1982 struck down a Texas law that did two things: It denied state funds for any students deemed not to have lawfully entered the U.S., and it allowed public school districts to deny admission to those children.
Abbott first made his remarks about the landmark education decision on Wednesday, in the aftermath of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Abbott said the court’s 1982 ruling had imposed an unfair burden on his state.
“I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different” from when the decision came down, Abbott said in an interview with conservative radio host Joe Pagliarulo.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the Texas legislation violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and would create a distinct underclass.
An advocacy group slams Abbott for his remarks
In response to Abbot’s remarks, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) — which filed the original case on behalf of four families whose children were denied a public education — sharply criticized the governor.
Abbott is seeking “to inflict by intention the harms that nine justices agreed should be avoided 40 years ago,” said Thomas Saenz, MALDEF’s president and general counsel, in a news release.
The 1982 decision was a 5-4 ruling, but the justices who dissented in the case did indeed say that it was “senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education.”
Their dissenting opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger, said the court’s majority was overreaching to compensate for the lack of “effective leadership” from Congress on immigration.
Saenz also said that unlike Roe v. Wade, the Plyler v. Doe decision has been incorporated into federal law.
Migrants in La Joya, Texas, on Tuesday wait to be processed after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
The governor predicts a coming influx of migrants
After his initial remarks, Abbott reiterated on Thursday that his state is in an untenable position.
“The Supreme Court has ruled states have no authority themselves to stop illegal immigration into the states,” Abbott said, according to The Texas Tribune. “However, after the Plyler decision they say, ‘Nevertheless, states have to come out of pocket to pay for the federal government’s failure to secure the border.’ So one or both of those decisions will have to go.”
Abbott said Texas’ challenges will get worse when the Biden administration ends the Trump-era public health order known as Title 42, which has barred migrants from the U.S. in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The shift will bring a new influx of immigrants, he said.
In that respect, the governor is echoing an argument his state made in the Plyler case 40 years ago. In that Supreme Court hearing, then-Texas Assistant Attorney General Richard Arnett said Texas was hoping to discourage immigrants from entering the state illegally.
“The problem is not the kids that are here,” he said. “The problem is the future.”
Gov. Abbott wants to ban unauthorized immigrants from Texas schools
Texas Attorney General and Gov.-elect Greg Abbott speaks against President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration at the Price Daniel Building in Austin, Texas, on Monday, Nov. 24, 2014.
Jay Janner, MBO / Associated Press
Gov. Greg Abbott wants to try to reinstate a 1975 Texas law withholding state funds from school districts for kids who were not “legally admitted” into the United States.
In an interview Wednesday on the Joe Pags radio show, Abbott said he would “ressurect” a legal challenge over the law, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1982.
“The challenges put on our public systems is extraordinary,” Abbott said, before referencing Plyler v. Doe, the ruling that overturned the Texas law. “I think that we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler v. Doe was issued many years ago.”
In that case, the court ruled that “education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society,” and withholding it from the children of immigrants in the country without paperwork “does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.” People living without documentation in the country remain people “in any ordinary sense of the term” and are thus entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else in the country.
The plaintiffs in the Plyler case, four families who lost access to education under the Texas law, were represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
“Greg Abbott has once more distinguished himself as one of our most irresponsible and desperate politicians,” Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF, said in a statement. The Plyler decision, he said, is firmly established by the court and has also been endorsed by Congress.
Republican-appointed justices now hold a strong majority on the court, and conservative elected officials like Abbott have been pressing the advantage to reshape federal policy. The governor’s remarks Wednesday came shortly after a draft Supreme Court opinion was leaked showing five of the nine justices ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan group that studies migration globally, estimates there are 1.7 million people living in Texas without paperwork, including 116,000 enrolled in schools. The total student population is 5.4 million, so those without documentation make up roughly 2 percent.
During the interview Wednesday, Pags said there were a large number of children taking classes to learn English as a second language in his child’s school.
“You know that you’re not ethnocentric, neither am I, we love Latinos, we love everybody,” said Pags, who is conservative. “But we’re talking about public tax dollars, public property tax dollars, going to teach children who are 5, 6, 7, 10 years old who don’t even have remedial English skills. This is a real burden on communities.”
Public polling shows immigration and border security to be among the top policy priorities for Texans — particularly Republicans — and Abbott has made it a priority during his administration.
The state is pouring billions of dollars into border security and Operation Lone Star, where Texas National Guard troops are patrolling the border and apprehending immigrants and refugees. Abbott speaks frequently about the need to stop the influx of drugs into the country, though the amount of drugs apprehended at the border through the operation has been minimal, and critics have accused the governor of engaging in political theater without tangible policy objectives with the operation.
Abbott also has set up buses to transport migrants from Texas to Washington, a policy he promoted during theWednesday radio interview. The White House and some of the migrants themselves have thanked Abbott for the free cross-country ride, as many intended to go to Washington anyway or it will be easier for them to access services from there.
White House Press Secretary Jenn Psaki on Thursday called Abbott’s comments harmful. “We’re talking about – to just restate that – denying public education to kids, including immigrants to this country,” she said. “That is not a mainstream point of view.”
A spokeswoman for the governor did not respond to an email asking for more details about the governor’s Wednesday comments.
Rodolfo Rosales Jr., state director for the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens, said estimating the real number of people without documentation is difficult because they are often “living in the shadows” and avoiding any official record.
“I think that the governor is really out of touch and out of line, and I think his all out assault on people of color is just so blatant,” Rosales said. “These little immigrant children are not taking away from any other children in Texas schools.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis and most Republicans in Florida won’t return hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash they received from the entertainment giant.
Disney has given the Republican Party of Florida $255,000 in checks since January 2021 as well as nearly $142,000 worth of in-kind donations that covered lodging, food and entertainment costs of visiting Disney parks. | Ted Shaffrey/AP Photo
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vilified the Walt Disney Co. as “dishonest” and hypocritical. He pushed to strip it of a special tax status and punish its leaders for challenging his policies.
But DeSantis and most Republicans in Florida, where Disney operates its flagship theme park, won’t return hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash they received from the entertainment giant.
Most won’t even discuss it.
Disney and its affiliates have donated more than $2.3 million in Florida this election cycle, which includes money to elected officials, their political committees and committees run by one of the state’s main business groups. That total includes providing hotel rooms and theme park tickets as well as campaign checks. Money has flowed to individual legislators as well as political committees controlled by Republican and Democratic leaders.
But DeSantis and many state Republicans have refused to return campaign contributions to the California-based entertainment giant, which they have blasted over Disney’s opposition to a law that bans instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade. Late last month, DeSantis and the Legislature stripped the company of special privileges that allowed it to operate as its own municipal government in central Florida.
Disney has given the Republican Party of Florida $255,000 in checks since January 2021 as well as nearly $142,000 worth of in-kind donations that covered lodging, food and entertainment costs of visiting Disney parks. The party, however, declined to answer questions about whether it would return any donations.
DeSantis’ reelection campaign, which received through its political committee $50,000 from Disney in March 2021 as well as an additional $50,000 two years earlier, has not returned it even as the Republican governor regularly attacks the company. The campaign declined to comment on the donations received from Disney.
“They have gotten a free ride in this state for 50 years and I think they got arrogant,” DeSantis told more than 250 people earlier this week at a fundraising dinner for the Leon County Republican Party, where he was the keynote speaker. “They think they call the shots and I think they think the rest of us are just going to bow down and say, ‘OK, whatever you want.’ Not with this sheriff in town. That’s not going to happen.”
The amount of money given won’t make or break any candidate or elected official. But it highlights how the governor is willing to accept tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions while at the same time punishing the company, a move a state Democrat called “performative.”
The Republican sponsor of the bill that triggered the fight between DeSantis and Disney was one of a handful of Republicans in the state that returned contributions to Disney.
State Rep. Joe Harding (R-Williston), who sponsored the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, sent back more than $8,000 he had gotten from Disney. His bill — which opponents labeled “Don’t Say Gay” — has been called a broad attack against the LGBTQ community. Some say it could further marginalize some students and lead to bullying and even suicide.
“I can’t be aligned with a corporation taken over by the woke Leftist mob mentality coming out of California and other blue states,” Harding said in a statement. He was one of three Republicans who returned Disney’s money.
Harding shrugged off questions about Republicans holding on their donations from Disney.
“I did it simply on principle on my end, I don’t have an opinion positive or negative on other folks,” Harding said in a phone interview. “Those are decisions they made. For me, I felt it was something I needed to do. I never looked at it as creating a movement.”
Harding’s move to return the funds came days after the Florida Democratic Party abruptly scrapped plans to hold its biggest annual fundraiser at Disney World after the party’s LGBTQ caucus and other top Democrats threatened to boycott the event. Disney gave $138,881 to the Florida Democratic Party during this election cycle, of which $113,881 was in-kind contributions.
Disney in March announced it would pause making campaign donations in Florida amid a backlash over its jumbled response to Harding’s bill, though the company only publicly criticized the measure after it faced harsh criticism from employees and activists for not taking a stand. The company also said it hoped that the law was repealed or struck down by the courts. A federal lawsuit has already been filed by a group of LGBTQ advocates. It was Disney’s push to advocate for repeal of the law that raised the ire of DeSantis and other Republicans.
In his remarks to Republicans this week, DeSantis called “it one of the dumbest things any corporation has ever done.”
Records show that Disney gave the Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign more than $380,000 in checks and in-kind donations in the past 15 months, including a check for $65,000 at the start of this year’s legislative session in January. That political committee, controlled by incoming Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo and previously run by state Senate President Wilton Simpson, has not returned the funds.
The political committee helping Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody, who may have to defend the state if Disney sues over the law dissolving its special privileges, received $25,000 last year from Disney. Her reelection campaign also declined to comment.
Florida’s Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, a Republican ally of DeSantis and whose political committee received a $10,000 check in February as well as $51,000 worth of lodging, travel and other expenses last September from the company, was one of the few who defended holding on to money from Disney.
“Those who contribute to [Patronis’] political committees are supporting his agenda to keep taxes low and our financial health strong,” said Melissa Stone, a spokesperson for his reelection campaign. “The CFO doesn’t expect to agree with any donor 100 percent of the time. As the father of two sons, CFO Patronis wholeheartedly supports the Governor and his efforts to protect parental rights in education — especially when it comes to protecting public school children in kindergarten through 3rd grade.”
State Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando), however, said Republicans’ refusal to return Disney’s money highlights the theater of the situation.
“If Disney is so ‘woke’ and profits off communist China (as DeSantis has stated before) then why are Republicans not returning the millions they’ve received in ‘woke money?” Eskamani asked in a text message. “This is petty, punitive and performative politics — Florida Republicans are such good actors they should be hired by Disney.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) doubled down on Friday, warning that the state will not “subsidize” Disney’s “corporate speech” and vowing that the woke company “is not going to have its own government in Florida.” https://t.co/OTqrsyOqwx
FILE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee delivers his State of the State address in the House Chamber of the Capitol building, Monday, Jan. 31, 2022, in Nashville, Tenn. Lee has signed legislation that will strictly regulate the dispensing of abortion pills, including imposing harsh penalties on doctors who violate them. The measure will go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Mark Zaleski, File)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee will soon strictly regulate the dispensing of abortion pills, including imposing harsh penalties on doctors who violate them, under legislation recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee.
The measure, which Lee signed on Thursday, will go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. Once enacted, a medical clinician will be required to be physically present when abortion pills are administered to a patient even though federal regulations now allow mail delivery nationwide.
The issue has become even more important as the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as suggested through a recently leaked draft opinion. Notably, Tennessee is among the 13 states with a so-called trigger law that would make abortion illegal should Roe be overturned.
To date, 19 states have placed strict restrictions on accessing medication abortion. Under the Tennessee version, delivery of abortion pills by mail would be outlawed and anyone who wanted to use abortion pills would be required to visit a doctor in advance and then return to pick up the pills.
The drugs may be dispensed only by qualified physicians — which would include barring pharmacists from doing so. Violators would face a Class E felony and up to a $50,000 fine.
However, according to abortion law experts, it’s an unsettled question whether states can restrict access to abortion pills in the wake of the the Food and Drug Administration’s decision earlier this year to no longer require women to pick up the abortion medication in person. The move allowed millions of American women to get a prescription via an online consultation and receive the pills through the mail.
“The general rule is that federal law preempts conflicting state law,” Laura Hermer, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, recently told The Associated Press.
No lawsuit has been filed challenging Tennessee’s newly enacted restrictions.
Meanwhile, the in-person requirement had long been opposed by medical societies, including the American Medical Association, which said the restriction offers no clear benefit to patients
Use of abortion pills has been rising in the U.S. since 2000 when the FDA approved mifepristone — the main drug used in medication abortions. More than half of U.S. abortions are now done with pills, rather than surgery, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
Two drugs are required. The first, mifepristone, blocks a hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. A second drug, misoprostol, taken one to two days later, empties the uterus. Both drugs are available as generics and are also used to treat other conditions.
Tennessee is the latest red state to make it a felony to mail abortion pills.
The law makes it punishable by 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. https://t.co/xdMbhujz13
Bill Hwang, founder of the more than $10 billion Archegos Capital Management investment firm who was once revered as one of the Evangelical world’s biggest benefactors, could spend the rest of his life in prison after he was arrested and charged Wednesday with racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud offenses.
The charges stem from a number of interrelated schemes to unlawfully manipulate the prices of publicly traded securities in Archegos’ portfolio, the U.S. Department of Justice announced. Prosecutors say those schemes caused billions of dollars in losses to leading global investment banks, brokerages and investors.
In recent years, Hwang, who co-founded the Grace and Mercy Foundation, has been a contributor to Focus on the Family and a trustee of the Fuller Theology Seminary.
“We allege that these defendants and their co-conspirators lied to banks to obtain billions of dollars that they then used to inflate the stock price of a number of publicly-traded companies,” said U.S. Attorney Williams.
“The lies fed the inflation, and the inflation led to more lies. Round and round it went. In one year, Hwang allegedly turned a $1.5 billion portfolio and pumped it up into a $35 billion portfolio. But last year, the music stopped. The bubble burst. The prices dropped. And when they did, billions of dollars of capital evaporated nearly overnight.”
“As alleged, Hwang and his co-conspirators convinced major financial institutions to enter into agreements with them based on lies, the result of which ultimately led to a massive market manipulation scheme,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Michael J. Driscoll.
“We allege the defendants caused harm to U.S. financial markets and ordinary investors alike, causing significant losses to banks, market participants and Archegos employees. Today’s charges highlight our commitment to making sure the investment arena remains free from fraudulent activity of all kinds.”
Market participants who purchased the relevant stocks at artificial prices lost the value they believed their investments held, the banks lost billions of dollars, and Archegos employees, many of whom were required to invest 25% or more of their bonuses with Archegos as deferred compensation, lost millions of dollars.
When Ravi Zacharias filed a RICO lawsuit against @LoriAnneThomps2 whom he sexually abused, Ravi said he had a “donor with deep pockets who’ll fund it as long as it takes to silence the Thompsons.” That donor was Bill Hwang, who was just arrested by DOJ for fraud and racketeering. https://t.co/ifATk6C7qKpic.twitter.com/0JzkyygRkd
U.S. authorities charged Archegos Capital Management owner Bill Hwang with racketeering, fraud and market manipulation as regulators said their manipulation of stock prices cost banks billions of dollars https://t.co/3mG3SZfF4mpic.twitter.com/y7yPs7MqW0
So Focus on the Family gets bankrolled by a crook? And that’s all Biblical, right? Rob Peter to pay Paul and then we can fuck over all the homos. Now I get it.
The authorities don’t care about his employees who lost millions of dollars because they were forced to invest 25% or more of their bonuses with Archegos as deferred compensation. But the banks and other rich people lost billions. That’s the real crime. Stealing money from rich people and banks.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is facing backlash after questioning how many “over-educated, under-loved” women have participated in protests supporting abortion rights after a draft ruling from the Supreme Court showed that the bench is poised to roll back Roe v. Wade.
“How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” Gaetz wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning.
The tweet came two days after Politico published a draft majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, that said the rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey “must be overturned.” The Supreme Court said the leaked draft ruling is “authentic,” but stressed that it does not reflect the final decision from the bench.
Protesters, however, have since taken to the streets to speak out against the draft opinion or express support for overturning the near 50-year precedent.
Gaetz is now drawing scrutiny for his tweet about some protesters.
Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Bulwark, wrote on Twitter Tuesday that Gaetz’s comment illustrated “witless and vulgar misogyny.”
Jessica Valenti, who dubs herself a “feminist author” on Twitter, quoted Gaetz’s mention of “over-educated” women before writing, “If you think this kind of language is just a gaffe, you’re wrong.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) used his response to Gaetz’s tweet as a way to galvanize voters ahead of the November midterm elections.
“Republicans like Matt Gaetz are for government-mandated pregnancy, against education, and against cats. You can help on campaigns to decide whether or not he is in the majority this November (assuming he isn’t indicted by the DOJ who is investigating him for sex crimes),” the congressman wrote on Twitter.
A number of tweets criticizing the congressman referenced the sex trafficking investigation that is examining the 39-year-old congressman. Investigators are probing to see if Gaetz paid for sex, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and if he paid women to cross over state lines to have sex with him, according to The Washington Post.
The congressman has denied the allegations, contending that he has not paid for sex nor had sex with a minor while he was an adult, the Post noted. The investigation into Gaetz stemmed from a federal probe into former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg, who in June pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor, among other federal crimes.
“How many of the Republican politicians trying to control women and restrict their fundamental rights are currently under criminal investigation for sex crimes?” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) wrote on Twitter.
Meena Harris, the niece of Vice President Harris and the founder of Phenomenal Woman Action Campaign, sounded a similar note, writing on Twitter “How many of the right wing members of Congress rallying against Roe are under investigation for sex trafficking a minor? Just you?”
Jemele Hill, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, wrote on Twitter “How many Florida politicians are out here using a tax collector as a personal pimp to procure sex with a 17 year old girl because they’re a predator and gross?”
“Hypothetically speaking, of course,” she added.
“My tweet speaks for itself,” Gaetz told The Hill when reached for comment. “I obviously don’t regret it.”
Republicans like Matt Gaetz are for government-mandated pregnancy, against education, and against cats.
You can help on campaigns to decide whether or not he is in the majority this November (assuming he isn’t indicted by the DOJ who is investigating him for sex crimes). https://t.co/yfmm0NplPJ
How many of the right wing members of Congress rallying against Roe are under investigation for sex trafficking a minor? Just you? https://t.co/oqSo1XjPwQ
How many Florida politicians are out here using a tax collector as a personal pimp to procure sex with a 17 year old girl because they’re a predator and gross?
Wow, @mattgaetz you’re supposed to be a grown man. Supposed to be, but between the underaged girls and your 9th grade intellect you’ve shown that a pillow fisted, DUI having Daddy’s boy really makes for a shit human. Sad for you… boy. https://t.co/uozBKRFPxX
The idea behind a lot of the laws of the US is the constitution gives the right to privacy, liberty, and body autonomy. Everything from the civil rights laws, Loving vs Virginia which allowed different race people to marry, abortion, Lawerance vs Texas which gave everyone the right to have sex as they wished instead of just penis in vagina, (that law that banned oral sex and anal sex was used just against gay men but did apply to everyone) and of course the right to same sex marriage. The average right wing only wants their hated people subjugated and the right to discriminate without repercussions. But the real power behind this is the hard right businesses and the religious right. Both need to take the country back before the government had the authority or ability to stand up for the people. Why do you think there is such push back against anything resembling what the other advanced countries do for their public, because these groups lose more control every time the people get more right / benefits from their government? It might threaten those over the top profits. But also it threatens the religious leaders that know if people had rights and acceptance along with comfortable living they wouldn’t need religion to offer relief. Anyway anyone who doesn’t think that the next rights to fall are anything not straight male Christian did not read the leaked report. Alito to specifically mention that there was no right to privacy in the constitution, and that is what Lawerance vs Texas was based on that gave the right of people to enjoy whatever sex they wanted with another adult is based on. Remember Ted Cruz when he was the AG of Texas tried to ban adults from using sex toys in the state. Welcome to the Puritan age.
First of all, Obergefell is a bad Supreme Court decision and if we had a Supreme Court worth its salt, they would overturn Obergefell.
But they’re not going to. They explicitly say — Alito says, I think three separate times in that decision that I read in nearly its totality on the air yesterday, that this has no impact on other cases of different lines. Which is a clear reference to Obergefell, repeatedly.
But Democrats know deep in the cockles of their tiny little Grinch-like hearts on abortion, they know that the abortion issue is not a winner. So they’re trying to expand it out – well, you never know.
The Supreme Court, they might go after gay rights, they might go after — sure, you’re right. The same Supreme Court in which Neil Gorsuch idiotically ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers transgender people is now going to overrule Obergefell.
Justice Alito wrote the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
Here he is a year ago talking about his opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges.
“This decision, and what Alito has to say about marriage equality, is a clear call to anyone who opposes marriage equality, who opposes LGBTQ+ equality, that they have a friend on the court. More than one friend." — Jim Obergefell https://t.co/SZZOHwZn3k
Referencing the landmark cases that legalized marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges) and legalized private consensual sex (Lawrence v. Texas), Alito ominously wrote that, like abortion rights, "None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history."
If interracial marriage is based on the Equal Protection clause. Then why doesn’t same-sex marriage fall under the same category? We’re taking about a civil contract between two non-related consenting adults. It’s the exact same thing.
JFC… his voice is “nails on the chalkboard” annoying. How can anyone tolerate listening to this asshole?
I was reading an article from CNN that says the Court may use the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to defend Loving while then going after Obergefel so Thomas’ marriage won’t be jeopardized.
My argument in favor of gay marriage was that there was no compelling public interest in preventing two men or two women from marrying.
In fact, there is a public interest in favor of gay marriage because it provides both financial and psychological stability for the partners involved (which, in turn, benefits society as whole).
As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights.
Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These 2 points must change https://t.co/5Isec0osV0
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
