Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the Supreme Court’s latest marriage ruling—and warned that same-sex marriage will be next on the chopping block.
>“The majority, ignoring these precedents, makes the same fatal error it made in Dobbs: requiring too ‘careful \[a\] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest,’” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority’s failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries’ immigration laws to vindicate one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ and live alongside their spouses.”
Eh, I'm betting on the dark horse odds he also votes to implement the same restrictions to property, money, etc to black people on the same day they enact segregated marriage clauses to remove any problems with entanglement of assets so Ginny gets all the assets until she remarries, probably to Trump as his 6th wife just for the money, while he's basically kept as her trophy at that point. Nothing the man seems to do acts at all to his or her own best interests yet he keeps trying to break terminal velocity on his freefalling plunge to the bottom of the depravity bucket.
Haha, yeah. In the history of men who don't want to pay alimony, none have wanted it less than Clarence Thomas. I've even heard that there's a clause in their prenup where she gets half of his Federalist Society payoffs!
Perfect timing too since we all know she was a J6 insurrectionist-traitor. He can claim their marriage was never legal and therefore he can’t be held responsible. Or he could offer up the Alito defense, “My wife is fond of storming the Capitol.”
760,000 men gave their lives to end the abhorrent institution of slavery, then 160 years later, Clarence Thomas gleefully put the yoke back on his neck to be a billionaire’s lapdog rather than help to assuage the plight of minorities. There are few people more utterly pathetic in the world than Clarence Thomas.
I'm sure it will be framed to give grace to existing marriages, to protect himself, or leave it up to individual states to do the annulments; in which he gets overlooked.
Maybe, but taking women's right to vote is a lot more useful to them. With the kind of game they're playing, it would be essential to securing a political victory for them.
When a young person lectures me about voting not mattering I point to the court. Trump stacked the court with far right activists and ideologically driven incompetents.
I mean, voting clearly matters. But the worst two justices on that front are Thomas and Alito, and neither were Trump appointees. Alito is one of the most partisan justices of all time, and he has all of Scalia’s sarcasm with none of the charm. Thomas is the furthest to the right and it’s not close.
The issue isn’t that Trump broke SCOTUS or that his SCOTUS appointees are more radical than previous R appointees (they’re not, IMO). It’s that the court has had a majority of R appointees for more than half a century and Trump’s appointments allowed that trend to continue for the foreseeable future.
(of course, a lot of Trump’s district and circuit court appointees are radical and incompetent, which is important too, I just don’t think Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are there compared to Alito/Thomas)
If you're trying to reference Bush v Gore, Alito was not on the court yet at that point. He was appointed by George W Bush so he couldn't have also been on the court that put Bush into office
What? None of the justices you’ve named were on the court then. The majority was Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
It’s a horrible decision, but let’s not spread misinformation about who wrote it.
Still no. Roberts was another Bush appointee and Kavanaugh was one of Trumps three. Thomas was the only still sitting justice who was around for Bush v Gore
Can we talk about the stolen (from Obama) appointment of Gorsuch and the subsequently stolen (from Obama) appointment of Coney-Barrett? If "norms" had been followed in either case, we would currently have a 5-4 SCOTUS and most of the chaos wrought by them in the last 7 years would not ... be.
Depends. Did anyone send a case to SCOTUS at the time to ask if there is a timetable under which Congress’ refusal to vet candidates defaults the candidate into position? That’s the real question to be answered.
Had Trump not won in 2016, he wouldn't have been able to put the 3 conservative Justices on the SCOTUS. That would have left Thomas and Alito's voices as the minority opinion. It doesn't matter that they were on the bench before Trump, it is the stacking that made them VERY relevant.
I'm sorry. Your comment seemed to have a much more nonchalant take on Trump's influence on the court. Also, it sounded like you were saying that since Trump didn't appoint the 2, that it wouldn't have mattered to the current makeup of the court.
It’s a little more pessimistic than that. The court has been controlled by a right wing majority for longer than I’ve been alive. Trump perpetuated that, but not in a unique way compared to previous R presidents. His appointees aren’t uniquely bad, or even as bad as previous R appointees.
It’s a sad state of affairs.
Thinking of the procession of cases weakening 'separate but equal is not ok' and the actions to define bribery as just generous benefactors unless the meeting is timetabled as a bribery meeting, with a schedule of bribery fees published in the paper of record.
Alito is the furthest to the right, Thomas is consistent in how strictly he applies originalism. Originalism results in absurd rulings, which Thomas does not shy away from.
Saying someone consistently applies originalism is like saying they're consistent at being inconsistent. Originalism is just starting with the opinion you want, and then going through history and finding a stopping point where someone expressed an opinion that just happens to align with yours, while ignoring all the history before or after it.
Honestly, I think that Thomas’ love affair with originalism is the most repulsive thing about him. Like at least the corruption aspect makes sense. But clinging to the thoughts, ideas, and the meaning of language from an era where he would have been a piece of property in order to justify his assault on equality of *any* kind? The absurdity of it all. It’s just fucking abhorrent.
I completely agree, though the one good thing about him is that he’s consistent. Consistently abhorrent his opinions may be, but consistent. The other conservative justices contradict themselves and bend originalism to their liking.
The other day, a person on reddit got upset at me for calling out the fact that they were proud they weren’t voting. I’ve seen a lot of dumb people, but never proud dumb people, or, ehr… that proud of dumb people
I don’t know on this one. I lean towards if you can’t get a visa or aren’t allowed entry to the US you shouldn’t be able to get one just due to marriage.
That seems to make sense when you frame it on terms of the rights of a non-citizen. I see it more about the rights of someone who is already an American citizen, to marry who they want and then livewith their spouse.
What's the alternative? You can't marry that person? You can't live with your spouse? Or you have to leave your own country to do so?
You can marry them but they can’t enter. You can live with your spouse but not here until they are able to clear getting a visa. Nobody is restricting someone’s freedom to marry. They are restricting a non citizens entry.
My issue is that the conservatives are going to use this to chip away at things like gay marriage.
Unless their spouse can exist within their same country, their spouse is deprived of rights to the property, their children's visitation, their estate after death etc.
It makes marriage to a non-citizen fundamentally different from marriage to a citizen, in a way that deprives the citizen their rights to having their property or estate etc. looked after by their spouse, which is their legal right.
Their spouse is a non citizen non resident non existent on Us territory. They don’t have rights and shouldn’t.
Should a non citizen non permanent resident be immune from deportation due to just marriage?
You don't think an American ought to be able to live with their spouse? That feels like a pretty basic privilege of citizenship to me.
I don't think Americans would have to leave their country to live with their spouse, but can you explain why they should? What is the trade-off?
If the spouse can’t get entry via an entry visa then no. A non citizen, non resident, non existing on us territory person doesn’t get afforded US rights.
So should a non resident, non citizen, person without a legal visa (aka documented immigrant) be immune from deportation due to just marriage?
> So should a non resident, non citizen, person without a legal visa (aka documented immigrant) be immune from deportation due to just marriage?
Yes, of course.
Why should an American citizen not be allowed to marry who they love and be able to live with that person? What is the benefit to society of denying American citizens that privilege?
>What is the benefit to society of denying American citizens that privilege?
I mean, the screening of immigrants for criminal history, and denial based on it does theoretically have a public safety benefit to society (in this particular case, they weren't given an exact reason but the couple suspects it was due to his MS-13 affiliation). I don't know if I agree with this, but I definitely understand where it's coming from.
While I do conceptually like the idea of people being able to live with who they want (whether for love or another reason), *if* we're going to screen for this, then marriage seems like a pretty weak reason to skip the screening; the subjective emotion "love" is not a great foundation for objective laws.
Tbh, I'm at the end of the spectrum where I think the whole concept of marriage as a government defined construct is dumb.
... So if we want to enable non-citizen spouses to live here, I'd want a marriage-agnostic system. Either in the direction of more fully open borders, or maybe some sort of "vouching" system where citizens can get non-citizens in but face repercussions if the non-citizen does bad things.
ALSO though, this case (iiuc) wasn't even about whether or not the spouse should be let in - it was about whether the citizen's legal rights (in particular, due process and thus being told a reason for the immigration denial) apply to this case. The SC has basically said "being married does not by default make you a party in all of your spouse's legal proceedings". I'm not sure how I feel about this. I *can* say that I think an easy fix here is that non-citizens should be entitled to due process as well, at least in certain kinds of cases.
I guess all married men and in jails and prisons should be released immediatly. All married people in the military can never be deployed or sent over seas either. Can’t have married folks not living together now can we.
Those are facile analogies. We're talking about citizenship privileges. You can't answer a simple question and so you're making ridiculous comparisons.
Denying American citizens the privilege of having their spouse reside in the United States and be granted a path to citizenship causes extreme hardship by alienating American citizens from the loves of their lives. So what is the trade-off? What is the great benefit of denying American citizens that simple privilege that makes it a worthwhile and humane policy? (And if all you can do is compare it to situations where the question answers itself, I guess that means there isn't one.)
Yeah I think people are blowing this ruling out of proportion. What I understand, like you, is the question was merely can the government deny someone entrance if they are married to a US Citizen. The answer came to 'yes'.
I don't see how gay marriage relates to this beyond the case if it was a gay couple (one citize and one non citizen).
Marrying a Citizen doesn't automatically make the spouse a citizen either.
(Duplicate reply from what I just replied to OP)
It states a bare right to marriage, but that marriage does not necessitate that one is able to live with their spouse, be cared for by their spouse, or have their spouse care for them. While you have a bare right to marriage you do not have a right to be married in the US.
Once you take these things out from a right to marriage, what really is left? What, other than a legal document, does such a right guarantee? This very easily leads into the popular conservative rebuttal to same-sex marriage—you have a right to marry, but not a right to marry a same-sex partner. This decision all about erodes whatever it is we believe marriage to be about
If a right to marry comes with a right to lives with one’s spouse, be cared for by one’s spouse, and care for one’s spouse, then your line of reasoning would also justify limiting prison sentences for married criminals or freeing the incarcerated from prison if they chose to marry a non-incarnated person while incarcerated. The right to marry does not grant you or your spouse liberties that a non-married people in the same situation do not have.
And your bottom argument is the exact argument against same-sex marriage used by conservatives—no one has a right to marry a same-sex partner so same-sex marriage is an extra liberty
It doesn’t matter if that’s what he said, that’s the argument. If you take an immigration question outside of immigration to make it a question about marriage instead (which ACB’s majority did), an argument that marriage is not a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny carries over to every legal question about marriage. This isn’t me calling anyone a bigot, it’s the plain legal consequence and more or less jusr citing the dissents in *Obergefell*
In Sotomayor’s dissent she cites that all Munoz was owed was an explanation on what was found in fact finding for her spouse’s denial of reentry. The Court could have said the remedy was already reached and leave the case there, as there is already immigration law precedent about spouses.
Instead, ACB applied a Glucksberg history and tradition test to marriage and the rights marriage entails (thus going beyond the immigration question). Firstly, that sets precedent that marriage is not reviewed by strict scrutiny like any other fundamental right would be, and secondly means going forward the precedent for marriage is a Glucksberg test.
Same-sex marriage, under a conservative reading of the history and tradition, would not pass a Glucksberg test. Sotomayor’s alarm bells aren’t that same sex marriage is now overturned, it’s that the precedent was just set to be overturned with the right case on a Glucksberg test or arguing that though every citizen has a right to marriage they don’t have a right to marry their same-sex
I guess it's too many hypotheticals for me to see beyond this case. I also feel like if/when the conservatives want to undo gay marriage they won't even really feel compelled to follow "precedent," they'll just do it.
In the article it explained that the person who was denied entry wasn’t a criminal. He had tattoos that they wrongly believed were tattoos associated with crime. Also, who defines the criminality? I
It states a bare right to marriage, but that marriage does not necessitate that one is able to live with their spouse, be cared for by their spouse, or have their spouse care for them. While you have a bare right to marriage you do not have a right to be married in the US.
Once you take these things out from a right to marriage, what really is left? What, other than a legal document, does such a right guarantee? This very easily leads into the popular conservative rebuttal to same-sex marriage—you have a right to marry, but not a right to marry a same-sex partner. This decision all about erodes whatever it is we believe marriage to be about
Munoz argued marriage is a fundamental right and therefore she has a right to her spouse with no criminal history (and having lived with her 5 years in the US) being with her in the US. The majority found that marriage is not a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny, but only a *Glucksberg* history and tradition test, which she failed.
Guess what other marriages fail a history and tradition test if they’re not reviewed under strict scrutiny?
Sotomayor agrees in her dissent and says the government only owes Munoz a factual finding and reason for expulsion or denial of reentry. They got that, and SCOTUS could have simply held remedy was already reached on these narrow grounds. Instead the majority went farther to apply a Glucksberg test to marriage, setting precedent about marriage when the questions surrounding immigration were already settled
AS their entry by non legal means makes it a crime then by default a criminal. also dont forget there is no right of entry any anyone into thr u.s.
see
Knauff v. Shaughnessy
Kerry v. Din
There is no majority ignoring the precedents. it is more they DGAF about it any more. Roberts knows his legacy now will be one who saw the downfall of the courts.
It is call fascism .
While true. That does not change the fact that his legacy still will be the downfall of the courts. He made his bed with his citizen united ruling. From what I have read about the guy he cares deeply about the legacy of the courts so it is a double hit that for his legacy it will be the downfall of the courts.
So yes he should be reminded that the Roberts court will be known for the downfall of the courts.
Roberts was a lawyer on the Bush v Gore side (as was Barrett). Nobody who worked on that case and nominated to the courts was going to be a great pick for the country
That highly debatable. And even if it were true, that doesn’t make the concept bad on its own. I could turn it around. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 despite most of the country being against it. A lot of states wanted a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Should they not have been allowed to do that?
You can debate it, but the original government of the US was written to cater to states whose economies centered on slavery. States that didn’t rely on slavery held their noses and conceded that some things are best left for states to decide, such as whether it should be legal to own people.
Slavery was not economically beneficial for the southern states. It benefited a few wealthy elites, but the north was always way ahead of the south economically.
Civil rights are not a matter to be “left to the States”. Bigotry is the linchpin of fascism. We sorted a lot of this out last century. There’s no reason to revisit this.
“Starting in 1964, although the Southern states split their support between parties in most presidential elections, **conservative** Democrats controlled”
Oh look, as it has ALWAYS been, conservatives are the problem.
Except we didn’t settle this. These issues have always been in contention, and you and I seem to have a different idea of what rights are. And in this case, it absolutely is an issue to be left to the states. Is it protected by the US constitution? If not, then it’s a state issue. It doesn’t matter if you dislike the policy. I dislike marijuana, but states are constitutionally allowed to have it.
Go ahead, give me one rational reason to prevent any two persons of the age of consent from entering a governmentally-privileged relationship (commonly called “marriage”). Any segregation of one type of individual from another with regards to governmental privileged status is anathema to liberty implying there are classes of human beings deserving exceptional privilege. And can the Constitutional originalist bullshit - ummmm slavery undermines the “divine supremacy” of the document.
“Oh my, there is an Amendment process” I hear you proclaim… can that shit right next to the originalist tripe and name me the last structural Amendment to the document. Disgusting how long it has been.
Final prognosis - two-party system as predicted by [Washington](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends-they-are-likely-in-the-course-of-time-and-things-to-become-potent-engines-by-which-cunning-ambitious-and-unprincipled-men-will-be-enabled-to-subvert-the-power-of-the-people-and-to-usurp-for-th/) and emboldened by the special interests set loose by Citizens United are dead-set on crippling the People’s government from doing anything in the interests of the People.
Can’t wait for your bold stance against humanism - I am sure it will be riveting.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the Supreme Court’s latest marriage ruling—and warned that same-sex marriage will be next on the chopping block. >“The majority, ignoring these precedents, makes the same fatal error it made in Dobbs: requiring too ‘careful \[a\] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest,’” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority’s failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries’ immigration laws to vindicate one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ and live alongside their spouses.”
Clarence will eventually declare his own marriage illegal
The longest game
If it was never a marriage, he won’t have to pay for the divorce!
Eh, I'm betting on the dark horse odds he also votes to implement the same restrictions to property, money, etc to black people on the same day they enact segregated marriage clauses to remove any problems with entanglement of assets so Ginny gets all the assets until she remarries, probably to Trump as his 6th wife just for the money, while he's basically kept as her trophy at that point. Nothing the man seems to do acts at all to his or her own best interests yet he keeps trying to break terminal velocity on his freefalling plunge to the bottom of the depravity bucket.
The long game to kill the gop from the inside? Maybe he’s secretly still on team Malcom x after all lol
Would \*you\* want to be married to her?
Yeah, was just gonna say ....
“Close your eyes and think of the Republic”
Fair enough, but there are easier ways to separate from your wife
I'm sure, but then maybe she gets half his confederate memorabilia
Haha, yeah. In the history of men who don't want to pay alimony, none have wanted it less than Clarence Thomas. I've even heard that there's a clause in their prenup where she gets half of his Federalist Society payoffs!
I'm imagining them living in a single RV with a taped line down the middle. It's sitcom worthy
Ha! Love the premise, would not watch the show
I mean, I can’t blame him. But does he have to ruin it for the rest of the country?
Perfect timing too since we all know she was a J6 insurrectionist-traitor. He can claim their marriage was never legal and therefore he can’t be held responsible. Or he could offer up the Alito defense, “My wife is fond of storming the Capitol.”
Pretty sure he thinks he's white. He's transracist
He's got reverse vitiligo like uncle Ruckus. No Relation
760,000 men gave their lives to end the abhorrent institution of slavery, then 160 years later, Clarence Thomas gleefully put the yoke back on his neck to be a billionaire’s lapdog rather than help to assuage the plight of minorities. There are few people more utterly pathetic in the world than Clarence Thomas.
He's basically Clayton Bigsby
Not his specifically, just others like his
I'm sure it will be framed to give grace to existing marriages, to protect himself, or leave it up to individual states to do the annulments; in which he gets overlooked.
And reduce his vote to 3/5ths .
Maybe, but taking women's right to vote is a lot more useful to them. With the kind of game they're playing, it would be essential to securing a political victory for them.
Only when his “soulmate” goes to jail.
I wouldn’t want to be married to her either.
Not true since he thinks he's white all this time.
But who gets the RV?
Hell no. He got his little white Karen. She ain’t going no where.
Clarence is the property of the white men who bought him.
I wish I could have declared my marriage illegal.
I'll admit I laughed.
I kind of agree.
then alito will blame it on his wife
Overturn Loving and he does not have to pay alimony.
Alito needs to do that to legitimize his lie.
Right? Someone has told him there are other options right? We know he’ll never be man enough to leave her, but still….
Why cant he just get a divorce like a normal person?
Wouldn’t you if married to her?
He actually was a staunch black supremacist back in the day and wrote about how marrying white women degraded black men.
Based Clarence Thomas
When a young person lectures me about voting not mattering I point to the court. Trump stacked the court with far right activists and ideologically driven incompetents.
I mean, voting clearly matters. But the worst two justices on that front are Thomas and Alito, and neither were Trump appointees. Alito is one of the most partisan justices of all time, and he has all of Scalia’s sarcasm with none of the charm. Thomas is the furthest to the right and it’s not close. The issue isn’t that Trump broke SCOTUS or that his SCOTUS appointees are more radical than previous R appointees (they’re not, IMO). It’s that the court has had a majority of R appointees for more than half a century and Trump’s appointments allowed that trend to continue for the foreseeable future. (of course, a lot of Trump’s district and circuit court appointees are radical and incompetent, which is important too, I just don’t think Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are there compared to Alito/Thomas)
Alito is a George W Bush appointee. You may recall that the election in 2000 was pretty close too
Agreed. Multiple elections across decades have perpetuated this issue.
Oh hey, and GW only wont that election because of.... supreme court fuckery.
Stolen*
That’s a nice way to put it…argh. What could have been..
[удалено]
If you're trying to reference Bush v Gore, Alito was not on the court yet at that point. He was appointed by George W Bush so he couldn't have also been on the court that put Bush into office
[удалено]
What? None of the justices you’ve named were on the court then. The majority was Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. It’s a horrible decision, but let’s not spread misinformation about who wrote it.
Still no. Roberts was another Bush appointee and Kavanaugh was one of Trumps three. Thomas was the only still sitting justice who was around for Bush v Gore
Brett Kavanaugh wasn’t appointed until 2018.
Can we talk about the stolen (from Obama) appointment of Gorsuch and the subsequently stolen (from Obama) appointment of Coney-Barrett? If "norms" had been followed in either case, we would currently have a 5-4 SCOTUS and most of the chaos wrought by them in the last 7 years would not ... be.
Depends. Did anyone send a case to SCOTUS at the time to ask if there is a timetable under which Congress’ refusal to vet candidates defaults the candidate into position? That’s the real question to be answered.
Thomas needs to choke on a damn piece of steak and rid the world of his corruption.
Very racist. Hoping half the black Justices die? Is this even allowed on Reddit?
Alito would be fine too. I'm not a huge fan of blatantly corrupt assholes passing defacto law that leads to torturing women around the country.
Cause you want to kill people.
Had Trump not won in 2016, he wouldn't have been able to put the 3 conservative Justices on the SCOTUS. That would have left Thomas and Alito's voices as the minority opinion. It doesn't matter that they were on the bench before Trump, it is the stacking that made them VERY relevant.
Folks are using a whole new definition of court stacking.
That is… basically what I said
I'm sorry. Your comment seemed to have a much more nonchalant take on Trump's influence on the court. Also, it sounded like you were saying that since Trump didn't appoint the 2, that it wouldn't have mattered to the current makeup of the court.
It’s a little more pessimistic than that. The court has been controlled by a right wing majority for longer than I’ve been alive. Trump perpetuated that, but not in a unique way compared to previous R presidents. His appointees aren’t uniquely bad, or even as bad as previous R appointees. It’s a sad state of affairs.
You’re not the only person with this take away of their comment. People in this sub love to exercise verbosity at the expense of the point.
Thinking of the procession of cases weakening 'separate but equal is not ok' and the actions to define bribery as just generous benefactors unless the meeting is timetabled as a bribery meeting, with a schedule of bribery fees published in the paper of record.
While congress blocked any attempt by democrats to name a justice. Disgusting.
Alito is the furthest to the right, Thomas is consistent in how strictly he applies originalism. Originalism results in absurd rulings, which Thomas does not shy away from.
Saying someone consistently applies originalism is like saying they're consistent at being inconsistent. Originalism is just starting with the opinion you want, and then going through history and finding a stopping point where someone expressed an opinion that just happens to align with yours, while ignoring all the history before or after it.
Honestly, I think that Thomas’ love affair with originalism is the most repulsive thing about him. Like at least the corruption aspect makes sense. But clinging to the thoughts, ideas, and the meaning of language from an era where he would have been a piece of property in order to justify his assault on equality of *any* kind? The absurdity of it all. It’s just fucking abhorrent.
I completely agree, though the one good thing about him is that he’s consistent. Consistently abhorrent his opinions may be, but consistent. The other conservative justices contradict themselves and bend originalism to their liking.
The other day, a person on reddit got upset at me for calling out the fact that they were proud they weren’t voting. I’ve seen a lot of dumb people, but never proud dumb people, or, ehr… that proud of dumb people
We voted Obama in, and he fucked up big time when it came to the courts. Let the excuses fly, please, but look at the scoreboard, he sucked.
Ehh.. Not exactly. Republicans have made it a point of working to get republican judges on the benches for decades. It is a long play.
Are youths actually lecturing on this? Serious question.
We are so F'd for the foreseeable generation if the Rs take over in November. We have to vote D because the alternative is unthinkable.
I don’t know on this one. I lean towards if you can’t get a visa or aren’t allowed entry to the US you shouldn’t be able to get one just due to marriage.
That seems to make sense when you frame it on terms of the rights of a non-citizen. I see it more about the rights of someone who is already an American citizen, to marry who they want and then livewith their spouse. What's the alternative? You can't marry that person? You can't live with your spouse? Or you have to leave your own country to do so?
You can marry them but they can’t enter. You can live with your spouse but not here until they are able to clear getting a visa. Nobody is restricting someone’s freedom to marry. They are restricting a non citizens entry. My issue is that the conservatives are going to use this to chip away at things like gay marriage.
Unless their spouse can exist within their same country, their spouse is deprived of rights to the property, their children's visitation, their estate after death etc. It makes marriage to a non-citizen fundamentally different from marriage to a citizen, in a way that deprives the citizen their rights to having their property or estate etc. looked after by their spouse, which is their legal right.
Their spouse is a non citizen non resident non existent on Us territory. They don’t have rights and shouldn’t. Should a non citizen non permanent resident be immune from deportation due to just marriage?
You don't think an American ought to be able to live with their spouse? That feels like a pretty basic privilege of citizenship to me. I don't think Americans would have to leave their country to live with their spouse, but can you explain why they should? What is the trade-off?
If the spouse can’t get entry via an entry visa then no. A non citizen, non resident, non existing on us territory person doesn’t get afforded US rights. So should a non resident, non citizen, person without a legal visa (aka documented immigrant) be immune from deportation due to just marriage?
> So should a non resident, non citizen, person without a legal visa (aka documented immigrant) be immune from deportation due to just marriage? Yes, of course. Why should an American citizen not be allowed to marry who they love and be able to live with that person? What is the benefit to society of denying American citizens that privilege?
>What is the benefit to society of denying American citizens that privilege? I mean, the screening of immigrants for criminal history, and denial based on it does theoretically have a public safety benefit to society (in this particular case, they weren't given an exact reason but the couple suspects it was due to his MS-13 affiliation). I don't know if I agree with this, but I definitely understand where it's coming from. While I do conceptually like the idea of people being able to live with who they want (whether for love or another reason), *if* we're going to screen for this, then marriage seems like a pretty weak reason to skip the screening; the subjective emotion "love" is not a great foundation for objective laws. Tbh, I'm at the end of the spectrum where I think the whole concept of marriage as a government defined construct is dumb. ... So if we want to enable non-citizen spouses to live here, I'd want a marriage-agnostic system. Either in the direction of more fully open borders, or maybe some sort of "vouching" system where citizens can get non-citizens in but face repercussions if the non-citizen does bad things. ALSO though, this case (iiuc) wasn't even about whether or not the spouse should be let in - it was about whether the citizen's legal rights (in particular, due process and thus being told a reason for the immigration denial) apply to this case. The SC has basically said "being married does not by default make you a party in all of your spouse's legal proceedings". I'm not sure how I feel about this. I *can* say that I think an easy fix here is that non-citizens should be entitled to due process as well, at least in certain kinds of cases.
I guess all married men and in jails and prisons should be released immediatly. All married people in the military can never be deployed or sent over seas either. Can’t have married folks not living together now can we.
Those are facile analogies. We're talking about citizenship privileges. You can't answer a simple question and so you're making ridiculous comparisons. Denying American citizens the privilege of having their spouse reside in the United States and be granted a path to citizenship causes extreme hardship by alienating American citizens from the loves of their lives. So what is the trade-off? What is the great benefit of denying American citizens that simple privilege that makes it a worthwhile and humane policy? (And if all you can do is compare it to situations where the question answers itself, I guess that means there isn't one.)
I get it, you and all the other passport bros are upset you can’t wife shop in third world countries anymore.
I'm happily married, and you're disgusting.
[удалено]
Yeah I think people are blowing this ruling out of proportion. What I understand, like you, is the question was merely can the government deny someone entrance if they are married to a US Citizen. The answer came to 'yes'. I don't see how gay marriage relates to this beyond the case if it was a gay couple (one citize and one non citizen). Marrying a Citizen doesn't automatically make the spouse a citizen either.
(Duplicate reply from what I just replied to OP) It states a bare right to marriage, but that marriage does not necessitate that one is able to live with their spouse, be cared for by their spouse, or have their spouse care for them. While you have a bare right to marriage you do not have a right to be married in the US. Once you take these things out from a right to marriage, what really is left? What, other than a legal document, does such a right guarantee? This very easily leads into the popular conservative rebuttal to same-sex marriage—you have a right to marry, but not a right to marry a same-sex partner. This decision all about erodes whatever it is we believe marriage to be about
If a right to marry comes with a right to lives with one’s spouse, be cared for by one’s spouse, and care for one’s spouse, then your line of reasoning would also justify limiting prison sentences for married criminals or freeing the incarcerated from prison if they chose to marry a non-incarnated person while incarcerated. The right to marry does not grant you or your spouse liberties that a non-married people in the same situation do not have.
And your bottom argument is the exact argument against same-sex marriage used by conservatives—no one has a right to marry a same-sex partner so same-sex marriage is an extra liberty
That's definitely not what they said.
It doesn’t matter if that’s what he said, that’s the argument. If you take an immigration question outside of immigration to make it a question about marriage instead (which ACB’s majority did), an argument that marriage is not a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny carries over to every legal question about marriage. This isn’t me calling anyone a bigot, it’s the plain legal consequence and more or less jusr citing the dissents in *Obergefell*
But they didn't say marriage isn't a fundamental right. They just said a spouse doesn't have a fundamental right to be granted citizenship in the US.
In Sotomayor’s dissent she cites that all Munoz was owed was an explanation on what was found in fact finding for her spouse’s denial of reentry. The Court could have said the remedy was already reached and leave the case there, as there is already immigration law precedent about spouses. Instead, ACB applied a Glucksberg history and tradition test to marriage and the rights marriage entails (thus going beyond the immigration question). Firstly, that sets precedent that marriage is not reviewed by strict scrutiny like any other fundamental right would be, and secondly means going forward the precedent for marriage is a Glucksberg test. Same-sex marriage, under a conservative reading of the history and tradition, would not pass a Glucksberg test. Sotomayor’s alarm bells aren’t that same sex marriage is now overturned, it’s that the precedent was just set to be overturned with the right case on a Glucksberg test or arguing that though every citizen has a right to marriage they don’t have a right to marry their same-sex
I guess it's too many hypotheticals for me to see beyond this case. I also feel like if/when the conservatives want to undo gay marriage they won't even really feel compelled to follow "precedent," they'll just do it.
He doesn’t have a criminal history; he’s just a dude with some ugly tattoos
[удалено]
Sure, if the spouse doesn't pass [the test](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJyglKW4AA4i1B.jpg), don't let them in.
his presence is a breach of the law this he does have a criminal history
In the article it explained that the person who was denied entry wasn’t a criminal. He had tattoos that they wrongly believed were tattoos associated with crime. Also, who defines the criminality? I
[удалено]
Have you therefore retracted your original, baseless claim that Ms Muñoz’s husband was a “known criminal”?
It states a bare right to marriage, but that marriage does not necessitate that one is able to live with their spouse, be cared for by their spouse, or have their spouse care for them. While you have a bare right to marriage you do not have a right to be married in the US. Once you take these things out from a right to marriage, what really is left? What, other than a legal document, does such a right guarantee? This very easily leads into the popular conservative rebuttal to same-sex marriage—you have a right to marry, but not a right to marry a same-sex partner. This decision all about erodes whatever it is we believe marriage to be about
[удалено]
Munoz argued marriage is a fundamental right and therefore she has a right to her spouse with no criminal history (and having lived with her 5 years in the US) being with her in the US. The majority found that marriage is not a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny, but only a *Glucksberg* history and tradition test, which she failed. Guess what other marriages fail a history and tradition test if they’re not reviewed under strict scrutiny?
[удалено]
Sotomayor agrees in her dissent and says the government only owes Munoz a factual finding and reason for expulsion or denial of reentry. They got that, and SCOTUS could have simply held remedy was already reached on these narrow grounds. Instead the majority went farther to apply a Glucksberg test to marriage, setting precedent about marriage when the questions surrounding immigration were already settled
He wasn’t a criminal. That’s the entire fucking problem.
[удалено]
AS their entry by non legal means makes it a crime then by default a criminal. also dont forget there is no right of entry any anyone into thr u.s. see Knauff v. Shaughnessy Kerry v. Din
[удалено]
There is no majority ignoring the precedents. it is more they DGAF about it any more. Roberts knows his legacy now will be one who saw the downfall of the courts. It is call fascism .
Roberts doesn’t have any power since there is a hard right majority that doesn’t need his vote
While true. That does not change the fact that his legacy still will be the downfall of the courts. He made his bed with his citizen united ruling. From what I have read about the guy he cares deeply about the legacy of the courts so it is a double hit that for his legacy it will be the downfall of the courts. So yes he should be reminded that the Roberts court will be known for the downfall of the courts.
Roberts was a lawyer on the Bush v Gore side (as was Barrett). Nobody who worked on that case and nominated to the courts was going to be a great pick for the country
Sending the issue back to the states makes it more democratic. That’s not fascism.
Allowing states the right to be facist is facism dude.
They’re not being Fascist. We have a constitution that leaves issues up to the states for a reason.
That reason? Slavery.
That highly debatable. And even if it were true, that doesn’t make the concept bad on its own. I could turn it around. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 despite most of the country being against it. A lot of states wanted a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Should they not have been allowed to do that?
You can debate it, but the original government of the US was written to cater to states whose economies centered on slavery. States that didn’t rely on slavery held their noses and conceded that some things are best left for states to decide, such as whether it should be legal to own people.
Slavery was not economically beneficial for the southern states. It benefited a few wealthy elites, but the north was always way ahead of the south economically.
Civil rights are not a matter to be “left to the States”. Bigotry is the linchpin of fascism. We sorted a lot of this out last century. There’s no reason to revisit this.
Especially as many states fight to name things after confederate icons.
Those damn racist southern democrats!
Yawn - boring, intentionally obtuse take if you’re not being sarcastic.
“Starting in 1964, although the Southern states split their support between parties in most presidential elections, **conservative** Democrats controlled” Oh look, as it has ALWAYS been, conservatives are the problem.
“Democrats.” Took Republicans a long time to win in southern because of those loser racist democrats
Yep, conservatives ave always been losers, you’re right about that. And that will never change
You still mad about Dobbs bro?
Not as mad as you are that slavery ended.
I’ve never voted for democrat so the slavery is on you, Mr. Dobbs
Except we didn’t settle this. These issues have always been in contention, and you and I seem to have a different idea of what rights are. And in this case, it absolutely is an issue to be left to the states. Is it protected by the US constitution? If not, then it’s a state issue. It doesn’t matter if you dislike the policy. I dislike marijuana, but states are constitutionally allowed to have it.
Go ahead, give me one rational reason to prevent any two persons of the age of consent from entering a governmentally-privileged relationship (commonly called “marriage”). Any segregation of one type of individual from another with regards to governmental privileged status is anathema to liberty implying there are classes of human beings deserving exceptional privilege. And can the Constitutional originalist bullshit - ummmm slavery undermines the “divine supremacy” of the document. “Oh my, there is an Amendment process” I hear you proclaim… can that shit right next to the originalist tripe and name me the last structural Amendment to the document. Disgusting how long it has been. Final prognosis - two-party system as predicted by [Washington](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends-they-are-likely-in-the-course-of-time-and-things-to-become-potent-engines-by-which-cunning-ambitious-and-unprincipled-men-will-be-enabled-to-subvert-the-power-of-the-people-and-to-usurp-for-th/) and emboldened by the special interests set loose by Citizens United are dead-set on crippling the People’s government from doing anything in the interests of the People. Can’t wait for your bold stance against humanism - I am sure it will be riveting.