Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings - eviltoast
  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agreed. And I don’t get how Bostock vs Clayton County doesn’t trump all this bullshit? It says that protection for sex also covers gender identity and sexual orientation because those 2 things are in-part defined by sex already.

    Wouldn’t that case mean all these anti-gay, anti-trans laws are already unconstitutional?

    • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your stare decisis and precedent have no power here.

      This court has thrown out standing, precedent, and even basic honesty about relevant core facts and history. The Psycho Six are effectively now our House of Lords, and they will rule over us for decades, effectively without restraint.

      They can arrogate power at their leisure, abrogate the expressed will of the people on a whim, and alternately cripple and turbocharge the executive branch, based solely on who is president.