The Supreme Court should realize they have no business telling anyone who they can love and marry...

[Donkees]

Bernie Sanders
@SenSanders

Maybe just maybe, the Supreme Court should realize they have no business telling anyone who they can and can't love and marry. I was proud to cast my vote today to finally make marriage equality – including same-sex and interracial marriages – the long overdue law of the land.

5:34 PM · Nov 16, 2022

[onecaliberal]

1. They shouldn't force women to give birth to a rapists child. Give me a fucking break.

[Funtatlaguy]

3. While watching the Handmaids Tale... I never dreamed it might come true.

[onecaliberal]

4. The sad thing, is men are fixing the laws that can hurt them. No one is worried about codifying our

rights to our own fucking bodies.

[Funtatlaguy]

2. If they void gay marriages, they need to also void Clarence's. I dare them.

We may storm the SC.

[Ocelot II]

5. They won't; they'll just do like Dobbs and say *the states* can tell people

whom they can love and marry. Wash their hands of the whole question, reiterate that there's no Constitutional right to privacy (per Dobbs), so it's just fine IAW the Constitution if some retrograde state legislatures decide they can outlaw same-sex marriage.

[Claustrum]

6. You forgot the part where Republicans will then campaign on a nationwide ban on abortion/gay

marriage, completely reversing on their "reasons" for striking the law down. And if they get into the majority and the presidency, they will follow through.

[Ocelot II]

7. Yup. Just like Lindsey Graham has tried to do.

Dobbs said there's no Constitutional right to privacy and that the issue should be left to the states. Lindsey turns it all right around and says the federal government via Congress should decide, and not the state legislatures.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

8. I don't understand this tweet at all.

The Supreme Court hasn't tried to tell anyone who they can love and marry. They've said that people have a right to marry who they want. Even if they were to stop saying that, they still wouldn't ban anything. It would be legislative bodies that would do it.

[Donkees]

9. Justice Clarence Thomas was recently churning up overturning other settled cases...

Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court reconsider other settled cases, including the precedent protecting same-sex marriages.

Although no case exists on the Supreme Court docket challenging marriage rights, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin said there is "urgency" to codify marriage rights into law.

"Millions of Americans — our family members, our neighbors, our congressional staff members and certainly our constituents — are scared," Baldwin, a Democrat, said on the Senate floor, "scared that the rights they rely on to protect their families could be taken away."

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/16/chuck-grassley-votes-against-federal-same-sex-marriage-bill/69651970007/

[BlueCheeseAgain]

10. Yes, but at most the Court would turn the question over to Congress and the states.

They wouldn't ban anything themselves. So really Sanders should be firing a shot at Republican legislators and governors.