140
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
140 points (99.3% liked)
news
24233 readers
419 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And of course the Dems never codified it
Look, I'm all for giving the Democrats a ton of shit. They absolutely deserve it, but let's not spread misinformation.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
During the 2022 congressional session, they managed to get a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage. Unfortunately, the enforcement mechanism is that people have to sue the state to enforce their rights, or that the DOJ needs to do something about it, but it technically is there.
So, yet another excuse from the glorious separation of powers and checks and balances? What's the point of getting "a law on the books to codify interracial marriage and gay marriage"? If they need people to sue the state, then fucking organize your Democrat media apparatus into making people do that. Saying this as a non-USian btw
I didn't say it was good way to legalize it but it's completely in line with how the rest of us citizens rights are enforced.
This is how it works in the US.
Yes it does mean the burgeoisie can basically ignore the law.
Yes it does fucking suck. This is part of what makes the us an authoritarian hell hole.
My point stands, though? How is it misinformation in the first place if the rights can be taken away at any notice because the democrats didn't care to make it otherwise?
Well, then that would be true for every right in the United States. The enforcement mechanism for "rights" is to sue the infringing party.
That means if the govt infringes your rights you sue them to be "made whole".
Thats how it works for every right including the first amendment rights. 🤦
What you're saying is the law doesn't matter regardless of what is passed. Which I agree with but it's different then your initial point
My point isn't really that the law doesn't matter (which is also true but that's beyond the scope of this conversation). My point is "democrats didn't codify it" seems to me a true statement if the law still can be repealed. If they wanted they could have organized a freaking show trial or something if the mechanism needs to be through a lawsuit, the point is that they didn't do any of that, they just wrote some stuff in a book that can be repealed at a moment's notice. Am I wrong here and just being dumb and not understanding something?
Codify to statesian means to put a law on the books. Abortion was legal because of a court ruling not a law. That's why the supreme court could do what they did.
As far as this law goes it can't just be revoked. Either the us supreme court would need to strike it down as unconstitutional (this would likely be a lengthy court battle), or Congress needs a "supermajority" to pass a new law that invalidates the previous gay marriage law. This law can't just be "revoked" from my understanding.
Now there is a whole lot of bs the govt can pull to still get its way but technically it will still have to follow this law.
You're right that it's not impervious, but it's at least a roadblock versus there being nothing in the way. You know what I mean?
Got it. I didn't quite understand it at the beginning. Thanks a lot for the explanation
No worries, the United States legal system and the way we create laws and try to enforce them is incredibly archaic, and even most people here don't understand how it works.
The Respect for Marriage Act kind of codified it. The issue is that court rulings override congressional statutes, executive orders and the constitution itself (although that's a little more rare).
They want Obergefell v. Hodges to get overturned so they can use it to beg for more money
Forgive my ignorance here but what does “codify” even mean? I’m sure the criticism of democrats here is warranted (I am not defending them at all), but when the fascists are pissing and shitting on every law and social norm we have, all this legal jargon just sounds like nonsense.
There is always a card up a sleeve, some antique law cited. The “No-Takesies-Backsies Clause” was overturned because some dickhead found the “Writ of Nuh-Uh”. It's was written on piece of parchment and is barely legible. It conveniently fell out of a dusty old tome in the Library of Congress last week and yet somehow it carries more legal weight than any other document on Earth.
Even worse, now the Republicans in a lot of cases are seemingly just skipping all the preamble and just going straight to the "fuck you please die" part.
Liberals constantly mock SovCits but their understanding of how power works is fundamentally identical.
They literally believe they can stop the government from doing what it wants to do by going into a special building and saying the right words in the right order.
The exact opposite judgements can be reached with the exact same level of support from whatever sacred ancient slaver document they want to cite. It’s constitutional if you like it and unconstitutional if you don’t.
Congress can pass a law (of course, the Senate Parlimentarian can be a convenient obstacle when they don't want to) explicitly declaring its intent to allow abortions, gay marriage, etc. at the federal level so that the courts can't simply change their mind and return it back to the states like before the court decisions making them federally legal happened but would have to actually declare a federal law doing that is unconstitutional. This court doesn't seem like it would have had much issue with doing that anyways though by claiming it's not what the genociders who founded
would have wanted, but it might have caused someone to hesitate or infight a little more or something
It means to enshrine in law a won court victory.