124 Comments

Wonkette can't scream. It's a blog.

Expand full comment

Because recognizing a relationship is the same as controlling it? I think that's how the "logic" goes.

Expand full comment

Basically, yeah. I don't think the lawyers themselves think that way, but they know that the swing vote or votes (because Roberts seems conscious of his legacy, how he will be remembered, he's bkind of a swing too) do. So bringing that up would only resonate with the justices you already have on your side. So they focus on concepts Kennedy likes, like "dignity" and don't challenge the poor historical understanding.

Expand full comment

A few elements after dumfucqium.

Expand full comment

Christians insist that gay people can only have extramarital sex? Yeah, that's consistent.

Expand full comment

... a disco ball would last longer, and be much more fabulous.

Expand full comment

Oh yeah, Wonkette. Too seriously. That'll fly, champ.

Expand full comment

Hee, hee, I thought they said oral unguents, aka Santorums.

Expand full comment

Strategy. For that very same strategic reason, I will refrain from noting that Robert's legacy will still put him neck-and-neck with Taney. Don't tell him, OK?

Expand full comment

This is COMING!!1!11one!

Expand full comment

How about the front seat? Of a Ford Pinto? In my parents' driveway?

Expand full comment

Okay, now you're just being silly.

Expand full comment

Which is their motivation for every single bit of their bigotry, against, well, everything.

Expand full comment

It's OK with Pat Robertson if it's just the one time and he was drunk.

Expand full comment

In Maheér, the Court says but a woman cannot force the government to come...

OH MY GOD JESUS WHAT A STUPID DECISION!!!!1!1!http://media.giphy.com/medi...

Expand full comment