"I really am just trying to pull my jaw up off the floor here as I try to imagine the thought process that went into carving out those exceptions in the first place."
Very simple. The English common-law doctrine of coverture, which can be summed up as: "a husband and wife are the same person under law, and that person is the husband". You can't rape yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
In less happy r@pe news, convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein got his rape conviction overturned. This puts him in the same “we all know he did it, but we can’t quite put him in jail” file as Cosby and Trump.
Listen, I get that consensual non-consensual role play is a thing and that anything taken out of context can be really bad, but if you’re a married person and you’re worried a law like this is bad for marriages, well… I feel like you might be telling on yourself a little.
OT, and I am sure we'll have a post on this, but Alito asked such an inane question that I had to say something, because the attorney didn't answer it the way I would have--so Alito's basically saying that one needs presidential immunity because what if (let's just say) there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for, let's just say, whatever by the person they lost to?
Throwing it back at you, Alito--well, I guess that's how that would work, because if you say all presidents have blanket immunity for any sort of thing ever, why couldn't the incumbent just do WHATEVER to the vanquished former president? With total immunity? Since when does this justice care about the fears and feelings of the accused? I suppose it would just suck to be the loser in that scenario. You'd have dueling immunity at that point, yes? I, now president, get to do whatever I chose even if it's completely illegal, because immunity. You, former president, also get to do whatever, due to immunity.
So we have a stand off until one just does something (that I won't say, because rules) to the other that ends the whole thing permanently, I guess?
it was worse than that. It wasn't " there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for, let's just say, whatever by the person they lost to?" it was " there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for fomenting a coup to remain in power, which would be the downfall of our democracy?"
(not the " fomenting a coup part, the "prosecuting the failed coup plotter for the coup part" )
He's just showing his ass to all of us and rubbing it our faces now.
Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin cut right to the chase, writing, "Now Trump’s lawyer is saying a president could order the military to stage a coup to keep him in power and could be immune from any future prosecution. This is INSANE. Trump is putting in fancy legal arguments that the Supreme Court should grant him absolute power if reelected."
The Nation columnist and frequent MSNBC legal analyst Elie Mystal suggested, "Kagan asking Sauer if a President *literally ordering a coup* would be an official act. Under Sauer's theory it's an official act and he's trying so hard not to say it and it's like listening to the internal monologue of an addict trying not to hit the pipe again."
***
Winning the argument is not the point.
Delay is the point.
And they are absolutely win more delay as this will get kicked back to the DC Circuit because, at minimum, "u HaVe To NamE TruMp iN EverYThinG."
There will be a great gnashing of garments and rending of teeth when MAGAtWorld gets word of this.
Ohio going woke!
Ta, Robyn. I fight for the rights of ALL minorities, including women, who are actually in the majority. Marital rape should be illegal everywhere.
Where is there a list of the holdout states?
I am ever amazed to find out just how few rights some assholes feel I deserve to have.
"One voted against it" Found the rapist. just like when Matt gaetz voted against funds support services for victims of sex trafficking.
"Gaetz, subject of sex trafficking probe, votes against sex trafficking bill (again)".
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-bill-rcna40219
"I really am just trying to pull my jaw up off the floor here as I try to imagine the thought process that went into carving out those exceptions in the first place."
Very simple. The English common-law doctrine of coverture, which can be summed up as: "a husband and wife are the same person under law, and that person is the husband". You can't rape yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
"Rep. Bill Dean, R-Xenia, said he was concerned that it could "be used as a wedge between husband and wife.""
[mutter mutter mutter] I'd like to drive a wedge somewhere ....
He probably told us a lot more about his marriage than he really wanted to.
Oh god, Idaho is probably in the fucked up column in this story...
Because if you marry a woman, she belongs to you, to do with what you like when you like.
In less happy r@pe news, convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein got his rape conviction overturned. This puts him in the same “we all know he did it, but we can’t quite put him in jail” file as Cosby and Trump.
They always buy their way out eventually, don't they?
This was New York. He was also convicted of rape in California, so they are just moving him to a prison there (for 16 years).
And will bring out the "See, he didn't actually do it! "B****hes be lying!" crowd who treat any sort of acquittal as proof the scumbag is innocent.
Sometimes my wish to stay single makes me a bit sad and lonely. This is not one of those times.
Listen, I get that consensual non-consensual role play is a thing and that anything taken out of context can be really bad, but if you’re a married person and you’re worried a law like this is bad for marriages, well… I feel like you might be telling on yourself a little.
🎯
and by 'a little', I think it's loudly. With a bullhorn.
Another woke attack on traditional marriage. gO wOke GO bROkE!
Ohmygosh! Most of the states of this here Union may join the 20th Century! Eventually.
My alma mater is not a dainty, sweet little college tucked away in the hills of Vermont.
Yesterday the LA County Sheriff's Swat took over the campus. (I thought we got rid of Nixon!)
But OSU is a monsta for miles and miles. Between corn fields and onion fields.
Mine is between Hollywood and Disneyland. Oh well.
It is worthwhile to stop in Ohio to see the Foohbaw HOF and the Rock 'n Roll HOF.
Maybe an Indians game. Oh sorry, a Crusaders, I mean Guardians (I think) game.
And scales and Mudhens in Toledo. The 'Hens are part of Baseball History.
That's all I know.
If near Cleveland I recommend the Metroparks system. Look around a little and find cool WPA projects.
I enjoyed Cleveland. Good food and beers! Fair prices for downtown.
Really, really OT, but I love Justice Jackson's choice of jewelry for her official photo.
OT, and I am sure we'll have a post on this, but Alito asked such an inane question that I had to say something, because the attorney didn't answer it the way I would have--so Alito's basically saying that one needs presidential immunity because what if (let's just say) there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for, let's just say, whatever by the person they lost to?
Throwing it back at you, Alito--well, I guess that's how that would work, because if you say all presidents have blanket immunity for any sort of thing ever, why couldn't the incumbent just do WHATEVER to the vanquished former president? With total immunity? Since when does this justice care about the fears and feelings of the accused? I suppose it would just suck to be the loser in that scenario. You'd have dueling immunity at that point, yes? I, now president, get to do whatever I chose even if it's completely illegal, because immunity. You, former president, also get to do whatever, due to immunity.
So we have a stand off until one just does something (that I won't say, because rules) to the other that ends the whole thing permanently, I guess?
it was worse than that. It wasn't " there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for, let's just say, whatever by the person they lost to?" it was " there's a close, contested election, and the president doesn't agree with it, wouldn't that person be afraid of prosecution for fomenting a coup to remain in power, which would be the downfall of our democracy?"
(not the " fomenting a coup part, the "prosecuting the failed coup plotter for the coup part" )
He's just showing his ass to all of us and rubbing it our faces now.
Yeah, I caught that the attorney was not answering the question/ had misinterpreted it...
Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin cut right to the chase, writing, "Now Trump’s lawyer is saying a president could order the military to stage a coup to keep him in power and could be immune from any future prosecution. This is INSANE. Trump is putting in fancy legal arguments that the Supreme Court should grant him absolute power if reelected."
The Nation columnist and frequent MSNBC legal analyst Elie Mystal suggested, "Kagan asking Sauer if a President *literally ordering a coup* would be an official act. Under Sauer's theory it's an official act and he's trying so hard not to say it and it's like listening to the internal monologue of an addict trying not to hit the pipe again."
***
Winning the argument is not the point.
Delay is the point.
And they are absolutely win more delay as this will get kicked back to the DC Circuit because, at minimum, "u HaVe To NamE TruMp iN EverYThinG."
Won’t Joe Brandon be the first president to be able to exercise these Sun King powers? Just sayin’
They only apply to Real Presidents(tm).
And yet they still might win the argument.
It honestly sounds like they might be fine with doing some "one-time" (wink-wink) carve-outs.
just like Bush v. Gore
yeah, yet another case that can't be used as a precedent. great.