[ SECRET POST #3442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3442 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[resized, not a repeat]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 54 secrets from Secret Submission Post #492.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Let's get political

[feotakahari]

To give one example, I saw someone on a My Little Pony fansite, of all places, who disliked the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (the case that legalized gay marriage nationwide) because he thought it was based on shoddy legal reasoning and didn't properly build on existing interpretations. I can sympathize to some extent, but it felt incredibly abstracted, as though legal precedent was the only way in which the ruling could be evaluated as good or bad. It was like he didn't recognize that gay people actually existed and actually benefited from the ruling.

Re: Let's get political

[(Anonymous)]

I think he was making a bad argument. And I think the fact that it improves the status of people in this country, and is manifestly more just, is itself one argument for the superiority of that view of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

But I also think that it is important that we at least pretend to work within the framework of legal argumentation and constitutional principle, because otherwise what's even the point of having a Constitution and a Supreme Court, you know?