We think it’s safe to say openly gay Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald and antigay U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas won’t be sitting down for a nice dinner together anytime soon.
McDonald just blasted Thomas in a Facebook post after the 74-year-old judge said SCOTUS should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell–cases which established federal protections for contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively–following its vote to overturn Roe v. Wade last week.
Related: Clarence Thomas wastes literally no time using Roe decision to attack gay rights
“Mr. Justice Thomas had much to say today about my loving marriage,” McDonald, who married his husband Charles Gray in 2009, said on Facebook. “Oddly he didn’t have much to say about his ‘Loving’ marriage.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“Loving”, of course, is a reference to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Virginia ban on interracial marriage. The 2016 film Loving tells the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, the plaintiffs in that landmark case, and was nominated for several awards, including a Best Actress Oscar nod for Ruth Negga.
Ironically, Thomas, who is Black, lives with his wife Ginni, who is white, in Virginia. In 2015, he was one of the four justices who dissented in Obergefell.
McDonald and Gray were married six years before that ruling, when McDonald was serving in the state legislature. Their wedding was officiated by then-Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, who later became Governor of Connecticut.
In 2013, Malloy nominated McDonald to become the second openly gay man to serve on an American state’s Supreme Court. Today, he is one of eleven LGBTQ state supreme court justices serving in the United States.
Related: Lori Lightfoot just said what everyone else is thinking about Clarence Thomas
McDonald joins a growing number of queer leaders who are speaking out against Thomas’ threat against LGBTQ equality. Last weekend, Chicago’s lesbian mayor Lori Lightfoot marched in her city’s Pride parade and gave an impassioned speech about last week’s Supreme Court ruling.
“We will not live in a world, not in my city, where our rights are taken from us or rolled back,” she said, before declaring, “F*ck Clarence Thomas!”
Video of the moment has been blowing up on Twitter.
“Fuck Clarence Thomas” –@chicagosmayor @SCOTUSblog @chicago #prideinthepark #chicago #RoeVWade #lorilightfoot #scotus pic.twitter.com/F5GOESquuM
— Ricky (@RickyRakoon) June 26, 2022
In an exclusive interview with Queerty last week, attorney Roberta Kaplan, who represented Edie Windsor in United States v. Windsor and successfully convinced the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, cautioned people against catastrophizing the Roe decision.
“I obviously understand fear and depression, but I would urge people to overcome that,” said Kaplan. “One thing I can say that could help to buck people up is the fact that LGBTQ rights in our country evolved and developed at a faster pace than any other minority group in recent history.”
Related: Roberta Kaplan on the demise of Roe v. Wade and what’s next for equality
She added, “It was an enormous achievement over a relatively short period of time when you compare it to, say, the rights of African Americans under Jim Crow. Backlash is inevitable, but it doesn’t mean our rights are all going to be taken away. ”
“The number-one thing that LGBTQ Americans have to do is to vote and to make sure that every single person who knows and loves them votes for candidates who believe in our Constitution, who believe in equal protection, and who believe in the equal dignity of all Americans, regardless of who they love, the color of their skin, or who they marry.”
Here’s what Twitter has been saying about Thomas’ threat against LGBTQ equality…
NEW: Vice President Kamala Harris just said Clarence Thomas “said the quiet part out loud” when he said the court should now go after gay marriage, birth control, and the basic right to privacy. “This is not over. He just said the quiet part out loud. This is profound.”
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) June 27, 2022
Clarence Thomas is 74. Samuel Alito is 72. Who do you want in office when they die? That should be the SOLE factor affecting your general election vote from now until they die.
— Jen Psaki stan account (@AngryLawyerLady) June 26, 2022
Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court wants to make gay sex illegal again. Lawrence V. Texas isn’t even twenty years old yet, and that’s how long gay men have had the right to have sex in this country. #GLBT #LGBT
— ?? (@Gold_Ranga) June 24, 2022
gays having to deal with monkey pox AND clarence thomas during pride is a lot, tbh
— Chris "Subscribe to Law Dork!" Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 25, 2022
The last person I want to hear from on the planet about anything is Justice Clarence Thomas, who just said they should now go after gay marriage and birth control next.
IMPEACH THAT ASSHOLE.
— BrooklynDad_Defiant!?? (@mmpadellan) June 24, 2022
Funny how Clarence Thomas made no mention of overturning Loving v. Virginia. He can strip women and the LGBT community of their rights, but I just know not being able to be with his homely looking yt woman is too far for him.
— E (@etoldyouso) June 24, 2022
While Clarence Thomas is doing his “We’re coming for the gays next” spiels, WE can come for HIM first. Push your politicians to hold him and his wife responsible for their part in the January 6 insurrection. #ImpeachClarenceThomas
— Jaybird (@AKAJayBirdRN) June 24, 2022
Both Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas are criminal traitors and they need to be in prison.
— Ricky Davila ???? (@TheRickyDavila) June 28, 2022
When I woke up from surgery, the nurse asked if there was anything else she could do to help me feel better.
I answered “Impeach Clarence Thomas”
— Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) June 27, 2022
I don't get all of this heady discussion as if Clarence Thomas is considering law when he threatens Marriage Equality, privacy of sexuality and contraception. He's a petty little prig pissed that people are picking on his right wing radical wife. He's not a judge. He's a prick
— Harvey Fierstein (@HarveyFierstein) June 28, 2022
Mario
There is a democratic principle at stake here.
Our republic is built on the cornerstone of federalism.
That means: Whatever is not specifically stipulated in the U.S. Constitution as a federal issue becomes a state issue.
Therefore, marriage, abortion, etc., because they are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are issues reserved for the states.
EddieB
Some might say the Equal Protection clause changes that a little. A lot.
Mario
EddieB:
It depends on how equal protection is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Dobbs vs. Jackson stated that the equal protection clause does not apply to abortion as there is a third party involved in abortion: the pre-born child.
Bosch
Your Republic is built on the right of men to rule women, the straight to rule the gay, the white to rule the black.
God forbid you guys try to be a first world country.
radiooutmike
So, why did we have a Civil War then?
The pre-13th amendment Constitution did not mention slavery. It was a states rights issue. So, why did the South secede? They needn’t have started a war, if we could just left everything to the states.
Mario
radiooutmike:
The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, after the Civil War ended.
This clarified the issue of slavery once and for all.
If you want to try and get passed amendments to the U.S. Constitution to legalize abortion-on-demand during all 9 months of gestation or same-sex marriage federally, then go right ahead.
Who’s stopping you?
Bosch
Oooo mario is feeling powerful now that his buddies have started dragging the country back to the 1950s.
Mario
Bosch:
I’m no more powerful than any other American citizen, and you know that.
Sincerely, I am a citizen who believes in our republic and the principle of federalism as a pivotal cornerstone of our democracy.
If you really admire democracy, then Dodd vs. Jackson should make you very happy.
No longer will 9 appointed – not elected – men and women in black robes in Washington, D.C., dictate their policy preferences to the rest of America.
Now, each state – following the democratic choices of its citizens – will make these decisions going forward.
Anyone who really cherishes democracy, should be pleased.
We moved from a dictatorship of 9 appointed justices to the rule by the people.
jsmu
That is utter and total Rethug fascist horseshite.
Read the eloquent and scathing dissent by the humans on SCROTUS, you moron.
This was not even a bad legal decision, it was dynamiting stare decisis and saying that fascists can decree whatever ‘laws’ they want WITH ZERO PRECEDENT. You are a cretinous little troll, aren’t you?
LeBlevsez
Mario –
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amazing how all federalists and states rights fanatics forget those last four words. They really are inconvenient for y’all.
Mario
jsmu:
The only fascists around here are people like you who want 9 unelected justices to dictate their policy preferences on the rest of the nation. Now that is fascism, not democracy. Let the people decide in their own states, or get a constitutional amendment ratified which suits you.
LeBlevsez:
“…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I guess you refuse to acknowledge the word “or” in those last four words.
You want it to read: “…are reserved only to individuals regardless of the will of the people in the states in which they reside.” However, it doesn’t say that, does it?
Thus, you should get the 10th Amendment repealed and have another amendment ratified which has your wording.
EddieB
That is if your religion or your set of beliefs agrees with the idea that fetal cells are a “pre- born child.”
Many don’t.
Amending the Constitution was always meant to be difficult but it is now impossible. So, as I see it, rather than returning these floating rights to the people, 6 unelected conservatives now make law under the guise of interpreting it. Clarence Thomas can couch it in all the legalisms he chooses, but contraception inter-racial relationships and LGBTQ rights, including queer sex should not be in his hands or the hands of a very small percentage of the population.
Walker
Funny how all you Constitutional scholars miss Amendments 9, which says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Founders were VERY clear that their document was not meant to limit rights to only the ones they wrote down. Given it was they themselves who spoke about “self-evident” truths way back at the beginning.
Mario
EddieB:
For 49 years, you had no problem with 9 unelected justices imposing their policy preferences on the rest of America.
That’s called fascism, not democracy.
Dodd vs. Jackson puts the power back into the hands of the voters. If you don’t like that fact, then get an amendment to the constitution ratified which suits your taste.
Walker:
“Funny how all you Constitutional scholars miss Amendments 9, which says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Founders were VERY clear that their document was not meant to limit rights to only the ones they wrote down.”
No one is limiting anyone’s rights. The Supreme Court is just permitting the people to decide what rights they consider legitimate at the state level. For instance, states don’t give “rights” to able-bodied citizens to be financially supported indefinitely by the state in which they reside States have concurred that no such right exists. Some things you may consider to be a “right” is not a legal right.
Prior to the Obergefell v. Hodges most states, even several liberal states, did not permit same-sex marriage. Then 5 unelected judges in Washington, D.C. ignored the will of the people and imposed their policy preferences on all of America. That is fascism; it is not democracy.
As far as abortion and same-sex marriage are concerned, if you can navigate the amendment process and get amendments to your liking ratified, then you’ll have what you term “constitutional rights” enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. If not, use the democratic processes in the states to get these “rights” added as statutes.
LeBlevsez
Mario –
That’s some cartoonish verbal ju-jitsu you tried there…. Bravo?
Howzabout you provide a definition for the word ‘or’ since you’ve called it into question.
Make sure your response is based on text, not telepathy.
barryaksarben
No, that is just ONE opimion on how the constitution is interpreted. What we do have is a very clear separation of church and state. By suggesting that it didn’t exist when the Constitution was written therefore it cannot be is insane. Women were not allowed to vote when it was written and only white men of property were. Time Has Changed I doubt very many people would say that only white men of property are allowed to vote any longer. Gay love existed back then but because of religious Fanatics it was hidden. Abortion existed back then but was hidden because of religious fanatics. The religious fanatics once again have control but that does not mean gay love gay marriage abortion interracial marriage do not exist or should not be allowed to exist. It is only the very narrow-minded Federalists who believe word for word the Constitution should be followed yet believe this nonsense. It is like people who believed every single thing in the Bible is true even when it contradicts itself it’s bullshit vote Democrat and stop supporting the GOP because this is where they want us to become a white Christian nationalist country something no one back then wanted something that did not exist back then so once again their contradicting themselves both them all out impeach the justices no religious lead country for us. That’s only for the shithole Nations the Trump has pointed
barryaksarben
Thanks you made my point exactly in your reply to Eddie B where you said it depends on how things are interpreted. Exactly such as the constitution. Federalism is one way but not the only way. Yes rights are being taken away how dare you say they’re not. You are stupid troll who has a little knowledge and no soul obviously you’re a Republican ignore
Jer
Do you see that as a safety net, or a threat? Having same-sex marriage left up to the states, to me, looks more dangerous and confusing than federal opposition.
Bosch
Ok mario, nice how you throw around the word “democracy”, but I live in a REAL democracy, where a person’s vote matters, and the government make-up represents the populace make-up.
Bosch
Ha! Mario called equal rights “fascism”. Someone needs to get off the internet.
James
DROP DEAD YOU HOMOPHOBIC SHIT HEAD.
Mario
James:
I see you hate democracy, and your ad hominem attack is very immature.
DarkZephyr
“Anyone who really cherishes democracy, should be pleased.”
I cherish my freedom and the rights that I gained in 2015 after living most of my life without them. I cherish the man that I love and wish to marry and spend the rest of my life with. For you to tell me that I should be *pleased* over the notion that marrying him could become illegal because of the bigoted ideals of homophobic voters and politicians is nonsensical. I imagine its very easy for you to say however when you are under no such threat.
Mario
DarkZephyr:
A. I do sympathize with you, but our democratic institutions must be protected. That is what the January 6 Select Committee is all about, right: protecting democracy.
B. The “rights” you gained in 2015 were summarily imposed by fiat on all of America by 5 unelected judges in Washington even though most states rejected same-sex marriage; that’s fascism, not democracy.
C. Since liberals have been crying about the need to preserve democracy since January 6, 2021, then you should also want to preserve democracy even when it goes against your wishes.
D. Sadly, just like the January 6 MAGA rioters who wouldn’t accept the ‘will of the people’ in the presidential election results of 2020, you evidently also refuse to accept the ‘will of the people’ on the issue of same-sex marriage.
E. Even if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, this issue will be sent back to the states for democratic redress and many will permit same-sex marriage and others won’t, thus you and your partner will still be married in the states which permit same-sex marriage.
F. If you and your husband don’t live in a state which permits same-sex marriage, perhaps you’ll want to move to one, so that you’ll receive all of the state benefits associated with being married.
G. Regrettably, federal benefits may be revoked because there may not be enough votes in the Senate and House to recognize same-sex marriage (or a president willing to sign such a bill into law), but that’s the way democracy sometimes works – and as a liberal – you know we must uphold our democratic institutions, as the January 6 Select Committee is trying to do right now.
I wish you and your husband great good luck.
MrGoldman
However, application is selective.
DarkZephyr
“B. The “rights” you gained in 2015 were summarily imposed by fiat on all of America”
Care to explain how they were imposed on ALL of America? I would love it if you could explain that statement. What exactly do you mean by that? As far as I know, nobody but those who want to marry a member of the same sex have to marry a member of the same sex. So, what do you mean? Also, why are you putting the word “rights” in quotation marks?
BTW, you don’t need to throw “since liberals this” and “since liberals that” my way because I am not a liberal. There are moderate and conservative LGBT people who want equality every bit as much as liberal LGBT people do, so what liberals do or “cry” about is no accurate way to gauge how I will think or feel about any given thing. Thank you.
peacefulruffneck
So with that reasoning slavery, as it is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution would be among issues reserved for the states. Sure. Sit with that one for a while Clarence Thomas.
Mario
peacefulruffneck:
Wrong.
The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery.
You don’t know American history, do you?
d3clark
@mario,
I think he’s talking about the original document itself and not amendments that were added decades after the Founding Fathers wrote it.
Mario
d3clark:
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, change the Constitution. The U.S. constitution is not just the original text ratified in 1788; it is the original text and all of the amendments included. You do know that, right?
jsmu
@Mario You don’t know anything about law nor about history.
Nor about the Ninth, Fourteenth, and suchlike Amendments.
Do STFU before you mortify yourself further!
Mario
jsmu:
I can clearly deduce by your ad hominem attacks that you don’t have a lucid rebuttal to my statements, and that you have had a very paltry history and civics education.
Sanjo
When States are heavily gerrymandered, what happens to democracy?
Mario
Sanjo:
As you know, that happens in both conservative and liberal states.
New York, for instance, had its congressional districts redrawn this year because they were found to be gerrymandered.
If you believe that districts in your state are being gerrymandered, you are entitled to judicial redress. Therefore, you and other like-minded citizens should sue your state. It’s been done before and it’s been successful.
Denn.of.Iniquity
And has anyone mentioned yet that the Supreme Court’s “Right” to invalidate laws is not mentioned in the Constitution either? It wasn’t until the 1803 case, “Madison -v- Marbury” that the court established that principle for itself. Are they going to rethink that too!
Mario
According to Wiki:
“Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1][2] The Court’s landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.”
Denn.of.iniquity: If you can convince 5 justices – liberal or conservative – to overturn Marbury vs. Madison, you will go down in history as the greatest constitutional scholar of all time, bar none.
barryaksarben
Mario you make me laugh. You talk about someone not making it Lucid argument against your ridiculous inane reading of the Constitution and end of our laws there is no Lucid response to your stupidity except to call you the troll that you are
Mario
barryaksarben:
Once again: I see you have no evidence-based rebuttals to my statements, just an ad hominem attack.
That speaks volumes about your inability to harness any evidence to refute me.
jsmu
@Mario the MORON: (from Slate, Lithwick and Siegel)
Many constitutional rights that Americans now possess cannot be said to be any more deeply rooted in American history and tradition than abortion can. These rights include protection from involuntary sterilization, which the court upheld in 1927 during the eugenics movement; the freedom to access and use contraceptives, which was widely banned in the late 19th century and which the court did not begin to protect until 1965; the right of a nonwhite American to marry a white American, which was prohibited going back to the days of slavery and which the court did not safeguard as part of the fundamental right to marry until 1967; sexual intimacy between consenting adults in private, including same-sex intimacy, which was long regulated in American law and which the court did not protect until 2003; and the right to marry someone of the same sex, which existed as a matter of positive law in the United States beginning in 2003 and which the court did not vindicate until 2015.
If, going forward, the court were to apply the Glucksberg test in a principled fashion and so apply it to all these cases, the consequences would be draconian. And draconian consequences are an indication that the court has gotten the law wrong. That helps explain why, in Obergefell v. Hodges—the 2015 decision declaring that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex marriage—the court expressly rejected the Glucksberg test, writing that the Glucksberg test “is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.” The Glucksberg test, if applied to those other rights, would revoke them. In Glucksberg itself, a majority of the justices even indicated that they might not be bound by the Glucksberg test even in the context of physician-assisted suicide, if death were near and the dying individual could not obtain sufficient relief from excruciating pain via palliative care.
In other words, even the Glucksberg court conceded that the Glucksberg test is not a tenable legal means to determine which liberty rights are protected. Because it is a constitutional wrecking ball. The test, by its own terms, is substantively biased against historically subordinated groups precisely because—as noted in the joint dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—“the men who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and wrote the state laws of the time did not view women as full and equal citizens.”
There are reams more eviscerations of LONG DONG and his N*zi cronies and their utter lawlessness. Learn to read some time, if you can manage it, little Ben Shapiro WANNABE!
Mario
jsmu:
Please quote from a recognized scholar in the area of constitutional rights, and not an unknown and unvetted attorney who writes for a far-left online magazine.
barryaksarben
Lol, mario. YOU are not a legal scholar just a right wing troll. Every comment you have made on this thread shows you have no interest in fact you’re just here to try to annoy people what you have. But annoying people doesn’t change the fact that the radical Catholics on the Supreme Court put there by the Federalist Society are acting in a biased religious way which will lead to the destruction of America. Hey but you own the lives right LOL you pathetic children on the right
Mario
barryaksarben:
I will repeat this statement to you as it’s evident that it went unheeded: Once again: I see you have no evidence-based rebuttals to my statements, just an ad hominem attack.
That speaks volumes about your inability to harness any evidence to refute me.
Ken A.
Clarence Thomas is old, he’ll be dead soon.
Mario
And when another Republican is elected president in 2024 and thereafter – most likely Ron DeSantis – he will select his replacement.
DarkZephyr
@Mario, you mean “If”.
You are failing to take into account how due to this recent decision, many people are extremely angry and these extremely angry people now feel motivated to vote in ways that won’t favor Republicans. Anger (at Trump) is why Biden won the last election after all, so we can see what anger can do in that regard. And there are a LOT of angry people now.
You’re also are failing to take into consideration the existence of one issue voters who no longer feel compelled to vote for Republicans over this issue and now feel free to vote in favor of other issues that they til now have been putting on the back burner in favor of voting pro life. This is no longer necessary.
For my part, I happen to know many people who are pro-LGBT and simply voted for Republicans because they were also staunchly pro-life and put the lives of the unborn at the top of their priority list, and I know that they now feel free to vote in other ways, most of them now placing LGBT rights at the top of their list.
You seem pretty stoked at the notion of a truly homophobic politician becoming the next President of the United States, which speaks volumes about how you truly feel about LGBT people and your true motives for choosing to come comment here.
But hey, if DeSantis loses, you should be pleased since you are one who truly cherishes democracy.
Mario
DarkZephyr:
I’ve read your comment and you made some good points. However I still believe the following:
A. Bread and butter issues – because they affect everyone – trump everything else. If you can’t feed your family or pay your rent or buy gas to get to work, then abortion is not at the top of your list. As James Carville said in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
B. I’m pretty confident that Republicans will win back control of at least the House this November. I always thought that the Senate was an ‘iffy’ proposition, even before this ruling.
C. Due to the sheer incompetence of Biden and the Democrats on economic, energy, immigration, education, and crime issues, I’m pretty confident Ron DeSantis will be elected president in 2024.
D. I will accept the democratic outcomes of the elections in 2022 and 2024. The real question is: Will you?
DarkZephyr
I am satisfied with what I have already said here and will stick with that. 🙂
Mike Jone
The majority that decided in favor of Roe versus Wade were Republican.
Mario
And they imposed their will on all of America. This wasn’t democracy; it was fascism.
kacol69073
well said!!! megan has caused this turmoil!! she married into the family. has absolutely used harry and the royal family. she is ungracious !! also pushing american attitude on the naturally reserved british! harry needs to be home here >>> Copy Here > > > boosterstart.com
storm45701
From Cornell Law: “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.” Thus, any law in favor of one group over another could be seen as in conflict with this Amendment.
Kavanaugh stated in his concurrence that the Dobbs decision overturning Roe should not be seen as an open invitation to challenge other decisions. So there is some hope, however fleeting, that challenges to birth control, the strike-down of sodomy laws, and gay marriage will not be taken up by the court. Gorsuch is the judge that wrote an opinion supporting trans rights. It takes 5 SC justices to agree to hear a case, and I’m only counting 3 or 4 on any of these other issues.
Mario
See there, there’s nothing to worry about.
LeBlevsez
storm45701 / Mario –
According to RBG, ‘Equal Protection’ was the proper foundation on which Roe v Wade should have been decided. The foundation actually used was ‘Right to Privacy’. Your point is moot.
Fail.
Kavanaugh signed Alito’s opinion. He did not issue a concurring opinion. Alito is openly hostile to privacy rights and has never understood the meaning of the word ‘equal’, and Kavanaugh is a sniveling liar.
Fail.
The Gorsuch opinion was a welcome surprise. It also protects the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. But you knew this, and want to stir the pot by trying to make people think Trans folks are stealing something from the rest of the community.
Win for Gorsuch.
Fail for you.
It takes only four (4) justices to grant certiorari and bring a case before the court. But you knew this as well and want to foster a sense of complacency and remove the urgency to vote.
Fail.
When you post repeatedly in a short period of time, you reveal your voice. The same hostile voice that posts on this site ad infinitum, under myriad names, pretending to be gay. And the tag-teaming yourself is obvious.
Yup, you guessed it.
Fail.