other than get us at each other's throats? I guess that I can't speak for everybody per se but I'm sure that most of us here are quite happy (if not ecstatic) with SCOTUS' decision legalizing marriage equality here in the US, leaving the right-wing yahoos wailing and gnashing teeth with no real legal nor legislative recourse(s). I think that it's also fair to say that it's hard for anybody to know that things would advance this far this fast with Republicans still controlling a disproportionate share of power in many parts of this country and Congress, so, although I denounce name calling and abusive behavior (by anybody), I don't really blame some some party strategists ("Centrists" previously calling for a more measured, incremental approach to moving the needle forward on marriage politically, which, now, is a totally moot point thanks to many federal courts in many states and SCOTUS. Same goal, different strategies. In fact, I figured that we'd have ENDA long before marriage equality and it has turned out the opposite way, proving again that one can never be certain how things are ever going to play out in the world of politics.

It had never occurred to me that somebody might try this or that Congress would have such sweeping powers to classify all kinds of bills as "trade bills". Seems doubtful that it would be that easy (but never turn your backs on Republicans). I thought that the Fast Track Authority (based on my admittedly shallow knowledge of it) just gives POTUS more flexibility to negotiate trade agreements and Congress to approve it on an up-or-down vote. I never imagined they might be able to use it on all kinds of things (like ACA repeal)

or give Republicans complete control? They won't be able to make anything and everything into a "trade bill" (I think?). Anyway, there is no guarantee that the Republicans will hit a "trifecta" in 2016 or even maintain both chambers in Congress.

If anybody thought that SCOTUS making their ruling the other day would decisively stop all of the right-wing/Republican nonsense about marriage equality, they were sorely mistaken. SCOTUS threw down the gauntlet and told us that what the Constitution says about marriage equality but we need to brace for the wave of right-wing stupidity/hypocrisy/craziness that is just beginning, unfortunately. *sigh*

What I'm mostly worried about is them spending time and taxpayer monies passing laws as an "end run" around allowing marriage equality, however I'm unsure how well any of their initiatives will fare, ultimately. RFRA-like were initially all the rage but it backfired on them in, of all places, Indiana. Giving public officials the "option" of refusing to issue marriage licenses is going to create a mess and not all of them will go along with it, anyway. Refusing to issue marriage licenses to ANYBODY and/or requiring marriages to be licensed ONLY by churches is going to create all kinds of constitutional/legal headaches and many HETEROSEXUAL couples will be upset as not all heterosexual couples belong to and/or practice any religion. There will probably never be any way that they will get a SSM ban into the constitution. There is simply no clear way to circumvent SCOTUS' ruling on SSM but the wingnuts and fundies won't stop trying, at least for awhile.

However, as PUBLIC officials, they are (supposed to be) bound to (secular) law and shouldn't get any (religious-based) exemptions from doing their job, which, of course, is serving the public. If we start carving out all kinds of exemptions for public officials in the course of performing their assigned duties, the system isn't going to be able to work right and, besides, serving ALL of the public is what PUBLIC officials are supposed to be doing. Anybody who can't- or won't- do what they were hired to do needs to move on and find a job more aligned with their religious beliefs (they ARE out there!).

that stripped subsidies from 6-7 million Americans. Aside from that, it was a seriously dumb (and IMHO frivolous) lawsuit to begin with. This in mind, I hope that he is equally mindful of throwing the same-sex marriages of a lot of people into legal jeopardy in the ME case.

they intended for him to have NONE. Not only that but he succeeded in getting a new federal program going in an age where government- according to Republicans- is not supposed to be doing anything other than privatizing itself, giving tax breaks and taxpayer monies to wealthy and corporate interests, and launching more and more wars of occupation. Government doing something to help people is NOT supposed to be happening, according to current Republican dogma.

but I think that, despite his more rightward leanings and some of his rulings, CJ Roberts is more pragmatic/impartial than his right-wing brethren on the Court. Both him and Kennedy, though more on the conservative side, have become a somewhat unpredictable ("wild card" voting bloc on the Court.

had SCOTUS gone the opposite way, there's no way they'd be complaining about that. They'd be extolling the virtues and wisdom of SCOTUS. We'd be grousing about a negative decision, albeit for different reasons. It was a stupid lawsuit that really should never have seen the light of day at SCOTUS though I guess I'm glad that it has been reviewed and settled once and for all. When I first heard about the lawsuit, I became worried, particularly when a federal appeals court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and moreso when SCOTUS agreed to take up the case but at least it's definitely settled now and the Republicans, whom never had a viable plan fix things if SCOTUS ruled for the plaintiffs, can go back to their wailing and teeth gnashing.