(no subject)
So I'm actually reading United States vs Windsor. It is almost as good as the one about the ponies. The interesting part for me was that the reason this whole thing was allowed to happen wasn't, as I thought at first, because the IRS claimed that Edith Windsor owed them money, but because she'd given it to them and they refused to give it back even after the Obama DOJ stopped defending themselves from her. The other upshot of this manoeuvre? Because the Obama administration wanted Windsor to win, the United States was classed as a prevailing party. Yes, American taxpayers: you fought Edith Windsor, she shook you down for $363,053, and you all won.
Roberts' dissent is a sad mixture of gee-golly-wiz he swears their WAS a legit, non-malicious reason for DOMA to ever exist, but he unfortunately neglects to spell out what it was, and some slippery-slope pearlclutching about how, if they decide this now, they might have to decide other things in the future; he doesn't explain why this is a bad thing. Scalia's dissent is literally six times as long and I can't be arsed because it is bedtime.
ETA aahahaahaa omg I changed my mind and tried reading Scalia's first page. This stuff is godtier. No really scroll to p35 of the document and start reading. Never stop reading. What the fuck am I reading.
Roberts' dissent is a sad mixture of gee-golly-wiz he swears their WAS a legit, non-malicious reason for DOMA to ever exist, but he unfortunately neglects to spell out what it was, and some slippery-slope pearlclutching about how, if they decide this now, they might have to decide other things in the future; he doesn't explain why this is a bad thing. Scalia's dissent is literally six times as long and I can't be arsed because it is bedtime.
ETA aahahaahaa omg I changed my mind and tried reading Scalia's first page. This stuff is godtier. No really scroll to p35 of the document and start reading. Never stop reading. What the fuck am I reading.
