Alabama supreme court tells SC to take a hike on marriage opinion

[OKTexas]

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".

Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.

Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

 

[Skylar]

Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.

Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

 

[Silhouette]

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

The brand new concept of contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father is not a mandate anyone is obliged to follow. Child protection comes first, adults' civil rights second. Always in that order. Don't believe me?: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[Syriusly]

Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.

There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf

And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.

Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?

'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

 

[Syriusly]

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

The brand new concept of contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father is not a mandate anyone is obliged to follow. Child protection comes first, adults' civil rights second. Always in that order. Don't believe me?:c.

Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?

If not- why not?

 

[Syriusly]

[
My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So you are supportive of polygamous marriage......

 

[Skylar]

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

The brand new concept of contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father is not a mandate anyone is obliged to follow. Child protection comes first, adults' civil rights second. Always in that order. Don't believe me?: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Um, Ferber doesn't mention 'contracts'. It doesn't mention gays. It doesn't mention marriage. Nor does it find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Its a case about kiddie porn.

Try again, Jen. This time first reading what you're pretending to cite,

 

[OKTexas]

Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country. Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

 

[WorldWatcher]

ou mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal years before the Obergefel ruling, just not in all states. To imply that it was "suddenly legal" due to the Obergefal case is incorrect.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights".

Who says the rights were 'invented'? Surely you realize that enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

If not, I have an amendment you might want to read. Its not long, so it won't take much of your time.

Why did you edit out half my post, you changed the context which is a posting violation. Now answer the question I asked in the original post.

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from enacting class legislation, jurisprudence in existence for well over 125 years.

The Obergefell Court relied on this settled and accepted case law, ruling in a manner consistent with that case law, reaffirming that case law, not on subjective opinion.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are in no way 'made up,' they are fundamental, inalienable, and immune from attack by the states.

Moreover, Heller was likewise a 5 to 4 decision, yet no one on the right has sought to call into question the merits of that ruling because it constituted a “minimal majority.”

 

[Skylar]

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

 

[mdk]

The brand new concept of contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father is not a mandate anyone is obliged to follow. Child protection comes first, adults' civil rights second. Always in that order. Don't believe me?: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

That must be why divorce and single parenthood is illegal in this nation. lol. Don't give me any of that bullshit about states reluctantly granting divorces to parents with children either. The only time a state won't grant a divorce is if the check doesn't clear. It must so tiring for you to craft all these lies just so you can smear queers.

 

[Skylar]

ou mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal years before the Obergefel ruling, just not in all states. To imply that it was "suddenly legal" due to the Obergefal case is incorrect.


>>>>

Massechusettes just celebrated its 10 year anniversary of same sex marriage.

Yet Obergefell only happened last year.

(counting on my fingers). Yeah, the math on 'suddenly' doesn't seem to work.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights,

A white man can choose marry a white woman.

A white man can choose to marry a black woman.


Therefore deciding to marry someone of a different race is a "behavior".


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

ou mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal years before the Obergefel ruling, just not in all states. To imply that it was "suddenly legal" due to the Obergefal case is incorrect.


>>>>

Massechusettes just celebrated its 10 year anniversary of same sex marriage.

Yet Obergefell only happened last year.

(counting on my fingers). Yeah, the math on 'suddenly' doesn't seem to work.

And by my count there were 11 States and D.C. that had SSCM before Obergefel either through legislative action or by a ballot vote.

So ya, SSCM didn't just "suddenly" appear with the SCOTUS ruling.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf

And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.

Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?

'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.

On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.

So.....you couldn't find a single example of when the court recognized a fundamental right and then indicated a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist?

I don't think so.

And remember, the current composition of the court is 5 to 3 in favor of Obergefell.

I haven't looked, how about you show me in the Constitution where the court has the authority to invent "fundamental rights"..

The Supreme Court has recognized that Americans have a right to marriage for over 50 years.

And up till now it's always been between men and women. The laws and Constitution haven't changed, like I said earlier, the only thing that has changed is the opinions of 5 on the court. The don't have the right to rewrite either law or the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is that whining your way of telling me that you've never read the 9th amendment?

And again, who says the rights were 'invented'? Not the supreme court.

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country. Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Gay Americans were in fact discriminated against, they were subject to disadvantage through force of law for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment, where they did not have the same rights as every man or woman – in this case the right to marry whomever they so desired.

Citizens have the right to individual liberty and self-determination, to make personal, private decisions about how to live one's life absent unwarranted interference by the state – including gay Americans:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, 'behavior' is not at issue – the right to due process is at issue, the right to equal protection of the law is at issue, where states that sought to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violated both of these fundamental, inalienable rights.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

 

[Skylar]

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country.

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage.

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

Says who? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Interracial marriage is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior.

Again, you're just doubling down on the same stupid Begging the Question fallacy, desperately pleading with us to accept your subjective opinion as defining all rights, legal terms, and objective reality.

Laughing....um, no. You don't do any of those things.

Fuck off unless you answer my questions and stop the deflective BS.

Do you always just pout when I ask you questions you can't possibly answer?

'Biological reality'? What 'biological reality' do same sex couples not meet in the requirements of marriage?

Recognizing of course that NO state requires a couple to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. And marriage is whatever we say it is....as we invented it.

Good luck.

And of course your 'behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights' is just pseudo-legal horseshit. All sorts of rights, enumerated and unenumerated, are behaviors.

Keep running.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean a minimal majority of the supreme court, 4 of the 9 said it was an invention. Faghadist marriage wasn't made suddenly legal when the 9th was adopted either, what changed, other than the opinions of 5 people?

You're aware that the rulings of the Supreme Court go with the majority opinion, right? You can babble 'Faghadist' as many times as you'd like. But it doesn't actually change anything about Obergefell, the authority of the Supreme Court, Texas openly and publicly recognizing same sex marriage, or all the gay weddings happening from Austin to El Paso.

So I ask again.....and this is your very last chance.....who says that the rights are 'invented'? Contradicting you is the Supreme Court. What's your source?

My source, reality and common sense, something the 5 on the court evidently don't recognize. Oh, that and a few thousand years of history.

So your source is you....insisting that you define what rights are? And apparently you think you define 'reality' by your post.

Why is it that you anti-gay ilk always devolve into the same begging the question fallacy? Where you insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality? Where-r-my-keys, Silhouette, bob blaylock, zephr80, you all fall into this exact same fallacy of logic.

Um....Tex? Your personal opinion doesn't define the law or any right. Legally, you're nobody.

And 5 justices don't get to redefine biological reality, faghadist were never discriminated against, they had the exact same rights as every man or woman in the country. Behavior is not an objective criteria for determining rights, behaviors change, do rights necessarily have to change with them? Or do rights have static definitions like written law?

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Gay Americans were in fact discriminated against, they were subject to disadvantage through force of law for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment, where they did not have the same rights as every man or woman – in this case the right to marry whomever they so desired.

Citizens have the right to individual liberty and self-determination, to make personal, private decisions about how to live one's life absent unwarranted interference by the state – including gay Americans:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, 'behavior' is not at issue – the right to due process is at issue, the right to equal protection of the law is at issue, where states that sought to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violated both of these fundamental, inalienable rights.

Rebut these point by point:

Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

So far no other regressive will touch them.