PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage is now legal


Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:04 AM
5-4

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:05 AM
Good...surprised it was that close. Roberts remember he was a Conservative I take it?

Terez
06-26-2015, 10:18 AM
It has been a good week for liberals. Of course, that means that conservatives will be fighting mad going into the 2016 elections, for more reasons than they originally anticipated (i.e. the impending death of the rebel flag).

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:21 AM
Yup...they'll vote in droves for what they think will help them all the while not realizing they're being used and screwed over for the most part.


But hey, gotta stick it to the Libs!!!



On a side note, Scalia's dissent is, once again, embarrassing. Its only evil activist judging when the other guy is doing it in his mind. At least Roberts' dissent makes legitimate sense. Maybe take a lead from your Chief Justice next time and not embarrass yourself, Antonin. Huge 'shocker' that Thomas joined Scalia's crapfest of a dissent though.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:27 AM
Thomas's dissent is even worse: The Founding Fathers didn't believe in Gay Marriage therefore we shouldn't either.


They also didn't believe in planes so I guess an Air Force is unconstitutional in his eyes.

They also felt you should be picking cotton with your ancestors in coastal S. Carolina so I guess you shouldn't be a judge either...if we're gonna be consistent in our opinions, Justice Thomas.

Daekyras
06-26-2015, 10:29 AM
Is this in Mexico again??

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:32 AM
Here's an excerpt where he argues against gay marriage being legal to allow for gay couples to have dignity:

"Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

So, he's basically saying that gay couples have it no worse than slaves and Japanese Americans imprisoned in concentration camps and thus, its okay to deny them the right to be married?

Um, great legal mind there. Thank you Bush Sr for appointing him to take Thurgood Fvcking Marshall's seat on the Court. Nothing disgusting about that at all or any of his other "opinions".

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:43 AM
This should not be used as an attack on the church. The church is the church, and anti-Christian morons who are using gay marriage to attack it should not be allowed. Gays can get married now, cool. But this should not take away what the church is about.

Terez
06-26-2015, 10:47 AM
People are allowed to be anti-Christian if they want, just like people are allowed to be Christian.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:52 AM
It always makes me laugh when I see how all the liberal justices tend to side together. If I remember correctly from the statistics, the women side together over 90% of the time, and always on liberal policies. Again, no true interpretive style, just ideological bent. The conservative justices at least interpret the law with what the law is, not what it should be (ruling with their brain, and not with their heart, you could say). Not saying that the conservative justices are always right, because they certainly aren't, but I long to see a day where the liberal justices are completely split. Never happens.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:52 AM
This should not be used as an attack on the church. The church is the church, and anti-Christian morons who are using gay marriage to attack it should not be allowed. Gays can get married now, cool. But this should not take away what the church is about.

If only there was some way to ensure a separation between secular and ecclesiastical laws in our country. As we are a functioning theocracy with no such separation in place, I feel we are screwed.

If only.


On a serious note...maybe if so-called Christians would stop trying to impose their religious belief structure on non-Christians and just worried about themselves, this would be a complete non issue...given that at no time has anyone ever said that legalizing same sex marriage would force Christians to get gay married or even force Christian religious figures to perform such marriages but yeah...keep going on that angle since it makes zero sense at all.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:53 AM
It always makes me laugh when I see how all the liberal justices tend to side together. If I remember correctly from the statistics, the women side together over 90% of the time, and always on liberal policies. Again, no true interpretive style, just ideological bent. The conservative justices at least interpret the law with what the law is, not what it should be (ruling with their brain, and not with their heart, you could say). Not saying that the conservative justices are always right, because they certainly aren't, but I long to see a day where the liberal justices are completely split. Never happens.

Yes, the 4 conservatives never vote en bloc at all...Roberts is the only one that even occasionally goes the other way...and notice he didn't today on a social issue. If only. They're all men too...IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!!!

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:57 AM
haha legal scholars are still trying to figure out Kennedy's opinion. That's Kennedy for ya, though.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:59 AM
Yes, the 4 conservatives never vote en bloc at all...Roberts is the only one that even occasionally goes the other way...and notice he didn't today on a social issue. If only. They're all men too...IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!!!

I didn't say they never did. I said that they tend to be split quite a bit. Scroll to the bottom of the link to see the statistics.

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:02 AM
I didn't say they never did. I said that they tend to be split quite a bit. Scroll to the bottom of the link to see the statistics.

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

FWIW, Kagan & Sotomayer are both very new justices so their "voting records" given their ideology make sense. With guys like Thomas and Scalia, you have 2+ decades of votes and they still have a very high correlation. Add in Alito and you have 3 men that pretty much vote the same on almost every single opinion regardless of the issue.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 11:07 AM
This should not be used as an attack on the church. The church is the church, and anti-Christian morons who are using gay marriage to attack it should not be allowed. Gays can get married now, cool. But this should not take away what the church is about.
What does "the church" have to do with American law?

Bonus question: that "the church" is that the Westboro Baptist Church, or is the one where a 2nd Amendment activist just gunned down a bunch of uppity people?
For some reason, I never can remember which specific church is the official state religion in the USA.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:11 AM
Foxnews Readers seem to be taking it well:

"Now that marriage is a fundamental right, I bet the polygamists are dancing in the streets too along with the people into beastiality. Enjoy people "

"PREPARE... FOR CIVIL WAR... FOLKS... "

"Does this mean the end of vile and disgusting gay pride parades? "

"How come the gays get their own parade, but every time my klansmen and myself march everyone gets all mad?"

I sometimes wonder if they have ever realized how dangerous it can be to stir up that sort of anger in unstable, fringe people. I'm sure they do and just dont care as long as they're making money off the upset rubes.

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 11:35 AM
This should not be used as an attack on the church. The church is the church, and anti-Christian morons who are using gay marriage to attack it should not be allowed. Gays can get married now, cool. But this should not take away what the church is about.

What is the church about? If we're talking about the Catholic Church, then its about child abuse and the elevation of elderly white men above all others.

If we're talking the various protestant churches... well, each one has its own flavor of irrationality, or is an outright con, so it would take a lot longer to complain about them.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 11:42 AM
What is the church about? If we're talking about the Catholic Church, then its about child abuse and the elevation of elderly white men above all others.

If we're talking the various protestant churches... well, each one has its own flavor of irrationality, or is an outright con, so it would take a lot longer to complain about them.

Every church. So you're automatically taking the action of a select few in a world of billions and assume that that is what the church is about? In that case, Islam is about pure violence and destruction and killing all non-believers. Wait, don't liberals say that it's only a select group that does that?
And you want to talk about irrationality? Is it rational that two people of the same sex have an intimate relationship? Not really because there are clear differences between man and woman and biology does not account for that.
So before you attack Christianity, you gotta remember that you aren't just talking about that. There are many examples, and it doesn't surprise me that you, as a liberal and likely an atheist, would believe that.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 11:44 AM
Foxnews Readers seem to be taking it well:



I sometimes wonder if they have ever realized how dangerous it can be to stir up that sort of anger in unstable, fringe people. I'm sure they do and just dont care as long as they're making money off the upset rubes.

And the CATO institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank that I fully support, filed amicus briefs in support of same sex marriage. So....

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:17 PM
And the CATO institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank that I fully support, filed amicus briefs in support of same sex marriage. So....

You nailed it there...maybe they're actually true libertarians. That's a completely different thing than the average American "conservative".

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:22 PM
Every church. So you're automatically taking the action of a select few in a world of billions and assume that that is what the church is about? In that case, Islam is about pure violence and destruction and killing all non-believers. Wait, don't liberals say that it's only a select group that does that?
And you want to talk about irrationality? Is it rational that two people of the same sex have an intimate relationship? Not really because there are clear differences between man and woman and biology does not account for that.
So before you attack Christianity, you gotta remember that you aren't just talking about that. There are many examples, and it doesn't surprise me that you, as a liberal and likely an atheist, would believe that.

So you're saying we should impose your version of Christian law on non-believers in a secular country that has a strong separation between Church and State?

Okay then.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 12:30 PM
Every church.Does that include the churches which were (and still are, presumably) actually if favour of gay marriage?

So you're automatically taking the action of a select few in a world of billions and assume that that is what the church is about?
When those few are the leaders who made actual official church policy, then yes, they are more representative of what that church is about than ordinary lay members who have only the options "be a part of the church" or "quit the church".

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:33 PM
Does that include the churches which were (and still are, presumably) actually if favour of gay marriage?


When those few are the leaders who made actual official church policy, then yes, they are more representative of what that church is about than ordinary lay members who have only the options "be a part of the church" or "quit the church".

Things Southpaw, Huckabee and other rightwingers are missing or deliberately ignoring (more likely)

1. Gay Marriage being legal does not mean you personally have to marry a gay person or be gay.

2. It does not mean your church has to marry gay people or allow their building to be used to marry gay people as its private property.


It literally has ZERO effect on you unless you are gay and want to get married.

The rest is just bigotry.

Terez
06-26-2015, 12:39 PM
And now for la résistance...

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/06/26/6295671_mississippi-attorney-general-jim.html?rh=1

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:39 PM
And now for la résistance...

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/06/26/6295671_mississippi-attorney-general-jim.html?rh=1

Segregation Now, Segregation Forever...


Oh wait, what issue is the South wrong on this time?

Terez
06-26-2015, 12:42 PM
Funny thing is, tons of people already got married this morning at MS courthouses. There's no reason for delay. The ban was already overturned in MS; the decision was merely stayed pending SCOTUS.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:44 PM
Funny thing is, tons of people already got married this morning at MS courthouses. There's no reason for delay. The ban was already overturned in MS; the decision was merely stayed pending SCOTUS.

This is just going down with the ship now. I'm sure Alabama will do the same since they had previously ordered clerks not to issue licenses in defiance of the court rulings on the subject.

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 12:45 PM
Every church. So you're automatically taking the action of a select few in a world of billions and assume that that is what the church is about? In that case, Islam is about pure violence and destruction and killing all non-believers. Wait, don't liberals say that it's only a select group that does that?
And you want to talk about irrationality? Is it rational that two people of the same sex have an intimate relationship? Not really because there are clear differences between man and woman and biology does not account for that.
So before you attack Christianity, you gotta remember that you aren't just talking about that. There are many examples, and it doesn't surprise me that you, as a liberal and likely an atheist, would believe that.

Wait, what? First off, there are not "billions" of churches in the world.

Secondly, as far as Catholicism goes, the opinions of the billions (is that what you were referring to? Be more clear, please) of believers are meaningless. Only the Pontiff's opinion matters, because he is the only one with the direct line to God. Of course, they contradict each other often. That being said, until the Papacy agrees to give up Cardinal Law (or ex-Cardinal Law, since his age-related retirement) to the American justice system, there is no way to come to any conclusion other than the fact that Roman Catholicism has a vested interest in aiding and abetting child abusers. It becomes an institutional thing.

And yes, it is rational for two people of the same sex to have a relationship. Prior to Christianity, it was common. It is "irrational" only in the sense that Christian and now Islamic mores have permeated all of our modes of social discourse. You can't even look at the issue without imposing your own biases on the parameters of the discussion, which is the problem with every religious person.

There is only one possible reason to say that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, and that is the argument that marriage should be justified solely on the basis of procreation. Of course, if that is your argument (and its one I've heard many times), then any infertile person is ineligible to marry. Which means that we now don't have the man & woman argument down so solidly anymore.

Terez
06-26-2015, 12:49 PM
This is just going down with the ship now. I'm sure Alabama will do the same since they had previously ordered clerks not to issue licenses in defiance of the court rulings on the subject.
Yes, we knew Alabama would resist, but it wasn't entirely clear what Mississippi's plans were. And of course, there are no details in the article I linked, so apparently they're still not telling us. But clearly there is some resistance plan (if not necessarily a good one).

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:51 PM
Yes, we knew Alabama would resist, but it wasn't entirely clear what Mississippi's plans were. And of course, there are no details in the article I linked, so apparently they're still not telling us. But clearly there is some resistance plan (if not necessarily a good one).

They're not gonna just bend over and take it from the federal gov't. I mean, that'd be so gay if they did.

Terez
06-26-2015, 12:56 PM
They're not gonna just bend over and take it from the federal gov't. I mean, that'd be so gay if they did.
America is a woman. Not a very pretty woman, but what can you expect from the French?

http://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/20257ee2-425c-4b2d-900f-f2b84cb894d3/98fedefc-2a70-42f9-96e3-8c8d1ce6e332.jpg

Davian93
06-26-2015, 12:59 PM
Quite true, nothing gay about being pegged with a strap-on.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 01:10 PM
There is only one possible reason to say that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, and that is the argument that marriage should be justified solely on the basis of procreation.
Maybe there's a religion somewhere which also thinks that marriage should be a matter between one man and one woman too. Not Christianity, though; there's actually nothing in the Bible which demands that limitation. According to the Bible it is all right for a man to have, for instance, two wives and their handmaidens too. Based on the stories, that usually leads to trouble, but then, that's life.

Terez
06-26-2015, 01:11 PM
Funny thing: our MS elected officials have all duly posted on social media about what a terrible week this has been for the Constitution. The comments are full of people telling them it's all their fault for being RINOs.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 01:15 PM
Funny thing: our MS elected officials have all duly posted on social media about what a terrible week this has been for the Constitution. The comments are full of people telling them it's all their fault for being RINOs.

I will enjoy trolling people on Twitter tonight.

Terez
06-26-2015, 01:15 PM
More detail:

http://m.wlox.com/wlox/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od%3AoQU8GjPR

I believe our federal judge could lift her stay retroactively to avoid legal issues with the marriages that already took place.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 01:18 PM
So T, do you miss living in the South? Or are you a complete Northerner now?

Terez
06-26-2015, 01:22 PM
MS will always be my home. In a lot of ways, I don't feel like I've left. Most of the people I interact with on Facebook are from MS; I follow all the MS news stations and papers and I don't pay any attention to IL news whatsoever. I still haven't registered to vote here; I probably should so I can vote for Tammy Duckworth for Senator.

I live in Aaron Schock's district, btw. Solidly Republican. Though happily, the guy up the street who was flying the Gadsden flag has replaced it with the IL flag.

Frenzy
06-27-2015, 01:32 AM
Well, according to Scalia, "(California does not count)." It's in the part where he's whining that the 9 justices aren't representative of American demographics.

and who'd've thought that one day i'd be doing a keyword search of a supreme court opinion, looking for the term "hippies," and finding it. :p

Southpaw2012
06-27-2015, 02:41 PM
So you're saying we should impose your version of Christian law on non-believers in a secular country that has a strong separation between Church and State?

Okay then.

Separation of church and state? There's nothing in the Constitution indicating that. Actually, separation of church and state came from a Jefferson letter where he talks about a wall being between government and the church. However, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional convention. The First Amendment only says that the government cannot favor one religion over another and cannot interfere with the exercise of that religion. Doesn't mean there's a clear separation though.

Honestly, back to gay marriage, the state shouldn't even be involved. That's an issue I have. The state is only involved in order to get its hands on another institution. The state doesn't grant us our dignity. The majority opinion is muddled and Kennedy seems to slide through Equal Protection and Due Process without really focusing. It's kind of weird. It's also telling that there were over 5 amicus briefs filed by kids of same sex marriages who are AGAINST it. I do fear the repercussions this will have on children, since they should be around parents of opposite sex, and the doors this opens to polygamy. Kennedy doesn't really seem to offer much on that issue. Very complicated situation, and I wish Kennedy had written his opinion better because it's kind of difficult.

Did anyone get through Robert's dissent yet? Talks about how the courts shouldn't legislate. Funny coming from him a day after he wrote Obamacare where he did just that.

Ozymandias
06-27-2015, 03:45 PM
Separation of church and state? There's nothing in the Constitution indicating that. Actually, separation of church and state came from a Jefferson letter where he talks about a wall being between government and the church. However, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional convention. The First Amendment only says that the government cannot favor one religion over another and cannot interfere with the exercise of that religion. Doesn't mean there's a clear separation though.

I agree with this entirely. However, practically speaking, it amounts to the same thing. I can proclaim a religion which says that its core tenet is that you, Southpaw, are an abomination and should be shunned and scorned. That is an equally valid religion as any other one.

Frankly, the government should not be granting religious institutions recognition or tax exemption. But we do. Because the state has effectively gotten in the business of officially recognizing some religions and not others as valid, there needs to be a separation between Church and State. It is a practical necessity, if not a de jure law of the land.

Honestly, back to gay marriage, the state shouldn't even be involved. That's an issue I have. The state is only involved in order to get its hands on another institution. The state doesn't grant us our dignity. The majority opinion is muddled and Kennedy seems to slide through Equal Protection and Due Process without really focusing. It's kind of weird. It's also telling that there were over 5 amicus briefs filed by kids of same sex marriages who are AGAINST it. I do fear the repercussions this will have on children, since they should be around parents of opposite sex, and the doors this opens to polygamy. Kennedy doesn't really seem to offer much on that issue. Very complicated situation, and I wish Kennedy had written his opinion better because it's kind of difficult.

What is wrong with polygamy? As long as it is consensual, nothing.

This is where the entire anti-gay marriage position breaks down. I agree with you entirely, in theory. The government should not be in the business of recognizing marriage at all. But we do. That is just the way the world is, unfortunately. And given that there are tangible, government-provided benefits to being married, it is unthinkable that we then would restrict those benefits to only certain people. Its a blatant subversion of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution denies homosexuals the right to marry. The Constitution does, however, prohibit the infringement of the rights of any citizens. Since the government grants substantial benefits when a marriage is legalized, to deny a citizen the right to marry is to infringe on the privileges of a large subsection of citizens. Couldn't be plainer.

No one is forcing religious institutions to be less bigoted or prejudiced. It only requires that federal and state officials, members of the public domain, respect the provisions of the Constitution. There is no legal argument that could possibly justify denying gays the right to marry without implicitly condemning the entire institution of legally recognizing marriage (which, as I said above, is a very valid view, but not one I think anyone, least of all the dissenting judges, is willing to stand by).

Did anyone get through Robert's dissent yet? Talks about how the courts shouldn't legislate. Funny coming from him a day after he wrote Obamacare where he did just that.

Uh... no, he didn't. He upheld the interpretation of a (not very) ambiguously written law. Congress passed the law. If you believe it was poorly written, so be it. The IRS made its own interpretation of how the law was meant to be read, which, incidentally, is unquestionably what the law's framers had in mind. The Court merely opined that they were not in a position to reverse the existing interpretation. From a purely legal standpoint, this was the correct decision. If they had come to a different decision, they really would have been rewriting the law. Its sort of mind boggling that you can hold the opinion you do, at least given the reasons you've stated. The law is being applied in a certain way. The only way to "rewrite" the law would be to overturn the current application of it. With the gay marriage ruling, the court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment rights of gay people were being violated. That is an excellent instance of a place where the court absolutely has the authority to overturn existing legislation, where the rights of a minority are being violated. In the case of the ACA, the only decision the court should have been empowered to make was whether or not the law was being applied in a way that was contradictory to either the intent or the text of the legislation. Since the text was ambiguous (the intent is not), the only way you could make any case for the judiciary acting as legislators is if the court had overturned the way the law was currently functioning. It just isn't possible, by definition, for the court to "legislate" if they are upholding the way in which the government enforces a vague provision.

Davian93
06-27-2015, 08:35 PM
Separation of church and state? There's nothing in the Constitution indicating that. Actually, separation of church and state came from a Jefferson letter where he talks about a wall being between government and the church. However, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional convention. The First Amendment only says that the government cannot favor one religion over another and cannot interfere with the exercise of that religion. Doesn't mean there's a clear separation though.

Thank you for the 5th grade history lesson. Good work ignoring the centuries of case law that say the exact opposite. Enforcing a Christian definition of marriage on non-Christians would be exactly the type of thing that is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment. But you knew that.

Davian93
06-27-2015, 08:36 PM
I do fear the repercussions this will have on children, since they should be around parents of opposite sex, and the doors this opens to polygamy

Fear what? Why "should" they be around parents of opposite sex? Please do explain that one.

And no, it doesn't open that door but keep whining about a fictional slippery slope.

The state doesn't grant us our dignity.

The point you are missing is that they sure as hell can take it away...thus the issue.

Terez
06-27-2015, 09:56 PM
The point you are missing is that they sure as hell can take it away...thus the issue.
In a sense I agree with Thomas's reasoning; it's all a matter of perspective. But the state still has the obligation to afford dignity to its citizens.

Davian93
06-27-2015, 10:06 PM
Nah, he's just being the same bitter SOB he's always been. If you read any of his writings and history, he's always had a massive chip on his shoulder and he's massively insecure...and he accordingly takes it out on everyone else. Nobody else has had it as hard as him so they can just fvck off basically.

His comment can basically be construed as "well, we've enslaved people and put others in internment camps and thats worse than not letting gays get married so sod off".


This is the same guy that has gone on the record saying he would dissented if he had been on the Court during Loving v. Virginia. Mind you, it was a unanimous verdict and it is the reason he is able to be married to his own wife but hey, whatever Clarence. Yesterday's gay marriage ruling should have been 9-0 too for the same reasons Loving was...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."-Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia

They literally should have quoted Warren verbatim only substituting out the terms "interracial" and "same sex" where needed.

He's got serious issues and he's never been considered a great legal mind...even back when he was appointed, there were massive issues about him even before the Anita Hill crap came out.

Terez
06-27-2015, 10:23 PM
Nah, he's just being the same bitter SOB he's always been. If you read any of his writings and history, he's always had a massive chip on his shoulder and he's massively insecure...and he accordingly takes it out on everyone else.
I understand that but I also understand the core of his reasoning—the idea that dignity can be neither conferred nor taken away—for this and for the "chip" you refer to in general. Thomas sees himself as the kind of person who can thrive despite adverse conditions; his mistake is thinking that other people are inferior for preferring fairness, and that their perceived inferiority morally justifies these adverse conditions being enshrined in law and/or perpetuated and tolerated by the majority.

Davian93
06-27-2015, 10:28 PM
I understand that but I also understand the core of his reasoning—the idea that dignity can be neither conferred nor taken away—for this and for the "chip" you refer to in general. Thomas sees himself as the kind of person who can thrive despite adverse conditions; his mistake is thinking that other people are inferior for preferring fairness, and that their perceived inferiority morally justifies these adverse conditions being enshrined in law and/or perpetuated and tolerated by the majority.

He still whines about not being taken seriously as a black guy who graduated from Yale. Mind you, he's one of the 9 most powerful jurists in the country as a Justice and still whines. Many other black Yale graduates from his same era say he's full of shit and they had no problems at all finding great jobs and that a Yale degree has helped them massively. There is a near zero chance he'd be a Justice if not for Yale...hell, he was appointed by another Yalie for godsake. On the self-esteem thing, another great gem from him is on why he doesn't ask questions during oral arguments...he is still embarrassed by his Gullah accent so he doesn't like to speak publicly is basically his explanation along with the old standby of "if you wait long enough, someone will ask your question for you".


He's right in that dignity cannot be conferred by the state. I disagree completely about whether or not it can be taken away. Ask concentration camp victims if their dignity was stripped from them for example. Slavery is the definition of stripping dignity from someone too. Treating someone as if they were property or an animal is a stripping of dignity. Its BS to state otherwise.

Terez
06-27-2015, 11:07 PM
I think you are confusing "failing to confer dignity" with "stripping dignity away". People can maintain a personal sense of dignity in any kind of circumstances.

Davian93
06-27-2015, 11:12 PM
I think you are confusing "failing to confer dignity" with "stripping dignity away". People can maintain a personal sense of dignity in any kind of circumstances.

I would agree that the capacity for them to do so is there, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for the State to strip it away if they try hard enough.

Regardless, the State should never be making such an attempt whether it be by enslaving a person, unjustly imprisoning them or by treating them as 2nd class citizens.

Daekyras
06-28-2015, 02:49 AM
Haven't really been paying attention to any media/public response to this decision- how has it being going down over there?

The reason I ask is due to Yoel Romero. I'm sure not many of you know what he is but after he won his fight in the ufc last night he went on a rant about it:

"What happened to you America. .....For jesus, not gay jesus people...come on!" Would be the highlight of it.

I imagine the UFC are livid right now. They have tried very hard to legitimise what is an amazing sport but shite like that just makes them look so low rent.

Anyway, how has the overall public response been?

GonzoTheGreat
06-28-2015, 03:45 AM
Separation of church and state? There's nothing in the Constitution indicating that.
I really like how right wing Americans again and again choose to ignore any parts of their Constitution they don't like while at the same time screaming at the top of their lungs how much they venerate the silly document. It makes it so very easy to level the charge of hypocrisy at them, you know.

From Article VI of the US Constitution:
... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If that isn't a clear and unequivocal expression of separation of church and state, then I don't know how much plainer one could be without using the phrase "separation of church and state". And, of course, if your Founding Fathers had been stupid enough to do that, then the next thing you know you'd have been living under Shariah law, after someone got away with the reasoning "a mosque isn't a church, so the Constitution doesn't prohibit this".

Mind you, this clause has been routinely ignored by just about all US authorities throughout the existence of your country; that's how your churches and such got away with hijacking marriage in the first place.

Southpaw2012
06-28-2015, 07:32 PM
I really like how right wing Americans again and again choose to ignore any parts of their Constitution they don't like while at the same time screaming at the top of their lungs how much they venerate the silly document. It makes it so very easy to level the charge of hypocrisy at them, you know.

From Article VI of the US Constitution:
... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If that isn't a clear and unequivocal expression of separation of church and state, then I don't know how much plainer one could be without using the phrase "separation of church and state". And, of course, if your Founding Fathers had been stupid enough to do that, then the next thing you know you'd have been living under Shariah law, after someone got away with the reasoning "a mosque isn't a church, so the Constitution doesn't prohibit this".

Mind you, this clause has been routinely ignored by just about all US authorities throughout the existence of your country; that's how your churches and such got away with hijacking marriage in the first place.

That test isn't applied anymore really, after the 60s. Also, you should go back and read some of the arguments at the Constitutional Convention. The founders didn't put that in to keep a secular government. All it's saying is that you don't have to have a particular religious belief.

Davian93
06-28-2015, 07:35 PM
That test isn't applied anymore really, after the 60s. Also, you should go back and read some of the arguments at the Constitutional Convention. The founders didn't put that in to keep a secular government. All it's saying is that you don't have to have a particular religious belief.

Even if that were true (which is debatable), they were very clear on their belief that religion had no place in gov't and they were adamantly opposed to a state-sponsored church or any form of state religion after the issues they noted in the Church of England in the UK.

All Jefferson did in his writings was articulate that opinion among his peers and generation.

GonzoTheGreat
06-29-2015, 04:38 AM
All it's saying is that you don't have to have a particular religious belief.
Does that mean that the US government can actually demand that someone who is a candidate for an elected office does have some religious faith?
Would it be legal, for instance, to ban atheists from running for dog catcher?

If not, then there is a clear and simple separation of church and state in the USA, whether or not it is legally formulated with those precise words.
If it is legal to prohibit unbelievers from having any official position at all, then that's a sign of a theocracy.

Southpaw2012
06-29-2015, 10:08 AM
I'm still waiting for the three women on the Supreme Court to disagree with each other. Just once. Seriously, it becomes somewhat obvious that they vote based on policy lines and what their desired outcome is, rather than the law. I'm still waiting on a day where one or more of the liberal judges vote on a clearly conservative decision. It will never happen. At least Roberts and Scalia (and sometimes Thomas) go both ways and have actual interpretation theories. What you read most of the time from an opinion of say... Ginsburg is that "this is what the law should be, so it is."

Terez
06-29-2015, 10:17 AM
They're usually together because their opinions are common sense ones, like interpreting the equal protection clause to really mean what it says, or interpreting Obamacare to really say what it means. This will be clearer in 100 years when their common sense opinions withstand the test of time, and Scalia looks more and more like the contortionist he is.

Ozymandias
06-29-2015, 10:35 AM
I'm still waiting for the three women on the Supreme Court to disagree with each other. Just once. Seriously, it becomes somewhat obvious that they vote based on policy lines and what their desired outcome is, rather than the law. I'm still waiting on a day where one or more of the liberal judges vote on a clearly conservative decision. It will never happen. At least Roberts and Scalia (and sometimes Thomas) go both ways and have actual interpretation theories. What you read most of the time from an opinion of say... Ginsburg is that "this is what the law should be, so it is."

You might say that the reason Ginsburg et. al. don't have to write an entire book describing their method of "interpreting" the Constitution is because their methods are so common-sense that they don't require hundreds of pages of convoluted explanations.

GonzoTheGreat
06-29-2015, 10:39 AM
Terez, Ozy, you seem to be implying that law makers make sense. I thought they made law, which is usually not sensible at all. Am I wrong?

Davian93
06-29-2015, 11:07 AM
They're usually together because their opinions are common sense ones, like interpreting the equal protection clause to really mean what it says, or interpreting Obamacare to really say what it means. This will be clearer in 100 years when their common sense opinions withstand the test of time, and Scalia looks more and more like the contortionist he is.

Stop trying to use common sense and reality to justify their actions to him. He's not going to care anyway.


I'm also starting to sense a bit of Misogyny in Southpaw's continued harping on "the three women" on the court. Was that there when Sandra Day-O'Connor was on the court or is it just because its 3 "liberal" women on the court now that he has a problem?

Davian93
06-29-2015, 11:14 AM
In case anyone is keeping a tally for today's rulings:

EPA Gets Fvcked (GOP Win)
State sponsored murder still a-ok (GOP Win)
Voter sponsored indpendent redistricting ok (Dem Win)

Damn that Liberal Court!!!!

Davian93
06-29-2015, 11:16 AM
GOP's Current Platform:

Screw the Gays (well not literally I suppose but still their intent)
Screw the Environment
Screw the Poor
Screw Minorities
Pro Murder
Pro Birth (Not pro life as they dont give a damn once its born).


Great platform you've got there, Southpaw.

Kimon
06-29-2015, 11:32 AM
In case anyone is keeping a tally for today's rulings:

EPA Gets Fvcked (GOP Win)
State sponsored murder still a-ok (GOP Win)
Voter sponsored indpendent redistricting ok (Dem Win)

Damn that Liberal Court!!!!

This EPA ruling perfectly illustrates just how corrupt the court is:

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.

The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first-ever limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, have placed it among the costliest regulations ever issued.


This is insane.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule

GonzoTheGreat
06-29-2015, 11:41 AM
Screw the Gays (well not literally I suppose but still their intent)
Not officially I would grant you. But not literally?

Davian93
06-29-2015, 11:44 AM
This EPA ruling perfectly illustrates just how corrupt the court is:



This is insane.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule

Yup...basically they said that health and the environment are less important than a corporation's bottom line.

Great job!!!

Terez
06-29-2015, 12:24 PM
GOP's Current Platform:

Screw the Gays (well not literally I suppose but still their intent)
Screw the Environment
Screw the Poor
Screw Minorities
Pro Torture
Pro Birth (Not pro life as they dont give a damn once its born).


Great platform you've got there, Southpaw.
Fixed.

Southpaw2012
06-30-2015, 12:09 AM
GOP's Current Platform:

Screw the Gays (well not literally I suppose but still their intent)
Screw the Environment
Screw the Poor
Screw Minorities
Pro Murder
Pro Birth (Not pro life as they dont give a damn once its born).


Great platform you've got there, Southpaw.

Screw the gays? No, we just think that gay marriage should be done through the democratic process in the states. Over 40 states had their marriage laws destroyed by a court of nine elitist justices who were hell bent on furthering their political policies. That's not how this country works. If state's want to have civil discourse that ends up with the laws being changed, fine. However, this court has shown, especially on the liberal side, that the goal is to change the laws based on politics and not on what the law is, and that is sickening.

Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education, jobs, and keeping a check on a rampaging Islamic army that continues to spread across the Middle East. Our "president" is determined to negotiate with the leading sponsor of terrorism: Iran, so we clearly won't get very far. The environment is important, everyone acknowledges it, but liberals defeat their purpose when they have Leonardo Dicaprio showing up to march in his environment destroying jet.

Screw the poor? No, we believe that the poor should be shoved out of poverty and not made comfortable by handouts. Democrat policies have clearly not worked, and the remedy is not socialism, sorry liberals. The true poor who are hungry have plenty of support from charities, ironically enough from Christian charities that liberals are intent on destroying.

Screw the minorities? Wow, that's pretty offensive to those minorities, and there are many, who make up the conservative movement. No, we just don't think that every time a white man kills a black man that racism is necessarily involved. The term "racism" becoming a sick joke because of how much it's overused. No, a cop shooting a black man who is bashing his face in isn't civil rights murder, it's self defense. No, failing to strap a black man properly in the back of a police car that then leads to his death isn't racism, it's cop stupidity. There is true racism in the country, yet the focus is on garbage. It's an attempt to silence conservatives because no one likes to be labeled a racist. Clever, yet sick, to use that move to silence people. Calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom is racist, and that's what the Democrat Senator (or Rep?) from Alabama called him. Always love to hear about the classy and tolerant comments liberals make..

Pro murder? No, we believe that people who murder and rape others deserve the death penalty because we're sick of those monsters in prison with tv, weight rooms, yard time, and social hour living lavishly off taxpayer money. Sure, death penalty sentences should be more consistent and saved for the worst people, but we have no sympathy for people who break into the house of another, go to some young girls room, brutally rape her followed by dismemberment. Those people deserve death. "Oh, but they suffer." How about you think about the victim before you worry about the monster.

Pro life? Funny, considering that we are supposedly "pro murder" too. Yeah, we believe that abortion is murder, because it is. It's been proven when life starts and that's at conception. What about rape? If the woman can't bear to raise a child that was conceived by a sick monster, there are plenty of adoption agencies set up. I know I know, most are Christian run and liberals are hell bent on destroying anything Christian, but they work. In today's society, people don't want to hold themselves accountable. Both the man and woman are equally responsible, and abortion needs to stop being used as a remedy to a mistake resulting from a night of fun times. In today's society, people want to blame everyone else for their problems. Guys, pull on your big boy pants and be a dad. Girls, you participated as much as he did, so pull on your big girl pants and be a mom. It's sickening to see people go out and get abortions because they don't want the responsibility. Murder.

It's funny how liberals love to label us all this stuff, yet aren't you all supposed to be the "tolerant" ones? Hilarious. I could write a multipage essay on how liberalism is destroying this nation. "Omg, these bathrooms are labeled men for men and women for women, but there's nothing for transgenders so I'm offended!! There shouldn't be such words as men and women because that could leave others out!!!" Get the fuck over it. Damn.

Nazbaque
06-30-2015, 12:47 AM
Pro life? Funny, considering that we are supposedly "pro murder" too. Yeah, we believe that abortion is murder, because it is. It's been proven when life starts and that's at conception. What about rape? If the woman can't bear to raise a child that was conceived by a sick monster, there are plenty of adoption agencies set up. I know I know, most are Christian run and liberals are hell bent on destroying anything Christian, but they work. In today's society, people don't want to hold themselves accountable. Both the man and woman are equally responsible, and abortion needs to stop being used as a remedy to a mistake resulting from a night of fun times. In today's society, people want to blame everyone else for their problems. Guys, pull on your big boy pants and be a dad. Girls, you participated as much as he did, so pull on your big girl pants and be a mom. It's sickening to see people go out and get abortions because they don't want the responsibility. Murder.

Dav, I think you got it right with the misogyny. He has no idea what a rape victim goes through nor what pregnancy involves.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-30-2015, 02:38 AM
Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education,

ok, I stopped reading after that. funny as hell, even more so because you seem to be earnest.

According to the PISA (http://gpseducation.oecd.org/IndicatorExplorer?query=2&indicators=M000*R000*S000*M002*M003*M004*M006*M007 *M008*M009*M010*M011*M012*R002*R003*R004*R006*R007 *R008*R009*R010*R011*R012*S002*S003*S004*S006*S007 *S008*S009*S010*S011*S012*M013*M014*M015*M016*M017 *M018*M019*M020*M021*M022*M023*N001*N002*M024*M025 *M026*M027*N003*N004*N005*M028*N006*N007*M029*M030 *M031*M032*M033*M034*M035*M036*M037*M038*M039*N008 *N009*N010*N011*N012*N013*N014*N015*N016*N017*N018 *N019*M040*M041*M042*N020*N021*N022*N023*N024*N025 *N026*N027*N028*N029*O000*O001*O002*O003*O004*O005 *O006*O007*O008*O009*O010*O011*O012*O013*O014*F000 *F001*F002*F003*F004*F005*F006*F007*F008*F009*F010 *F011*F012*F013*F014%20) test results from 2012, US has about 26% low performers in maths, and 16% low performers in reading. Compared to, say, Poland which has 14% and 10.6% respectively or the Netherlands which has 15% and 14% respectively. That's students at 15 years old.

Now, coming from Estonia, I happen to think that the Dutch education system sucks ass. The scissors between top performers and low performers are much too wide, and the children don't learn nearly enough maths or hard sciences. Not even the bare basics. Yes, I know, kids hate difficult things, I know I barely scraped through my physics classes... but I'm constantly amazed at how much more I know, just from what I can remember from HS physics classes (well over a decade ago), when I talk to Dutch teenagers. To think that the American kids know even less... it boggles the mind :(

ETA: I didn't even go into what gets taught in schools ABOUT the environment. That just makes me sad. That kids can't name the species of a tree that's growing next to their house makes me want to cry.

Frenzy
06-30-2015, 02:52 AM
i'm probably going to regret this, but fuck it.
Screw the gays? No, we just think that gay marriage should be done through the democratic process in the states. Over 40 states had their marriage laws destroyed by a court of nine elitist justices who were hell bent on furthering their political policies. That's not how this country works. If state's want to have civil discourse that ends up with the laws being changed, fine. However, this court has shown, especially on the liberal side, that the goal is to change the laws based on politics and not on what the law is, and that is sickening.
The law was denying one group of citizens equal access to a huge amount of government rights & incentives available thru the civil contract of marriage while granting them to another. Pretty sure that violates Equal Protection. i would've been perfectly fine if the ruling and/or laws were changed to abolish any government intrusion into marriage (e.g.: get rid of the tax incentives, inheritance, etc.), but i don't see a huge clamoring to make that happen. Gee, wonder why.

Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education, jobs, and keeping a check on a rampaging Islamic army that continues to spread across the Middle East. Our "president" is determined to negotiate with the leading sponsor of terrorism: Iran, so we clearly won't get very far. The environment is important, everyone acknowledges it, but liberals defeat their purpose when they have Leonardo Dicaprio showing up to march in his environment destroying jet.
Matches! Get your matches here for all these straw dogs! Or do you honestly think protecting the environment and rampaging islamic armies have any fucking thing to do with each other?

Pro murder? No, we believe that people who murder and rape others deserve the death penalty because we're sick of those monsters in prison with tv, weight rooms, yard time, and social hour living lavishly off taxpayer money. Sure, death penalty sentences should be more consistent and saved for the worst people, but we have no sympathy for people who break into the house of another, go to some young girls room, brutally rape her followed by dismemberment. Those people deserve death. "Oh, but they suffer." How about you think about the victim before you worry about the monster.
Dude, i'm pro-death penalty and i can make a stronger argument for it than this. But the way that the death penalty is implemented in this country is a sick joke, and there are WAY too many people on death row being exonerated for anyone with a love of the law to be comfortable with. The truth of the matter is FAR more taxpayer money is wasted (like orders of magnitude more) in the current death row system than it would be to just sentence them to life without parole, shove them in a hole with the basics (food, water, shelter, medical care), and let them rot. And seriously, if the different departments of the government would just talk to each other, you could mine the USDAs pesticide database for LD50 info and find all sorts of ways to kill a person quickly, easily, and painlessly.

Pro life? Funny, considering that we are supposedly "pro murder" too. Yeah, we believe that abortion is murder, because it is. It's been proven when life starts and that's at conception. What about rape? If the woman can't bear to raise a child that was conceived by a sick monster, there are plenty of adoption agencies set up. I know I know, most are Christian run and liberals are hell bent on destroying anything Christian, but they work. In today's society, people don't want to hold themselves accountable. Both the man and woman are equally responsible, and abortion needs to stop being used as a remedy to a mistake resulting from a night of fun times. In today's society, people want to blame everyone else for their problems. Guys, pull on your big boy pants and be a dad. Girls, you participated as much as he did, so pull on your big girl pants and be a mom. It's sickening to see people go out and get abortions because they don't want the responsibility. Murder.
ok this one pisses me off. You get bent when the government infringes on state's rights, but you want that same government to impose it's will on the personal medical choices of over half of the citizens of this country?!? what the actual fuck dude? Legally you cannot harvest organs from a dead person without consent, but you want to MAKE a pregnant woman carry a child to term against her will (and at her own heath's risk, and probably at her own expense too)? You want women to have less rights than a corpse? Because the value of the potential life she carries is worth more than her? Seriously dude, what the fuck. That makes no legal sense.

It's funny how liberals love to label us all this stuff, yet aren't you all supposed to be the "tolerant" ones? Hilarious. I could write a multipage essay on how liberalism is destroying this nation. "Omg, these bathrooms are labeled men for men and women for women, but there's nothing for transgenders so I'm offended!! There shouldn't be such words as men and women because that could leave others out!!!" Get the fuck over it. Damn.
As someone who works in the wastewater industry, i can tell you with confidence that the toilets don't give a damn what gender you are. Like we all (hopefully) learned as toddlers, everyone poops. If this country wasn't so obsessed with bathrooms, the ERA would've passed in the 70s and maybe our country could focus on more important things like the economy, education, the environment, and other annoying shit like that.

But go ahead and keep up the us vs. them labeling and mentality, because if you look at the last 30 years it's obviously fucking working.

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2015, 04:25 AM
Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education, jobs, and keeping a check on a rampaging Islamic army that continues to spread across the Middle East.
Mad as a hatter. Which figures, since those proverbial hatters became mad because of the effects of mercury on their nervous system, and the ruling was precisely about an attempt to limit the amount of mercury people would be exposed to.
So the GOP does actually really want to drive Americans literally mad if that is good for the earnings of some companies.

Now, you might want to argue with that, and claim that mercury isn't bad for you. If you decide to try that, then a good starting point could be proving that you don't have a brain.

Davian93
06-30-2015, 07:44 AM
Dav, I think you got it right with the misogyny. He has no idea what a rape victim goes through nor what pregnancy involves.

Rape babies are a blessing from God...that's their argument. Thus, its immaterial as to how the woman became pregnant. Besides, she was probably asking for it anyway...I mean, was it really rape rape? Also, if it was, I understand that the body has ways of shutting it down if its raped so if she did get pregnant, she was clearly enjoying herself and it was therefore not a rape.

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2015, 09:42 AM
Rape babies are a blessing from God...that's their argument. Thus, its immaterial as to how the woman became pregnant. Besides, she was probably asking for it anyway...I mean, was it really rape rape? Also, if it was, I understand that the body has ways of shutting it down if its raped so if she did get pregnant, she was clearly enjoying herself and it was therefore not a rape.
Besides, popping out a baby isn't really a big deal, is it?
Even uneducated women can do it, so it must be simple.

Davian93
06-30-2015, 10:58 AM
Screw the gays? No, we just think that gay marriage should be done through the democratic process in the states. Over 40 states had their marriage laws destroyed by a court of nine elitist justices who were hell bent on furthering their political policies. That's not how this country works. If state's want to have civil discourse that ends up with the laws being changed, fine. However, this court has shown, especially on the liberal side, that the goal is to change the laws based on politics and not on what the law is, and that is sickening.

Yeah, screw equal protection under the law and equality. Those are overrated concepts anyway that have no place in our form of government.

Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education, jobs, and keeping a check on a rampaging Islamic army that continues to spread across the Middle East. Our "president" is determined to negotiate with the leading sponsor of terrorism: Iran, so we clearly won't get very far. The environment is important, everyone acknowledges it, but liberals defeat their purpose when they have Leonardo Dicaprio showing up to march in his environment destroying jet.

Yup, profit is more important than the environment and human life. Damned that liberal EPA (created by that ultral liberal activist Nixon) always trying to tell us that mercury and sulfur are bad and we need an ozone layer. Bring on more Love Canals and burning rivers!!! Industry can self-police just like the coal ash getting dumped into rivers and massive oil spills in the Gulf.

Screw the poor? No, we believe that the poor should be shoved out of poverty and not made comfortable by handouts. Democrat policies have clearly not worked, and the remedy is not socialism, sorry liberals. The true poor who are hungry have plenty of support from charities, ironically enough from Christian charities that liberals are intent on destroying.

Spoken like someone who has never had to wonder where their next meal is going to come from and by someone who probably thinks owning a fridge and cell phone means you are 'milking the system'. And no, charities DO NOT cover that which is why the gov't created social welfare programs originally as millions were literally starving to death during the Great Depression. But you knew that.

Screw the minorities? Wow, that's pretty offensive to those minorities, and there are many, who make up the conservative movement. No, we just don't think that every time a white man kills a black man that racism is necessarily involved. The term "racism" becoming a sick joke because of how much it's overused. No, a cop shooting a black man who is bashing his face in isn't civil rights murder, it's self defense. No, failing to strap a black man properly in the back of a police car that then leads to his death isn't racism, it's cop stupidity. There is true racism in the country, yet the focus is on garbage. It's an attempt to silence conservatives because no one likes to be labeled a racist. Clever, yet sick, to use that move to silence people. Calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom is racist, and that's what the Democrat Senator (or Rep?) from Alabama called him. Always love to hear about the classy and tolerant comments liberals make..


Google "Southern Strategy" and get back to me once you've read up a bit...since that's a bit more what I'm referencing there.

Pro murder? No, we believe that people who murder and rape others deserve the death penalty because we're sick of those monsters in prison with tv, weight rooms, yard time, and social hour living lavishly off taxpayer money. Sure, death penalty sentences should be more consistent and saved for the worst people, but we have no sympathy for people who break into the house of another, go to some young girls room, brutally rape her followed by dismemberment. Those people deserve death. "Oh, but they suffer." How about you think about the victim before you worry about the monster.

How about:

1. It costs far more than life imprisonment
2. Its applied unfairly and capriciously.
3. Too much chance of a mistake given the issues with fair trials. TX has already executed one innocent man...do we need to keep doing that?
4. You clearly have no clue what actual maximum security prison is like if you think its the luxury hotel you described above.

Pro life? Funny, considering that we are supposedly "pro murder" too. Yeah, we believe that abortion is murder, because it is. It's been proven when life starts and that's at conception. What about rape? If the woman can't bear to raise a child that was conceived by a sick monster, there are plenty of adoption agencies set up. I know I know, most are Christian run and liberals are hell bent on destroying anything Christian, but they work. In today's society, people don't want to hold themselves accountable. Both the man and woman are equally responsible, and abortion needs to stop being used as a remedy to a mistake resulting from a night of fun times. In today's society, people want to blame everyone else for their problems. Guys, pull on your big boy pants and be a dad. Girls, you participated as much as he did, so pull on your big girl pants and be a mom. It's sickening to see people go out and get abortions because they don't want the responsibility. Murder.

No, you're pro-birth, not pro-life. You dont give a damn once its born and you constantly cut benefits for the poor and increase the tax burden for them (see Wisconsin and Kansas for great examples of GOP policy in action) Also, the previous comments regarding instances of rape and the fact that it is a woman's body, not yours so sod off. And you have no problem imposing the death penalty regardless of the issues associated with it so the mantra of "all life is precious" is utter BS anyway. Either you respect all life regardless or you make exceptions. Dont be a damn hypocrite about it.

It's funny how liberals love to label us all this stuff, yet aren't you all supposed to be the "tolerant" ones?

Ah, the classic GOP mantra of "You're the true racist for pointing out my racism". And "how dare you not be tolerant of my intolerance!"

You sound like such an idiot when you spout off this rightwing dogma crap you read on the internet.

Ozymandias
06-30-2015, 02:19 PM
Yup...basically they said that health and the environment are less important than a corporation's bottom line.

Great job!!!

What, exactly, should they say? This is an excellent example of a place where a different ruling would have been a clear cut example of judicial overreach. And I say that as a staunch pro-environmental activist.

Neither the EPA, nor any other federal bureaucratic unit, should have the ability to take actions that constitute a taking under the Constitution. And sadly, this is clearly an example of a taking. It really sucks, but this is a place where the legislature should absolutely be taking the initiative, which won't happen because nose-pickers like Rick Perry and his ilk live in the world.

I would have been pretty upset if the Court ruled otherwise. That would be a true politicization of the Court, to an equally great degree as what the conservatives have been doing. Kudos for Roberts to having independent ethics.

Ozymandias
06-30-2015, 02:45 PM
Screw the gays? No, we just think that gay marriage should be done through the democratic process in the states. Over 40 states had their marriage laws destroyed by a court of nine elitist justices who were hell bent on furthering their political policies. That's not how this country works. If state's want to have civil discourse that ends up with the laws being changed, fine. However, this court has shown, especially on the liberal side, that the goal is to change the laws based on politics and not on what the law is, and that is sickening.

Should states be able to enslave their citizens (or re-enslave) on their own initiative? A law barring gays from being married is a clear, clear, CLEAR violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Screw the environment? No, we think there are more important issues such as education, jobs,

Cite the nexus between environmental restriction on dumping toxins into the environment and fewer jobs. Not the conservative fearmongering, but the study that shows it.

and keeping a check on a rampaging Islamic army that continues to spread across the Middle East

Couldn't agree more, but I don't see the relevance.

Our "president" is determined to negotiate with the leading sponsor of terrorism: Iran, so we clearly won't get very far.

What would you have him do? Who else is there to negotiate with? As far as I see it, the options are invade, do nothing, or negotiate. Are you advocating either of the other two? This is why it cracks me up when idiots like you complain about negotiations... no, they shouldn't go on indefinitely, but what alternative is there in the short term?

The environment is important, everyone acknowledges it, but liberals defeat their purpose when they have Leonardo Dicaprio showing up to march in his environment destroying jet.

Um... no, not everyone acknowledges it. You cannot say "the environment is important" and turn around and deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change. It is an explicit denial of the importance of the environment.

Screw the poor? No, we believe that the poor should be shoved out of poverty and not made comfortable by handouts.

Almost every study, and every piece of real-world evidence, gives the lie to this. For the vast majority of the less well off, additional dollars go to necessary pieces of life (rent, groceries, etc) and not mooching or lazing about. Your half a dozen examples that every self-obsessed conservative has to the contrary.


Democrat policies have clearly not worked, and the remedy is not socialism, sorry liberals.

Pretty sure most of the liberal social and economic policies instituted over the last few decades HAVE worked. Or rather, trickle-down economics has been thoroughly discredited, cutting the government budget has been proven impossible (because Republicans only want certain parts of government smaller, not an across the board reduction, which is not the same), and lowering taxes on the wealthy has not created any jobs.

The true poor who are hungry have plenty of support from charities, ironically enough from Christian charities that liberals are intent on destroying.

And who decides who the "true poor" are? What is, as a good American who happens to be Jewish or Muslim, I am uncomfortable receiving charity from a rival faith which might try and preach at me while I'm there?

Besides, those "charities" are only able to be as charitable as they are being they are government-subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars a year in tax-exemptions.

The term "racism" becoming a sick joke because of how much it's overused.

I agree. But supporting the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag is racist. It is supporting a treasonous rebellion based on the principle that one man can hold another as chattel.

No, a cop shooting a black man who is bashing his face in isn't civil rights murder, it's self defense.

But a cop shooting a black man who is running away is evidence of institutionalized prejudice against a certain class of people. The evidence is overwhelming that this exists, as investigators found in the case of Ferguson, and as is abundantly clear in municipalities across the country (see the statistics on stop and frisk in NYC).

No, failing to strap a black man properly in the back of a police car that then leads to his death isn't racism, it's cop stupidity.

But if "cop stupidity" or "police negligence" is only ever aimed at people with dark skin, then it does become institutionalized racism. And every crime statistic, every incarceration statistic, in this country shows that these incidents, not to mention more routine convictions, are overwhelmingly pointed at blacks.

Calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom is racist, and that's what the Democrat Senator (or Rep?) from Alabama called him. Always love to hear about the classy and tolerant comments liberals make..

Technically he was not wrong. Clarence Thomas is a racist, and he does have "Tom" in his name...

Pro murder? No, we believe that people who murder and rape others deserve the death penalty because we're sick of those monsters in prison with tv, weight rooms, yard time, and social hour living lavishly off taxpayer money. Sure, death penalty sentences should be more consistent and saved for the worst people, but we have no sympathy for people who break into the house of another, go to some young girls room, brutally rape her followed by dismemberment. Those people deserve death. "Oh, but they suffer." How about you think about the victim before you worry about the monster.

But we do think of the victim. But there is nothing to be done for the victim that isn't already being done. How does killing the aggressor do... anything? Besides which, even one false conviction and execution essentially discredits the entire system and makes a murderer of the state.

Pro life? Funny, considering that we are supposedly "pro murder" too. Yeah, we believe that abortion is murder, because it is. It's been proven when life starts and that's at conception.

Cite.

What about rape? If the woman can't bear to raise a child that was conceived by a sick monster, there are plenty of adoption agencies set up.

But she is also required to bear the child for nine months, through considerable discomfort and expense? Not to mention the myriad of problems that can or may occur even after a successful birth. You are reducing women to the status of chattel, for the crime of being a victim of a violent assault.

I know I know, most are Christian run and liberals are hell bent on destroying anything Christian, but they work.

Well, I for my part am hell bent on destroying anything religious, but most people just want to be left alone. Most liberals are Christian, you realize? I don't want my children taught garbage. I don't want my country run on a prejudiced set of principles. I don't want one sect's paraphernalia displayed in public places at the expense of another's. And most of all, I don't want my tax dollars going to support someone else's fantasy.

In today's society, people don't want to hold themselves accountable.

Most especially the religious, who are always placing both the blame and the credit for anything that happens with God.

Both the man and woman are equally responsible, and abortion needs to stop being used as a remedy to a mistake resulting from a night of fun times.

So now no one can have fun? Perhaps sharia law, while we're at it, because we can't have the ladies flaunting their women parts and tempting us men into sin....

Girls, you participated as much as he did, so pull on your big girl pants and be a mom.

Except in rape... for which no exception of course.

It's sickening to see people go out and get abortions because they don't want the responsibility. Murder.

Or for the medical complications, or for the expense of having a child, or for the way in which it is a drain on the time and dreams of the person impregnated and potentially their mate.

It's funny how liberals love to label us all this stuff, yet aren't you all supposed to be the "tolerant" ones?

I don't even think this makes sense?

Hilarious. I could write a multipage essay on how liberalism is destroying this nation. "Omg, these bathrooms are labeled men for men and women for women, but there's nothing for transgenders so I'm offended!! There shouldn't be such words as men and women because that could leave others out!!!" Get the fuck over it. Damn.

It would be as morally contemptible and intellectually puerile as all the pages you've written on it on this site.

Basically, every single one of your opinions which can be verified is wrong. The ones on social matters, which are far more a matter of opinion, tend to be notoriously unproven (see: life-at-conception) or highly regressive.

Doesn't it ever bother conservatives that on every issue of social justice this country has faced since its founding, they've been on the wrong side? Whether it be civil rights, or the issue of slavery before that, or prohibition, or giving women the vote.... always wrong. I always imagined it would make people think twice... but I guess not.

Ozymandias
06-30-2015, 02:48 PM
Ah, the classic GOP mantra of "You're the true racist for pointing out my racism". And "how dare you not be tolerant of my intolerance!"

You sound like such an idiot when you spout off this rightwing dogma crap you read on the internet.

I actually agree with him on this. Everyone has a right to be a bigot, sadly. What they do not have a right to do is impose their bigotry on everyone else. Which its fine to fly the Confederate Battle Flag (to take a topical example) in your own home, but not on a municipal public building.

Davian93
06-30-2015, 03:09 PM
I actually agree with him on this. Everyone has a right to be a bigot, sadly. What they do not have a right to do is impose their bigotry on everyone else. Which its fine to fly the Confederate Battle Flag (to take a topical example) in your own home, but not on a municipal public building.

I agree with that too...but the problem is his sort always want to impose their intolerance on others and then blame those people for not being tolerant of their intolerance.

Granting marriage licenses to same sex couples as a county clerk is a great example. TX is telling its clerks they can refuse to give a license to a same sex couple if it "offends" their beliefs. Um no, that's BS. If you are offended by a requirement of your job, quit. You dont get to impose your intolerance on someone who doesnt agree with your POV when you work in a gov't job. Sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Same reason as you note that its okay to fly the confederate flag at your house and not your statehouse. But they always intermix the two.

Sorry you dont get to discriminate due to your beliefs. Maybe you shouldn't run a hotel or a florist shop if you have that sort of issue with people. You can go be a bigot all you want until you do it to others.

The Unreasoner
06-30-2015, 05:36 PM
You know he's not going to actually engage, right? It's easy enough to say you support education after all.

I did laugh at the willful misreading of 'pro-birth' as 'pro-life' though, especially with Dav's explicit original clarification.

Davian93
06-30-2015, 07:13 PM
You know he's not going to actually engage, right? It's easy enough to say you support education after all.

I did laugh at the willful misreading of 'pro-birth' as 'pro-life' though, especially with Dav's explicit original clarification.

I wasn't surprised at all. He gets up such a head of steam that he ignores details.

Kimon
07-02-2015, 11:24 AM
It was just a matter of time, and I presume that it is also just a matter of time until this too makes its way to the Supreme Court. Collateral damage of justice, or an extension of justice?

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/01/polygamous_montana_trio_applies_for_wedding_licens e/

Terez
07-02-2015, 11:35 AM
Even when it comes to matters of civil rights, the courts won't move until there is some level of popular support. They might not wait for a majority (particularly they won't wait for a regional/state majority) but they have actually written about this need for the country to be "ready" in their opinions on the recent gay marriage cases, particularly DOMA and Prop 8.

GonzoTheGreat
07-02-2015, 11:49 AM
It was just a matter of time, and I presume that it is also just a matter of time until this too makes its way to the Supreme Court. Collateral damage of justice, or an extension of justice?

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/01/polygamous_montana_trio_applies_for_wedding_licens e/
Actually, I would say that it is overreach. With polygamy, you add levels of complexity that simply can not exist with what just having two partners can produce.

With two people you can simply say "if they both want to marry they can" and "if one wants to divorce, that's possible". Some further complications will crop up, but they can (and are) handled in standard legislation.

But consider the situation in the article to which you've linked: that of one man (M) and two women (W1 and W2).
Suppose that M and W2 fall out and want to divorce, but both want to remain married to W1 and she wants to keep both too. Should that be allowed, or not?
Suppose instead that W2 meets and marries another woman W3, and they adopt some children. Then all the adults die without leaving a legal will; what happens to the inheritance, and who gets custody of the children?

Davian93
07-02-2015, 12:02 PM
Even when it comes to matters of civil rights, the courts won't move until there is some level of popular support. They might not wait for a majority (particularly they won't wait for a regional/state majority) but they have actually written about this need for the country to be "ready" in their opinions on the recent gay marriage cases, particularly DOMA and Prop 8.

There's also no real basis for a polygamist being a protected class like there is for LBGT people. Thus, equal protection doesn't really apply.

Also, as T says, there's near zero popular support.

GonzoTheGreat
07-02-2015, 12:54 PM
Also, as T says, there's near zero popular support.
But that's only because no one has worked out how much the tax incentives would be, yet. Offer the voters "10% less taxes with every fifth* wife" and they'll start making noise.

* Any lower number, and people will suspect you of being a Muslim. No politician wants that accusation, obviously.

Kimon
07-02-2015, 01:26 PM
There's also no real basis for a polygamist being a protected class like there is for LBGT people. Thus, equal protection doesn't really apply.

Also, as T says, there's near zero popular support.

I'm not sure that lack of popular support is really grounds for denial, certainly not for the courts. The Scientologists are universally held in contempt, yet they are protected by the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment. Might not freedom of religion be invoked here as well? This case, predictably, involves excommunicated Mormons. Is derision really grounds enough for refusal, or is this not also, even if unseemly, an issue of equal protection under the law? I'm just not sure if there are still legal grounds for the ban.