US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1631

“It’s not good social science,” Nance says, unaware of the irony. “When we bring our daughters to see Frozen or whatever the movie is we often have our little boys sitting there. Is this message helpful? We want them to know that they’re essential. We want to raise heroes. We want to raise real men.”

Duh. Real men don’t watch Frozen.

She then talks about a man—a true hero, without jest—in Aurora, Colorado, who, during the shooting there, threw his body over his girlfriend to protect her from bullets. “We want to encourage masculinity and not villainize masculinity,” she says, putting the button on that totally-not-applicable anecdote.

We want to raise heroes. We want to raise real men.”

On February 09 2015 23:37 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like I may have been a little off on my 6-3 prediction for the upcoming US Supreme Court gay marriage decision. Alito may join Roberts and Kennedy in siding with the liberal justices.

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor. This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.

Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds. It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months. I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

The methods and ways in which it was accomplished will be a black stain on the movement

On February 10 2015 04:19 Falling wrote:

So, like. . .every superhero film: male and a hero.
And whose masculinity is threatened by one Disney film that gave a twist to their standard Disney princess formula?
Was it a slow news day for Fox?

On February 10 2015 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
I'm for gay marriage, but even I can't deny that the jurisprudence that the Court is creating here is basically bullshit. Like abortion before it, this is what happens when such matters are decided by Courts rather than legislators.

On February 10 2015 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
I'm for gay marriage, but even I can't deny that the jurisprudence that the Court is creating here is basically bullshit. Like abortion before it, this is what happens when such matters are decided by Courts rather than legislators.

On February 10 2015 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
I'm for gay marriage, but even I can't deny that the jurisprudence that the Court is creating here is basically bullshit. Like abortion before it, this is what happens when such matters are decided by Courts rather than legislators.

On February 10 2015 07:42 oneofthem wrote:

there is not much jurisprudence in this particular decision. alternative is developing some formalism about what do in the interim with a hanging question. but there is no burning need for it for this particular case, since the previous, windsor decision was along the same vein of achieving policy result without settling a legal question.

On February 10 2015 08:41 Danglars wrote:
Every discussion on the topic I get into just in daily life shifts to the consequentialist "the ends justify the means." Universal, state-approved gay marriage is justice, so any injustice accrued by methods is forgiven at the end. You could found the opposite movement on the same "standards" of jurisprudence, and all it would take is justices that think the other way. It's a really radical view of government to condone the subversion (insomuch as it still functions) of proper jurisprudence and separation of powers for societal goals so long as those goals are achieved. Legislators are becoming bit players for writing laws these days.

On February 10 2015 08:41 Danglars wrote:
Every discussion on the topic I get into just in daily life shifts to the consequentialist "the ends justify the means." Universal, state-approved gay marriage is justice, so any injustice accrued by methods is forgiven at the end. You could found the opposite movement on the same "standards" of jurisprudence, and all it would take is justices that think the other way. It's a really radical view of government to condone the subversion (insomuch as it still functions) of proper jurisprudence and separation of powers for societal goals so long as those goals are achieved. Legislators are becoming bit players for writing laws these days.

On February 10 2015 08:41 Danglars wrote:
Every discussion on the topic I get into just in daily life shifts to the consequentialist "the ends justify the means." Universal, state-approved gay marriage is justice, so any injustice accrued by methods is forgiven at the end. You could found the opposite movement on the same "standards" of jurisprudence, and all it would take is justices that think the other way. It's a really radical view of government to condone the subversion (insomuch as it still functions) of proper jurisprudence and separation of powers for societal goals so long as those goals are achieved. Legislators are becoming bit players for writing laws these days.