EPTBy the way, if anyone is interested in reading up on how conservatives use outdated concepts of language and interpretation in order to cover their judicial partisanry, I highly recommend "The Myth of Judicial Activism," by Kermit Roosevelt III. It'll make what xDaunt is saying seem even more funny!
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1634
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
By the way, if anyone is interested in reading up on how conservatives use outdated concepts of language and interpretation in order to cover their judicial partisanry, I highly recommend "The Myth of Judicial Activism," by Kermit Roosevelt III. It'll make what xDaunt is saying seem even more funny! | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 10 2015 22:47 Silvanel wrote: Well, i am liberal at heart but xDaunt and co* are right here. The Supreme court could use the same rationale to bring back the slavery if the justices would like it. While there is argument to be had that law should serve popular sentiment and refelect views of the general population another function of the law is to guarantee that rights of the minority are uphold. You guys are only happy because SC is twisting the scale Your way. Imagine they abuse their position doing something You wouldnt like. We've already seen this with Citizens United. That said, this particular argument is BS. The Constitution protects everyone from discrimination, and not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination, plain and simple. Therefore, it protects gay marriage. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On February 10 2015 22:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: No, they'll keep complaining about the process. Not because they are against the idea that "the ends justify the means", but because the Justices pushed a liberal cause forward. Don't ever see XDaunt, Danglers, Coverpunch, Millitron, Introvert, or anyone else calling out the legislative or judicial branch on their conservative bullshit (Corporations are people too, har har har). They're just pseudo-intellectual partisan hacks. I can't speak for these other guys but I make very little commentary on judicial matters or legislative grist, especially on social issues. I'm completely neutral on gay marriage and don't have a strong feeling about the legal basis either way. I only pushed back at the insistence that marriage is federal, which doesn't jive with the fact that states issue marriage licenses, not the federal government. That's a question of fact, not pseudo intellectual partisanship. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
A lot of US Dollars will be going offshore. Cuban families in the US will pay internet and netflix in Cuba for their families and most of them in Cuba already have some sort of internet. Also personal opinion on gay marriage, just let it happen. How can you control someones life because it's against YOUR OWN religion and on top of it, you're bringing religion into the government. As someone who has a family member that is gay, it's sad to see the amount of other family members just turn him away and that's coming from a Cuban background (Hispanics are rough). | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On February 11 2015 01:13 ShoCkeyy wrote: Netflix available in Cuba A lot of US Dollars will be going offshore. Cuban families in the US will pay internet and netflix in Cuba for their families and most of them in Cuba already have some sort of internet. Also personal opinion on gay marriage, just let it happen. How can you control someones life because it's against YOUR OWN religion and on top of it, you're bringing religion into the government. As someone who has a family member that is gay, it's sad to see the amount of other family members just turn him away and that's coming from a Cuban background (Hispanics are rough). It's because they don't want to have to think about anyone who doesn't share their worldview. Gay couples being able to marry doesn't affect anyone other than themselves in any way, but conservatives and religious fundamentalists don't want to have to think about them, so I guess they're hoping if they don't allow them to get married they will all become straight. Or something. I still think Seinfeld had it figured out back in the early 90's: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 10 2015 22:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: No, they'll keep complaining about the process. Not because they are against the idea that "the ends justify the means", but because the Justices pushed a liberal cause forward. Don't ever see XDaunt, Danglers, Coverpunch, Millitron, Introvert, or anyone else calling out the legislative or judicial branch on their conservative bullshit (Corporations are people too, har har har). They're just pseudo-intellectual partisan hacks. Pretty sure I have called them out on that. Its absolute nonsense. Corporations are not people. If perhaps I didn't speak out against it on some occasion that it came up in the thread, that's not because I'm ok with it. Its because I'm not in the thread that often. But keep making it about your opponents, not the issue. Very professional. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On February 11 2015 01:33 Millitron wrote: Pretty sure I have called them out on that. Its absolute nonsense. Corporations are not people. If perhaps I didn't speak out against it on some occasion that it came up in the thread, that's not because I'm ok with it. Its because I'm not in the thread that often. But keep making it about your opponents, not the issue. Very professional. K lets get to the issue, what's wrong with fixing marriage to be inclusive? Your only point is that we shouldn't have the government involved in marriage, which is a fun idea and all but not an argument against fixing the current reality. So, Mr. Issue do tell us why gay marriage is bad. Lets not go down the whole "they did it wrong, it should have been the state legislature blah blah bullshit" because the state legislature has a history of not giving a shit about the constitution or equality (for people who aren't straight white christians). The slippery slope argument of "what's the supreme court going to do next" is twice as steep and lands straight in a pit of spikes when you look at the so-called states' rights side. You say that this is overreach. I say it's better than having miscegenation laws. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 10 2015 22:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: No, they'll keep complaining about the process. Not because they are against the idea that "the ends justify the means", but because the Justices pushed a liberal cause forward. Don't ever see XDaunt, Danglers, Coverpunch, Millitron, Introvert, or anyone else calling out the legislative or judicial branch on their conservative bullshit (Corporations are people too, har har har). They're just pseudo-intellectual partisan hacks. What do you mean? There is no wholesale position that corporations are people too. In the case of Citizens United, the SC said not that speech couldn't be limited because corporations are people too, but rather that speech couldn't be limited simply because it was being carried out by an association of people. Yes that association could be a corporation, but it could also be a labor union, charity, professional association, environmental group or whatever. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 11 2015 02:27 Jormundr wrote: K lets get to the issue, what's wrong with fixing marriage to be inclusive? Your only point is that we shouldn't have the government involved in marriage, which is a fun idea and all but not an argument against fixing the current reality. So, Mr. Issue do tell us why gay marriage is bad. Lets not go down the whole "they did it wrong, it should have been the state legislature blah blah bullshit" because the state legislature has a history of not giving a shit about the constitution or equality (for people who aren't straight white christians). The slippery slope argument of "what's the supreme court going to do next" is twice as steep and lands straight in a pit of spikes when you look at the so-called states' rights side. You say that this is overreach. I say it's better than having miscegenation laws. Gay marriage isn't bad. Marriage being a governmental institution at all is. I want to get the government out of marriage completely, not have it limit marriage to heterosexuals. Why does the state issue marriage licenses at all? Why do two people need a piece of paper from the government saying they're married to be monogamous? On February 11 2015 03:01 Nyxisto wrote: I do think the criticism of this "corporations are people" thing is really weird. They need to be legal entities because how else would you even interact with them? Sue every shareholder? I can't imagine how that is supposed to work. Treating corporations like people ends up making them pseudo-governmental institutions. Considering how much pull they have they're practically a 4th branch of government. You wouldn't need to sue every shareholder, you'd sue the execs that made the decisions that violated whatever law. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2015 03:01 Nyxisto wrote: I do think the criticism of this "corporations are people" thing is really weird. They need to be legal entities because how else would you even interact with them? Sue every shareholder? I can't imagine how that is supposed to work. That's the point. Anyone who tersely throws out "CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE" has absolutely no idea what the actual issues are. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On February 11 2015 03:02 Millitron wrote: Gay marriage isn't bad. Marriage being a governmental institution at all is. I want to get the government out of marriage completely, not have it limit marriage to heterosexuals. Why does the state issue marriage licenses at all? Why do two people need a piece of paper from the government saying they're married to be monogamous? Treating corporations like people ends up making them pseudo-governmental institutions. Considering how much pull they have they're practically a 4th branch of government. You wouldn't need to sue every shareholder, you'd sue the execs that made the decisions that violated whatever law. It doesn't have to be a government institution at all. That's not an argument against fixing the status quo, especially when you consider that your dream is far less achievable than fixing what we already have. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 11 2015 03:18 Jormundr wrote: It doesn't have to be a government institution at all. That's not an argument against fixing the status quo, especially when you consider that your dream is far less achievable than fixing what we already have. Its actually an argument in favor of fixing the status quo. Gay people have just as many rights as straight then, and the state gets pushed out of one more private place it never belonged in to begin with. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 11 2015 03:58 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think the idea that marriage as a public institution will go away is even remotely realistic. It also makes quite some sense because people living together and sharing costs and stuff is actually pretty important. Uh huh, and what about getting rid of the public institution of marriage prevents that? You can share costs with people without a piece of paper saying you're married. There are plenty of people who are practically married, they've lived with the same person for years, decades even, but aren't officially married. How does the state saying "yup, you're married" have any affect? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On February 11 2015 03:02 Millitron wrote: Treating corporations like people ends up making them pseudo-governmental institutions. Considering how much pull they have they're practically a 4th branch of government. You wouldn't need to sue every shareholder, you'd sue the execs that made the decisions that violated whatever law. Are you fucking serious? This would put our legal state behind Roman Law. Corporations, Partnerships, and the like are crucial for all kinds of things. For one thing, how would you propose to fix contract law? For another, you make liability extremely difficult to prove. Say the cable stops working in my house that I've already paid for. Who do I sue? I'm gonna have a damn hard time finding out who exactly is responsible, and it might be literally impossible. But the Corporation has certainly fucked me. De-recognizing Corporations legally would have a ton of other knock-on effects I can't even begin to get into. You couldn't subject them to laws or regulations, you couldn't tax them, you couldn't charge politicians for conflict of interest for Sheldon Silver shadiness, you literally would have no idea what they were doing at any time. They would, in general, face the same kind of scrutiny the mafia does. On February 10 2015 22:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: No, they'll keep complaining about the process. Not because they are against the idea that "the ends justify the means", but because the Justices pushed a liberal cause forward. Don't ever see XDaunt, Danglers, Coverpunch, Millitron, Introvert, or anyone else calling out the legislative or judicial branch on their conservative bullshit (Corporations are people too, har har har). They're just pseudo-intellectual partisan hacks. This is an ad hominem and against site rules. It's also untrue for at least 2 1/2 of the people you mentioned. This site has serious thinkers on both sides of the party divide. It also has some pseudo-intellecutal partisan hacks (and, hell, pseudo-intellectual haiku-chanters). But debate means engaging with the ideas and leaving the people alone. | ||
| ||
