|
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. |
United States24682 Posts
On March 24 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 12:01 farvacola wrote:On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The fetus is undeniably human. It is undeniably a separate organism from the mother and father. This is where your mere insistence on a particular definition as opposed to a sourced argument is simply a disingenuous way of putting forth a position. The debate revolves entirely around these issues. Stop pretending otherwise. Speaking from a biological point of view, there is no debate. The fetus/embryo is absolutely a separate organism. This isn't even controversial, it's just common knowledge. It possesses it's own, unique, genetic code.
I don't think this discussion you guys are having is that relevant to the thread. For example, whether a zygote is technically a separate organism from the mother doesn't really affect anyone's opinion on the proposed new law in North Dakota.
Although, if this goes through I would be interested to see the results of the next couple of censuses, with a focus on how many young females are leaving the state.
|
On March 24 2013 12:46 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 23 2013 12:17 farvacola wrote:On March 23 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 23 2013 11:54 farvacola wrote:
If you think slavery and abortion are equitable in any way, you are so out of touch I can hardly believe it. It is always fun to see conservatives try and retake the word "progress" though. In any case, I hope pro-lifers adopt your rhetoric soon; the national debate will be over before it begins. Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. Both established that by some biological difference the one human being was worth less than the other, and both give the complete physical control of the body of one human being over to another. Both are as old as society itself, and both are predicated on the rights of the one who currently holds the power, rather than the rights of the one who is oppressed. Both attempt to justify their existence, to some degree, from the standpoint that the subject under control is benefiting from the imposition of said control. Both argue from tradition, and both are justified with fear. Fear that losing control of the controlled means losing the fundamental rights of self-determination, and fear that the forces fighting for the "emancipation" of the controlled have ulterior motives. They are remarkably similar positions. Of course there are some differences. One was mostly racial, the other based on development. But at the core, the positions are largely the same. Your rhetoric drips with so much self-aggrandizing unequivocality I feel I need to grab a roll of paper towels. That you can so demonize one side of the debate without even the slightest hint of moderation is endemic to the Republican Party as a whole, and it is why they lost the 2012 election. Let's look at the very first line. Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. To simply throw out phrases like "biological fact" and "pseudo-science" is to put forth the notion that your referenced concepts are standard fare and common parlance; nothing could be further from the truth. The precise status of a fetus and it's place relative to the mother is a point of incredibly hot contention; if you'd like to level a claim of pseudo-science and dominion over biological fact, you are going to need to way more than simply say "these are mine". If you view the comparison as "demonizing" than you've misunderstood the whole point. The men and women who owned slaves, or supported the owning of slaves were not demons. In many ways, they were probably perfectly kind, rational people. They just happened to support a heinous position, and in one respect acted heinously. It is not demonizing someone to point out the flaw of their belief, nor to use harsh language in contrasting between one position and it's opposite. And more to the point, it is inevitable that such language gets used: both sides do it. The question isn't whether the language is harsh and needs moderation, the question is whether the comparisons are apt or hyperbolic. The fetus is undeniably human. It is undeniably a separate organism from the mother and father. It is undeniable that it's separateness, if you will, comes from the moment of conception. And further, it is undeniable that it is alive in the sense that other creatures and human beings are alive. The biological fact of the fetus being a living organism is not under contention. When I hear things like: "Masturbation is murder of thousands then (sperm=fetus)" or "My skin-cell has full human DNA too" or even better: "It's not even alive yet" than I begin to question whether or not the debate isn't actually driven by ignorance of commonly accepted scientific facts. Not that everyone who argues for abortion is going to throw out such obviously ignorant statements, just as not every person who argues against will not toss out their own stupidities from time to time. But I wonder if perhaps if everyone were made fully aware of the scientific fact of fetal development they might hesitate more to unequivocally support such an old (and arguably barbaric) practice. If we do indeed accept that an egg fertilized by a sperm is a human being, you should be intensely worried about the fact that spontaneous abortions happen way more frequently than human induced abortions. Think of all the lives that are lost due to the fact that 25-40% of all eggs that are fertilized fail to come out because the human body just aborts them with no interference required. Induced abortion is small potatoes compared to that.
At the risk of making a comparison that may annoy or outrage others, I will give the counter-argument. Millions more people die from natural causes every year than do from murder. However, we concern ourselves with murder nonetheless. The fact that people die from natural causes is of course a concern, be they adult, child, or fetus. However, concern for the one does not preclude concern for the other; and further (while one may hesitate to go so far as to call abortion 'murder'), it is not unusual to be more concerned for the intentional ending of life rather than the unintentional, albeit tragic, inevitability of nature.
I would absolutely support, with my own money and time, any research into protecting the life of the fetus from the assaults of nature. But that doesn't mean I can't also be concerned about those assaults which come from outside nature.
|
On March 24 2013 11:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 12:42 Soralin wrote:On March 23 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 23 2013 11:54 farvacola wrote:
If you think slavery and abortion are equitable in any way, you are so out of touch I can hardly believe it. It is always fun to see conservatives try and retake the word "progress" though. In any case, I hope pro-lifers adopt your rhetoric soon; the national debate will be over before it begins. Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. Both established that by some biological difference the one human being was worth less than the other, and both give the complete physical control of the body of one human being over to another. Both are as old as society itself, and both are predicated on the rights of the one who currently holds the power, rather than the rights of the one who is oppressed. Both attempt to justify their existence, to some degree, from the standpoint that the subject under control is benefiting from the imposition of said control. Both argue from tradition, and both are justified with fear. Fear that losing control of the controlled means losing the fundamental rights of self-determination, and fear that the forces fighting for the "emancipation" of the controlled have ulterior motives. They are remarkably similar positions. Of course there are some differences. One was mostly racial, the other based on development. But at the core, the positions are largely the same. Except it's the ones opposed to abortion that depend on scientific ignorance: http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 10^9 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40 Before the beginning of that process, we can know with certainty that there does not exist a person there, that there is no mind, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no senses, no awareness, no mind at all. It's not even the line between person and not person, because even things which are not people, like fruit flies, can have neural activity, but it is a line between certainty that it's not a person and the very edge of a grey area, because nothing that does not have any neural activity (and therefore no mind at all), can be a person. And it's an objective, measurable line, where we know with certainty before this point that no mind, and thus no person, exists. Which makes your argument even more apt for those opposed to abortion, because they're the ones who seek power, who seek to exert control over the one and only person involved in the process. Why do you argue philosophy when speaking scientifically? Person-hood is a philosophical concept, humanity a scientific one. Another problem with the pro-choice side of the debate is in conflating the pseudo-religious with the scientific. Keep to one or the other and let the arguments stand on their own merits.
I'm not arguing philosophy, why are you under the impression that what is a person and what isn't, can't be determined scientifically? You're either arguing a scientific concept, or you're arguing a semantic one, over the definition of the word "person". And I think what you're trying to do is the latter, taking a common word "person", that people have an emotional investment in, and attempting to equivocate with your own definition. Attempting to alter and change it to include something else, and expecting people to care about the new definition, just because they cared about the old one.
If you're going to try to argue that, that puts you a step even further back, because it means you're going to have to justify a reason why I (or the law) should care about objects which do not have minds, or place them on the same importance as things which do have minds.
On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Speaking from a biological point of view, there is no debate. The fetus/embryo a cancer cell is absolutely a separate organism. This isn't even controversial, it's just common knowledge. It possesses it's own, unique, genetic code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
Again, why should we care about that, rather than if it has a mind? Rather than if it has thoughts, feelings, senses, awareness, etc.? (Which, as I provided previously, it does not)
The reason why people provide examples like skin cells, is that a skin cell is human, is alive, and given that tiny bits of genetic damage or differences in copying are relatively common in cells, it very well might have it's own slightly different, unique genetic code as well. Not only that, but put into the right environment with the right changes, and it has all the information necessary to create a full new human being.
Which means, that if it's the above qualities that you say you care about, and yet don't care about the destruction of skin cells, you're being hypocritical, those things probably aren't the real reason you care about the issue, they're just the arguments you put forward to justify the belief you already hold. The key difference of something being a person isn't something being human, or alive, or genetically different, it's a mind. For example, I'd say that a human-level AI, if such a thing were ever created, would qualify as a person, and an AI isn't human, isn't alive, and doesn't have any genetics, but it would have the key defining factor, a mind.
|
Why do people think science and philosophy are wholly exclusive or different things? You'd only be ignorant of your own cognition to assume that in using science to determine identity there's nothing philosophical involved.
|
Actually there are things you learn about philosophy by doing research and a lot of it is about objectivity! There is a reason why modern philosophy of research has extremely strict separation of the sourced material (introduction and theory), the specific research (method and data) and the personal perspective (Title, abstract, discussion, conclusion and specific goals of the report). If you are good enough at keeping those separate your work will always be useful to someone (the sourced/logical material is always worth it for inspiration if done right, the specific research is varying in degree of usefulness from detailed inspiration for experiments to a warning about how not to do it!, while the subjective part can inspire or be completely worthless). With those philosophical distinctions and the x degrees of learning as discussed with the Texas law, there is a very valuable place for philosophy in science. That it works the other way around is also worth to note. From the old greek philosophers untill today you will see different degrees of mixing.
In the case of the abortion debate, we see a strongly religious informed philosophy for "pro life" and a strongly womens right informed philosophy for "pro choice".
The fundamentally debatable parts where those political stances clash are on what takes precedence: The embryo/fetus/baby or the mother. Today the 3 month rule is setting a standard for when the pregnancy leaves the baby in a state where its existance is sufficient to take an almost equal position to the mother. That the 3 months can be moved a bit to both sides without significant problems like viability and start of fetus period affecting it is just affirming their stances as being important.
The embryo is a bunch of cells that lack several vital organs before the fetal period (2 months) and it is basically "just stem-cells".
On the other hand, if the fetus is viable (about 5 months) outside of the mothers body it is essentially already a child and should have the rights it deserves.
Any argument for extensive change of rights outside those times would be hard to defend from a purely fetal development perspective and these positions are therefore problematic scientifically.
There are several other arguments you can make for stretching limited rights outside of this period though, like knowledge about the childs sex before the 8 weeks and complications after the 5 months of the pregnancy.
If you look at the North Dakota bill it is basically making the embryo a person with the same rights as the mother and to make it even more provocating it is placed as an amendment to their constitution. That would seem very far from a fetal developmentally based decision. Any rambling about both sides being scientifically questionable is moot when one side acts on the questionable science!
To be fair the article Stealthblue provided states that even some of North Dakotas republicans are against it, which should make a clear statement on its likelyhood of getting a majority in a vote (it will fall eventually almost no matter what, but the vote will happen before that!). To me this law is a sign of some social conservatives wanting to make a more public strawpoll to keep their supporters happy. If it is close to passing they can even use it as ammunition against the federal laws and Roe vs Wade.
|
On March 24 2013 14:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 24 2013 12:01 farvacola wrote:On March 24 2013 11:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The fetus is undeniably human. It is undeniably a separate organism from the mother and father. This is where your mere insistence on a particular definition as opposed to a sourced argument is simply a disingenuous way of putting forth a position. The debate revolves entirely around these issues. Stop pretending otherwise. Speaking from a biological point of view, there is no debate. The fetus/embryo is absolutely a separate organism. This isn't even controversial, it's just common knowledge. It possesses it's own, unique, genetic code. I don't think this discussion you guys are having is that relevant to the thread. For example, whether a zygote is technically a separate organism from the mother doesn't really affect anyone's opinion on the proposed new law in North Dakota. Although, if this goes through I would be interested to see the results of the next couple of censuses, with a focus on how many young females are leaving the state.
True, besides I think it's hit a wall anyway. My opinions are what they are, and an argument on the internet isn't going to change them any time soon.
I doubt anyone would really leave the state even if it went through. Jobs are a big attractor, we'll probably be seeing a move toward North Dakota for a long time before we see any real movement out of it. Stuff is just really cheap here and the economy is doing so well, I don't know if any social issue will push almost anyone out. Besides, I just don't see this thing passing by popular vote; I'd love to see it happen, but like I said earlier, I don't think the American people are ready (be that because they are too progressive for it or not progressive enough) to go for any big changes to abortion yet. Abortion is already a pretty ingrained tradition to America and getting rid of those is like pulling teeth.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rand paul +respect for calling out the drug war's destructive consequences on well policed poor communities,
obama, bush lucky they were not arrested for pot as kids
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that President Obama and former President George W. Bush “got lucky” by not being arrested for smoking marijuana as young adults.
Arguing against mandatory minimum sentencing for pot use, Paul said that a marijuana-related arrest for either Obama or Bush could have ruined their lives.
“Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use,” said Paul on “Fox News Sunday.”
“Look what would have happened. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don’t get lucky. They don’t have good attorneys. They go to jail for these things. And I think it’s a big mistake.”
Paul said he was not in favor of using marijuana, because it makes people less productive. But he said he doesn’t support punishing people who use the drug with jail time.
“I don’t want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do,” said Paul. “I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want to promote that.
“But I also don’t want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, in their 20’s, they grow up, they get married, and they quit doing things like this. I don’t want to put them in jail for the rest of their lives.”
|
Makes sense, I always wished someone would ask Obama what his life would be like if he had been caught smoking pot and does he think he would be where he is now. Then follow up and ask why he condones his and Eric Holder's position on Drugs and other positions.
|
On March 25 2013 10:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Makes sense, I always wished someone would ask Obama what his life would be like if he had been caught smoking pot and does he think he would be where he is now. Then follow up and ask why he condones his and Eric Holder's position on Drugs and other positions.
I doubt he'd directly address the fact that he has smoked before. The public is still on his side on this one, with a great number opposing legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana, and even more voting against it. It's not like gay marriage, where there's a very clear abridgment of somebody's rights.
Also, there's the implicit argument that everybody has done illegal things before that could have jeopardized their future, but never got caught. Includes things like stealing, speeding, forms of negligence, and so on, which would individually or cumulatively have harsh consequences.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that is rather oblivious to the harsh effect of mandatory sentencing and the whole drug war's ground level impact
|
Goldman Sachs Hopes To Profit By Helping Troubled Teens
...
Social Impact Bonds
Alicia Glen, the director of the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group, says the company is investing the money over four years. It's what's called a "social impact bond." Glen says it's a a new way of thinking about financing social goods.
"Essentially what it is, is saying we can use private capital to finance a government-sponsored program," she says. "So you have the private sector paying for the service, and then the government saying if the service works, we will pay you X dollars based on the level of impact that's achieved."
New York's program is the first one in the U.S. Schriro says the city hopes that by teaching kids basic coping mechanisms, the city can reduce by 10 percent the number of kids getting rearrested.
Glen says if recidivism rates can be reduced, Goldman Sachs stands to see a return on investment. But there's still a financial risk, she says.
"If this program doesn't work at all, the city will not be repaying back our loan," she says. "So we hope and expect the program will work, and if we in fact ... are right, that they can achieve a real reduction in recidivism, Goldman Sachs stands to make $2.4 million on their investment." ...
Full story here.
I've heard about this before. It's an interesting concept though it has an uphill battle on the public perception front.
|
That is a rather oblivious tone to the reality that drug laws can be an effective proxy in removing problem characters from communities. But no, let's just restrict the discussion to "Law enforcement bad, pot/drugs good!"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 25 2013 12:48 aksfjh wrote:
That is a rather oblivious tone to the reality that drug laws can be an effective proxy in removing problem characters from communities. But no, let's just restrict the discussion to "Law enforcement bad, pot/drugs good!"
maybe that applies to bush, not sure about obama though. :D
putting people in prison on mandatory sentencing is not a well considered public policy move. it's instinctive, punitive and serves to obscure the need for positive action (providing resources and opportunities) if you want to really help the communities in question.
if the drug laws were less harsh then the issue would not be as large. so it's not a simple law enforcement problem, but a discussion on whether the law is good. the issue is not legalizing all drawgs, that would not be good. it's that a drug arrest will fuck up someone's life and raising this issue in a high profile way can highlight its real and devastating impact.
btw, if you really want to control drugs look into restricting cocaine entry into the U.S. Might want to give the CIA a call before you do that though
|
Energy Boom Ripples Through US Economy
The boom in new oil and natural gas flowing through U.S. pipelines is beginning to ripple through the wider American economy. ...
In December, economists with UBS bank tallied some $65 billion in announced construction of new plants related to cheaper natural gas, and said another 11 plants had been announced worth billions more. ...
As groundbreaking on these projects gets under way, the dividends from the energy boom will flow even further – to construction companies, engineering firms, materials and equipment suppliers and lenders who help finance the projects.
That, in turn, will help shore up state and federal budgets. The added revenue – from income taxes on new jobs created, corporate taxes on added oil and gas profits and state and federal royalty payments – could top $2.5 trillion through 2035, according to IHS Global Insight.
Though prices at the gas pump have remained stubbornly high -- primarily because stepped-up U.S. production makes up relatively small percentage of the global supply, which drives oil prices -- American households are also getting a big break on the lower cost of natural gas and electricity. Larson, the IHS economist, estimated that the energy "dividend" amounts to about $1,000 a year per household and will double by 2035.
Source
That's some valuable stuff.
|
On March 25 2013 12:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 12:48 aksfjh wrote:
That is a rather oblivious tone to the reality that drug laws can be an effective proxy in removing problem characters from communities. But no, let's just restrict the discussion to "Law enforcement bad, pot/drugs good!" maybe that applies to bush, not sure about obama though. :D putting people in prison on mandatory sentencing is not a well considered public policy move. it's instinctive, punitive and serves to obscure the need for positive action (providing resources and opportunities) if you want to really help the communities in question. if the drug laws were less harsh then the issue would not be as large. so it's not a simple law enforcement problem, but a discussion on whether the law is good. the issue is not legalizing all drawgs, that would not be good. it's that a drug arrest will fuck up someone's life and raising this issue in a high profile way can highlight its real and devastating impact. btw, if you really want to control drugs look into restricting cocaine entry into the U.S. Might want to give the CIA a call before you do that though
They already spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to restrict that, without overwhelming success.
I do agree legalizing pot makes sense. It's pointless to punish people for relatively harmless possession of small amounts, and then force the taxpayer to cover their prison expenses.
So legalize the tame stuff, and bring back the death penalty for the serious stuff.
|
On March 25 2013 10:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Makes sense, I always wished someone would ask Obama what his life would be like if he had been caught smoking pot and does he think he would be where he is now. Then follow up and ask why he condones his and Eric Holder's position on Drugs and other positions.
Seriously. Obama's justice department's position on marijuana is shameful. The number of non-violent "criminals" (who are mostly black men) who are locked up in jail due to offences involving a relatively harmless substance is utterly disgraceful.
It's nice to see that liberals and conservatives on TL can find at least one thing to agree on.
|
On March 25 2013 12:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Goldman Sachs Hopes To Profit By Helping Troubled Teens
...
Social Impact Bonds
Alicia Glen, the director of the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group, says the company is investing the money over four years. It's what's called a "social impact bond." Glen says it's a a new way of thinking about financing social goods.
"Essentially what it is, is saying we can use private capital to finance a government-sponsored program," she says. "So you have the private sector paying for the service, and then the government saying if the service works, we will pay you X dollars based on the level of impact that's achieved."
New York's program is the first one in the U.S. Schriro says the city hopes that by teaching kids basic coping mechanisms, the city can reduce by 10 percent the number of kids getting rearrested.
Glen says if recidivism rates can be reduced, Goldman Sachs stands to see a return on investment. But there's still a financial risk, she says.
"If this program doesn't work at all, the city will not be repaying back our loan," she says. "So we hope and expect the program will work, and if we in fact ... are right, that they can achieve a real reduction in recidivism, Goldman Sachs stands to make $2.4 million on their investment." ... Full story here.I've heard about this before. It's an interesting concept though it has an uphill battle on the public perception front.
Seems like a great idea. If the big shots at GS are as smart as they think they are, maybe they can figure out a way to tackle problems that governments don't seem very good at dealing with. The public may need to be educated a bit about the ramifications, but it's hard to argue with a program that only costs money if it works!
|
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled inconclusively with California's ban on gay marriage, as Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed dissatisfaction with several of the court's options and Chief Justice John Roberts said he was worried that gay-marriage proponents were trying to move too quickly.
When the 80 minutes of argument concluded, it was hard to predict how the justices would rule on the issue. Chief Justice Roberts asked several questions about whether the backers of California's Proposition 8 had the right to be in court at all, because the state declined to defend the gay-marriage ban.
The court's four liberal justices asked questions suggesting sympathy for the gay-marriage cause, but across the ideological spectrum, justices showed reluctance to issue a ruling establishing an immediate constitutional right to gay marriage across the 50 states.
In the first part of the arguments, Justice Kennedy, a potential swing vote, raised a point made by gay-marriage supporters, saying nearly 40,000 children in California are living with same-sex parents who are barred from marriage.
"They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Justice Kennedy said to lawyer Charles Cooper, who was defending Proposition 8. "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"
Skeptical Justices Question Lawyer Defending Prop 8
|
On March 27 2013 04:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled inconclusively with California's ban on gay marriage, as Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed dissatisfaction with several of the court's options and Chief Justice John Roberts said he was worried that gay-marriage proponents were trying to move too quickly.
When the 80 minutes of argument concluded, it was hard to predict how the justices would rule on the issue. Chief Justice Roberts asked several questions about whether the backers of California's Proposition 8 had the right to be in court at all, because the state declined to defend the gay-marriage ban.
The court's four liberal justices asked questions suggesting sympathy for the gay-marriage cause, but across the ideological spectrum, justices showed reluctance to issue a ruling establishing an immediate constitutional right to gay marriage across the 50 states.
In the first part of the arguments, Justice Kennedy, a potential swing vote, raised a point made by gay-marriage supporters, saying nearly 40,000 children in California are living with same-sex parents who are barred from marriage.
"They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Justice Kennedy said to lawyer Charles Cooper, who was defending Proposition 8. "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Skeptical Justices Question Lawyer Defending Prop 8
The Court is going to strike Proposition 8 down. Kennedy and possibly Roberts will side with the liberals. I wouldn't be surprised if the opinion is severely fractured given all of the possible grounds for striking the law. The Court will pay lip service to concerns about judicial resolution to the issue creating a festering political sore (a la Roe v. Wade), but it won't stop them.
|
On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:29 farvacola wrote:WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled inconclusively with California's ban on gay marriage, as Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed dissatisfaction with several of the court's options and Chief Justice John Roberts said he was worried that gay-marriage proponents were trying to move too quickly.
When the 80 minutes of argument concluded, it was hard to predict how the justices would rule on the issue. Chief Justice Roberts asked several questions about whether the backers of California's Proposition 8 had the right to be in court at all, because the state declined to defend the gay-marriage ban.
The court's four liberal justices asked questions suggesting sympathy for the gay-marriage cause, but across the ideological spectrum, justices showed reluctance to issue a ruling establishing an immediate constitutional right to gay marriage across the 50 states.
In the first part of the arguments, Justice Kennedy, a potential swing vote, raised a point made by gay-marriage supporters, saying nearly 40,000 children in California are living with same-sex parents who are barred from marriage.
"They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Justice Kennedy said to lawyer Charles Cooper, who was defending Proposition 8. "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" Skeptical Justices Question Lawyer Defending Prop 8 The Court is going to strike Proposition 8 down. Kennedy and possibly Roberts will side with the liberals. I wouldn't be surprised if the opinion is severely fractured given all of the possible grounds for striking the law. The Court will pay lip service to concerns about judicial resolution to the issue creating a festering political sore (a la Roe v. Wade), but it won't stop them.
I'm inclined to agree (except for the festering political sore part  ). I would absolutely love to have been a fly on the wall in the Supreme Court these past few months. After Roberts' controversial ACA opinion, it would seem to me that the conservative side of the chamber would be more splintered than ever, and Prop 8 is the perfect sort of case to further expound on those ideological differences. I hope Roberts and Kenny both issue lengthy opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
