|
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. |
On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/availabilityoforalargumenttranscripts.aspx
Enjoy.
|
On March 27 2013 08:31 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/availabilityoforalargumenttranscripts.aspxEnjoy.
Heh, thanks, though I'm more interested in what happens off transcript, like when the justices assemble their opinions post oral argument. Good looking out on the link.
|
On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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.
I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy.
|
During Wednesday's oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Chief Justice John Roberts noted the remarkable speed at which political figures have reversed their positions on same-sex marriage.
"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told Roberta Kaplan, the plaintiff's attorney bringing forth the case against the 1996 law.
In just a few days, six Democratic senators have declared a change of heart on marriage equality. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-CA) on Wednesday became the latest lawmaker to proclaim that "we should not tell people who they can love, or who they can marry. It’s time to move forward with this issue.”
Source
|
On March 27 2013 09:30 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy.
I think a fair amount of the court's apparent politicization is overrepresented by the popular media, but a single exception does not disprove the notion that the court's decisions oftentimes fall along political lines. If one looks at the voting histories of each of the justices, there are some pretty clear political lines save for perhaps Roberts and Kennedy. In any case, these voting tendencies are hardly definite.
|
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 27 2013 09:30 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy.
that's a case of a legal issue that does not divide neatly along conservative-liberal issues. procedure stuff can be like this.
but the division is still there
|
On March 28 2013 04:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 09:30 ziggurat wrote:On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy. that's a case of a legal issue that does not divide neatly along conservative-liberal issues. procedure stuff can be like this. but the division is still there
It actually does reflect an ideological divide, but one more nuanced than simply liberal/conservative. For lack of better terms, some of the "liberals" lean more in favor toward greater police powers as a consistent part of their judicial philosophies, even though there is rarely ever such a correlation among laypeople. (Though in contrast, Scalia saying that the exclusionary rule might not be necessary because the police have cleaned up enough since its inception might just be one of the stupidest things I've read from the Court in a while.)
|
On March 28 2013 04:14 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:04 oneofthem wrote:On March 27 2013 09:30 ziggurat wrote:On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy. that's a case of a legal issue that does not divide neatly along conservative-liberal issues. procedure stuff can be like this. but the division is still there It actually does reflect an ideological divide, but one more nuanced than simply liberal/conservative. For lack of better terms, some of the "liberals" lean more in favor toward greater police powers as a consistent part of their judicial philosophies, even though there is rarely ever such a correlation among laypeople. (Though in contrast, Scalia saying that the exclusionary rule might not be necessary because the police have cleaned up enough since its inception might just be one of the stupidest things I've read from the Court in a while.)
Scalia speaks so Thomas doesn't have to 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 28 2013 04:14 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:04 oneofthem wrote:On March 27 2013 09:30 ziggurat wrote:On March 27 2013 05:19 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote: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. I think the talk about how the Supreme Court is divided into conservative and liberal factions is hugely overblown. Take this morning's decision about drug-sniffing dogs. In a 5-4 decision, the majority was written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The minority was written by Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Kennedy. that's a case of a legal issue that does not divide neatly along conservative-liberal issues. procedure stuff can be like this. but the division is still there It actually does reflect an ideological divide, but one more nuanced than simply liberal/conservative. For lack of better terms, some of the "liberals" lean more in favor toward greater police powers as a consistent part of their judicial philosophies, even though there is rarely ever such a correlation among laypeople. (Though in contrast, Scalia saying that the exclusionary rule might not be necessary because the police have cleaned up enough since its inception might just be one of the stupidest things I've read from the Court in a while.)
was just making a general remark.. didn't see this particular case.
but yea roughly i was making the same point as bolded part. the common definition of liberal conservative doesn't cover many of the judicial issues present to the court, though even in those cases you can see how a particular ideology guides to a certain approach.
|
On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy.
Like what?
|
On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what?
Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways....
I think Boehner is between a rock and a hard place, he could easily call for a vote on repealing DOMA but guess what the lunatics are running the asylum and he would lose the speakership and watch a Ta Partier or Eric Cantor rise to the occasion, which would be a disaster. Or he can use his trump card, and frankly his only card, and hope that gerrymandering prevents the flood and decreases it to a trickle and that the Moderates replace the Tea Party before the Democrats wash all of them away.
The House Republican leadership has billed American taxpayers $3 million to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, but GOP leaders did a deep dive on Wednesday as the high court heard the legal challenge to DOMA.
The growing approval of same-sex marriage, and declining popularity of anti-gay laws, seems to have gotten under House Speaker John Boehner’s orange skin.
Boehner was tweeting Wednesday on familiar topics — “Time to Build the Keystone Pipeline,” “Bad News for Obamacare” — but said not a tweet about a federal law that discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them federal benefits.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was carrying on about an Indiana Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for school vouchers.
By contrast, freshman Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., whose district includes conservative rural areas, was trumpeting the fact that she was one of 200 Democratic House and Senate members who signed legal briefs advocating that DOMA be overturned.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who voted for DOMA in 1996, tweeted that she hopes the Supreme Court will overturn the law. She is a cosponsor of legislation that would throw out the anti-gay law.
With public opinion rapidly changing, House Republicans have tried to disguise the big legal bill, used to hire ex-Solicitor General Paul Clement. The House leadership assumed defense of DOMA when the Obama administration decided the law was no longer defensible.
Source
|
I wouldn't call 3 million a "big legal bill" when it comes to the scale at which the us government doles out billions like it was candy and obama spending 20 million a year to go back to hawaii every winter.
|
On March 29 2013 01:21 Sermokala wrote:
I wouldn't call 3 million a "big legal bill" when it comes to the scale at which the us government doles out billions like it was candy and obama spending 20 million a year to go back to hawaii every winter.
In political terms it is as all he has to do is call a vote but he can't as it will be on record and with growing public dissent against DOMA that is a definite no.
|
On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways....
Don't they?
|
On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they?
They cannot legally marry in many, many states. I'd say no.
|
On March 29 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they? They cannot legally marry in many, many states. I'd say no.
But that's changing quickly. Over half the country supports gay marriage. That's a lot of political power in a democracy.
|
On March 29 2013 02:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they? They cannot legally marry in many, many states. I'd say no. But that's changing quickly. Over half the country supports gay marriage. That's a lot of political power in a democracy.
Once gays have the basic right to marry whom they wish, I'll agree with you. The fact remains that many people consider something so basic still at the will of the states instead of guaranteed federally, effectively limiting a great deal of that political power you speak of.
|
On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they?
In many states, your boss can legally fire you for being gay. If there were Federal ENDA legislation (or even just similar legislation in more than a slim majority of states), and being gay was considered a suspect classification, you might have a point. However, neither of those are true. So, no, they don't.
|
On March 29 2013 02:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 02:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 02:17 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they? They cannot legally marry in many, many states. I'd say no. But that's changing quickly. Over half the country supports gay marriage. That's a lot of political power in a democracy. Once gays have the basic right to marry whom they wish, I'll agree with you. The fact remains that many people consider something so basic still at the will of the states instead of guaranteed federally, effectively limiting a great deal of that political power you speak of.
I don't understand what you mean. Guaranteed federally would imply some constitutional protection (at least it my mind it does) which, in this case, really wouldn't have anything to do with political power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
