US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2066

On June 27 2015 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:

Please explain because I don't see how a church having to pay taxes limits your religious freedom.

In a week of painstakingly drafted Supreme Court decisions, no literary effort was crafted more gingerly than Jeb Bush’s statement following the high court’s 5-to-4 endorsement of same-sex marriage rights on Friday.

First, the former Florida governor paid homage to his beliefs and to evangelical political orthodoxy. “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” he wrote.

Then, he quickly pivoted to the more popular political center: “I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.”

That statement – a live-and-let-live strategy that closely mirrors his brother George’s approach to abortion a decade ago – underscored Bush’s personal opposition to same-sex marriage as a devout Catholic. But more than anything, it revealed a maneuvering, modern conservative worried about his party being caught on the wrong side of history – whatever his personal view of the issue.

Democrats, and many other Americans of varying political stripes enjoyed a feel-good national moment, but the GOP wasn’t invited to the party – Republicans were worrying about how to keep from being trampled by the accelerating gallop of 21st-century social change.

“In the state of Nevada, you can get married to a hooker who you met at the bar 30 minutes after meeting her with a blood alcohol level of 3.2 by an Elvis at a drive-through,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain. “At the end of the day, it’s an untenable position to be against ultimately millions of actual Americans’ marriages and commitments.”

Richard Land, the firebrand evangelical leader who wrote the famous letter urging Christians to support George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, summed up the view of many on the right tier of the Republican presidential field. “It’s a sad day for the country and now the battlefield shifts to freedom of conscience,” he told POLITICO. “It’s going to be an important issue in 2016.”

It’s also a matter of old-fashioned wedge politics, and Democrats are delighted at the growing roster of issues pulling the GOP backward through time. Last week, Southern Republicans were stunned by the wave of public, bipartisan sentiment against state-sanctioned displays of the Confederate flag in the wake of the Charleston massacre. After a stumbling start, local Republicans acted with deliberate speed, and not just in South Carolina: Alabama’s Robert Bentley, one of the country’s most conservative governors, ordered the rebel battle flag lowered over the capitol in Montgomery, where the civil war was declared and George Wallace delivered his “segregation forever” speech.”

Still, many standard-issue Republican positions, though they remain regional political assets in the South and parts of the Midwest, are underwater: The GOP’s blanket opposition to minimum-wage hikes, a more open immigration policy, and background checks on guns and lockstep support for tough anti-abortion laws and tax breaks for the wealthy all poll relatively poorly.

On June 27 2015 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:

freedom of religion is a misnomer. its the free exercise clause thats at play. if the government can tax religious organizations, it can use that power to discriminate against or govern religions.

“In the state of Nevada, you can get married to a hooker who you met at the bar 30 minutes after meeting her with a blood alcohol level of 3.2 by an Elvis at a drive-through,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain. “At the end of the day, it’s an untenable position to be against ultimately millions of actual Americans’ marriages and commitments.”

On June 27 2015 08:03 dAPhREAk wrote:

freedom of religion is a misnomer. its the free exercise clause thats at play. if the government can tax religious organizations, it can use that power to discriminate against or govern religions.

On June 27 2015 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


We wouldn't want to interfere with taxes when people want to pool together and by Creflo Dolla a new jet amirite? Amen!



Untenable certainly seems to be relative.

After calling the last day "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now calling for Supreme Court justices to face elections.

In a National Review op-ed published Friday, Cruz chastised the high court for its decisions to reject a major challenge to Obamacare and to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

"Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple," Cruz writes. "Both were lawless."

To challenge that "judicial activism," Cruz said he is proposing a constitutional amendment to require Supreme Court justices to face retention elections every eight years.

"The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary," Cruz writes. "A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system. Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy."

Under Cruz's proposed amendment, justices would have to be approved by a majority of American voters as well as by the majority of voters in least half of the states. If they failed to reach the required approval rating, they would be removed from office and barred from serving on the Supreme Court in the future.

On June 27 2015 10:19 cLutZ wrote:
The more modern society progresses, the more it seems like an income tax is incompatible, or at least at odds with, many of our basic rights/protections enshrined in the Constitution.

On June 27 2015 11:51 BisuDagger wrote:
So the TPP passed without any news coverage at all. Are Americans going to be screwed by this deal? I sure wish we knew more about it.

On June 27 2015 12:23 zlefin wrote:
Bisu -> unclear; it is a bit odd to not wait for the terms to come out; but there's also been a lot of irrational and illogical hate and misinformation on the bill. It's not true that they WILL be refunded; they will be able to file a claim to try and get a refund; there's an extensive history from similar trade deals, and the overall refunds rates are quite low (iirc 10%-ish).

On June 27 2015 12:17 BisuDagger wrote:
Thanks for the info. I don't understand why this deal is so shady. How come congress couldn't see the deal before hand and why the 60 day crunch? Is it true if companies lose profit due to government regulations then they will be refunded?