|
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 December 06 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:+ Show Spoiler +See, this is why this conversation can be so irritating. Outside of Igne, I'm not convinced that anyone else has sufficient historical understanding of what Western culture is (much less what other cultures are) and how it came to be to intelligently engage on this topic. For example, let's take post a like Yango's, where he basically argues that I'm all wet because every culture has its good and shitty parts that can be cherrypicked. This isn't even responsive to what I'm arguing much less demonstrative of an understanding of what the key issue is. The key issue is that other cultures reject the best parts of Western culture (notably the parts concerning individual liberty and freedom) while actively seeking to repress and ultimately supplant Western culture. Let's just take China as an example, whom I presume we can all agree is actively looking to expand its influence and footprint around the world. The Chinese government is on record rejecting key Western ideas and values like inalienable rights and individual liberty. + Show Spoiler +For anyone who purports to adhere to anything resembling liberal ideals, that should be horrifying and reason enough to declare the superiority of Western culture and the need for its defense. This conclusion is unavoidable, and all of the dancing around it that I'm seeing is a function of either ignorance of what the real issue is or cowardice.
Let's ask some Chinese people if they feel like they don't have inalienable rights or individual liberty.
|
The transcript is up on supremecourt.gov of today's oral arguments. Kennedy, a key swing vote, appears skeptical. Waggoner I think handles herself well before Ginsburg with some exceptions. You can read useful dialogue between both sides on the linked transcript. Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor usefully ask if the forms of speech in creative artistic expression apply to florists, invitation designers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors, sandwich artists.
When is it message and when is it identity? Two pages of back and forth.
As mentioned earlier, the dialogue from the commissioners present in the appendix (link beginning at page 197) was mentioned by Kennedy and Gorsuch in light of the commissioner discussions. "If someone has an issue with the laws impacting his personal belief system, he has to look at compromising that belief system"
Kennedy also at page 86 of the oral argument transcript talks about identity vs arrangements "suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against gay people, but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs." He very much rejects Cole's version and says that there's something extra and detached than just protected categories. "I think your identity thing is just too facile" - Kennedy.
Alito's good on the individual requesting cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in accordance with his Judeo-Christian creed. His characterization: "It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage." Later, Kennedy follows with the observation "Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
Interesting note that same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado during this case. Alito "If Craig and Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license, they would not have been accommodated ... Massachusetts marriage ... civil union. Well, we won't accommodate that either. And yet when he goes to this bake shop and says "I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won't do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he's created a grave wrong. How does that all that fit together?" Followed by a smack down of Yarger's brief lol.
|
United States44405 Posts
It's amusing to see xDaunt insisting that he alone gets the roots of English culture in a discussion about a French document written in Latin to settle a power dispute between Norman nobles and an Angevin king.
Should have gone to history class.
English culture may have resulted from the Magna Carta, but it certainly didn't produce it.
|
On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman.
yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english
|
|
|
United States44405 Posts
On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english
I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies.
But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England.
There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution.
|
On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture"
TheYango's post is pretty quizzical on that account. If Japanese culture flourished with shoguns from the 12th century to 21st century, we'd of course include that in a discussion of the reasons for its success. He seems to think contact with the west might change one or two things, not impact shoguns, but now we have to diminish the role of shoguns because that would be like saying nothing has been gained from interaction with other cultures.
|
On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" It may seem incoherent to you Igne, because you don't have the same cultural base as I do. From what I have just read, in USA the Magna Carta is taught to children as some sort of precursor to the constitution, of the common man exerting power over the tyranny of the King, but in England it is taught as the result of a weak king in relation to a bunch of angry nobility seeking power and influence over the realm. Which version do you think is more true? So, now you know, and now I know.
|
On December 06 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies. But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England. There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution.
sure. all western though
|
On December 06 2017 05:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" It may seem incoherent to you Igne, because you don't have the same cultural base as I do. From what I have just read, in USA the Magna Carta is taught to children as some sort of precursor to the constitution, of the common man exerting power over the tyranny of the King, but in England it is taught as the result of a weak king in relation to a bunch of angry nobility seeking power and influence over the realm. Which version do you think is more true? So, now you know, and now I know.
im mostly talkig about it as it relates to our legal system as a whole, which grew out of the writ system of england rather than statutory or codified laws as in the continent (although louisiana is an exception for obvious reasons).
whats the greatest part of the magna carta? habeas corpus
tbh what they teach 8 year olds could could not jnterest me less on this question (which is not to say that "what they teach 8 year olds" is uninteresting, just irrelevant for our purposes). it is likewise irrelevant which of the two scenarios you posited are "truer" because both would still be situated in "western culture"
|
On December 06 2017 05:37 Danglars wrote:The transcript is up on supremecourt.gov of today's oral arguments. Kennedy, a key swing vote, appears skeptical. Waggoner I think handles herself well before Ginsburg with some exceptions. You can read useful dialogue between both sides on the linked transcript. Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor usefully ask if the forms of speech in creative artistic expression apply to florists, invitation designers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors, sandwich artists. When is it message and when is it identity? Two pages of back and forth. As mentioned earlier, the dialogue from the commissioners present in the appendix ( link beginning at page 197) was mentioned by Kennedy and Gorsuch in light of the commissioner discussions. "If someone has an issue with the laws impacting his personal belief system, he has to look at compromising that belief system" Kennedy also at page 86 of the oral argument transcript talks about identity vs arrangements "suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against gay people, but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs." He very much rejects Cole's version and says that there's something extra and detached than just protected categories. "I think your identity thing is just too facile" - Kennedy. Alito's good on the individual requesting cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in accordance with his Judeo-Christian creed. His characterization: "It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage." Later, Kennedy follows with the observation "Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs." Interesting note that same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado during this case. Alito "If Craig and Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license, they would not have been accommodated ... Massachusetts marriage ... civil union. Well, we won't accommodate that either. And yet when he goes to this bake shop and says "I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won't do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he's created a grave wrong. How does that all that fit together?" Followed by a smack down of Yarger's brief lol.
This is why I need same day audio so I can listen while out and about. It sucks enough to miss "The Origins and Superiority of Western Culture v3.0." xDaunt needs to do more nighttime posting 
As for this, if we look at some of Kennedy's opinions, or what has been written about him as a justice in other important matters (though I am certainly no expert) I could see how he's conflicted more than might be expected. He voted against the Obamacare individual mandate, and for Citizens United (yes i know that's just two data points). It always seemed to me that in his own head he was going to have to balance his culture warrior legacy building and some of these other inclinations he's had. Maybe his former clerk will be a good influence for him
|
United States44405 Posts
On December 06 2017 06:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies. But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England. There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution. sure. all western though
Sure. But it makes you realize the extent to which English culture itself was drawn heavily from a variety of different sources. We've always been a mongrel breed and that certainly hasn't hurt us. The United States has followed in that path and I believe has also profited from that.
An American looking at their own cultural melting pot and trying to trace back the heritage to England to find an undiluted source will be disappointed to learn that it's melting pots all the way down.
|
|
|
On December 06 2017 06:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:37 Danglars wrote:The transcript is up on supremecourt.gov of today's oral arguments. Kennedy, a key swing vote, appears skeptical. Waggoner I think handles herself well before Ginsburg with some exceptions. You can read useful dialogue between both sides on the linked transcript. Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor usefully ask if the forms of speech in creative artistic expression apply to florists, invitation designers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors, sandwich artists. When is it message and when is it identity? Two pages of back and forth. As mentioned earlier, the dialogue from the commissioners present in the appendix ( link beginning at page 197) was mentioned by Kennedy and Gorsuch in light of the commissioner discussions. "If someone has an issue with the laws impacting his personal belief system, he has to look at compromising that belief system" Kennedy also at page 86 of the oral argument transcript talks about identity vs arrangements "suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against gay people, but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs." He very much rejects Cole's version and says that there's something extra and detached than just protected categories. "I think your identity thing is just too facile" - Kennedy. Alito's good on the individual requesting cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in accordance with his Judeo-Christian creed. His characterization: "It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage." Later, Kennedy follows with the observation "Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs." Interesting note that same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado during this case. Alito "If Craig and Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license, they would not have been accommodated ... Massachusetts marriage ... civil union. Well, we won't accommodate that either. And yet when he goes to this bake shop and says "I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won't do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he's created a grave wrong. How does that all that fit together?" Followed by a smack down of Yarger's brief lol. This is why I need same day audio so I can listen while out and about. It sucks enough to miss "The Origins and Superiority of Western Culture v3.0." xDaunt needs to do more nighttime posting As for this, if we look at some of Kennedy's opinions, or what has been written about him as a justice in other important matters (though I am certainly no expert) I could see how he's conflicted more than might be expected. He voted against the Obamacare individual mandate, and for Citizens United (yes i know that's just two data points). It always seemed to me that in his own head he was going to have to balance his culture warrior legacy building and some of these other inclinations he's had. Maybe his former clerk will be a good influence for him
One other conflict is Kennedy's text in Obergefell. He said that religions may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that same-sex marriage should not be condoned. One big point from the Colorado commissioners is that it's opposition to their identity not the marriage, and Kennedy clearly thinks principles opposed to same-sex marriage are rich and proceed from conviction.
Also, there's several apps that will load up a pdf and read it to you on the road.
|
On December 06 2017 06:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 06:00 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies. But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England. There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution. sure. all western though Sure. But it makes you realize the extent to which English culture itself was drawn heavily from a variety of different sources. We've always been a mongrel breed and that certainly hasn't hurt us. The United States has followed in that path and I believe has also profited from that. An American looking at their own cultural melting pot and trying to trace back the heritage to England to find an undiluted source will be disappointed to learn that it's melting pots all the way down.
That's the thing, isn't it? Culture isn't static and it's influenced by a bajillion different things.
Also there's shit like Arabic numerals. Very much not "Western" in origin.
|
On December 06 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 06:03 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 05:37 Danglars wrote:The transcript is up on supremecourt.gov of today's oral arguments. Kennedy, a key swing vote, appears skeptical. Waggoner I think handles herself well before Ginsburg with some exceptions. You can read useful dialogue between both sides on the linked transcript. Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor usefully ask if the forms of speech in creative artistic expression apply to florists, invitation designers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors, sandwich artists. When is it message and when is it identity? Two pages of back and forth. As mentioned earlier, the dialogue from the commissioners present in the appendix ( link beginning at page 197) was mentioned by Kennedy and Gorsuch in light of the commissioner discussions. "If someone has an issue with the laws impacting his personal belief system, he has to look at compromising that belief system" Kennedy also at page 86 of the oral argument transcript talks about identity vs arrangements "suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against gay people, but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs." He very much rejects Cole's version and says that there's something extra and detached than just protected categories. "I think your identity thing is just too facile" - Kennedy. Alito's good on the individual requesting cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in accordance with his Judeo-Christian creed. His characterization: "It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage." Later, Kennedy follows with the observation "Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs." Interesting note that same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado during this case. Alito "If Craig and Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license, they would not have been accommodated ... Massachusetts marriage ... civil union. Well, we won't accommodate that either. And yet when he goes to this bake shop and says "I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won't do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he's created a grave wrong. How does that all that fit together?" Followed by a smack down of Yarger's brief lol. This is why I need same day audio so I can listen while out and about. It sucks enough to miss "The Origins and Superiority of Western Culture v3.0." xDaunt needs to do more nighttime posting As for this, if we look at some of Kennedy's opinions, or what has been written about him as a justice in other important matters (though I am certainly no expert) I could see how he's conflicted more than might be expected. He voted against the Obamacare individual mandate, and for Citizens United (yes i know that's just two data points). It always seemed to me that in his own head he was going to have to balance his culture warrior legacy building and some of these other inclinations he's had. Maybe his former clerk will be a good influence for him One other conflict is Kennedy's text in Obergefell. He said that religions may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that same-sex marriage should not be condoned. One big point from the Colorado commissioners is that it's opposition to their identity not the marriage, and Kennedy clearly thinks principles opposed to same-sex marriage are rich and proceed from conviction. Also, there's several apps that will load up a pdf and read it to you on the road.
Yes but some theorized that it was just a fig leaf to be removed when a case like this inevitably made its way to the Court. I hope not.
Also I could read pdfs, but if something is spoken (like an argument or a debate) I much prefer to hear it rather than read it, even if it is much slower.
edit:apparently my phone is not familiar with either 'fig' or 'leaf'
|
On December 06 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture" These were Angevins folks. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman. yeah ok true. but then the question is: is modern england really "french?" its not as if proud englishmen have disavowed john's signing of the magna carta on the grounds that he didnt speak middle english I'll happily say that the French Magna Carta was part of the basis for what became England. It's part of our history and culture, just as it is part of the American history and culture of what became the Thirteen Colonies. But to say English culture produced the Magna Carta is, as you concede, simply not accurate. It's a French document that endured in the Plantagenet rump of England. There's also an argument to be made that a lot of British global capitalism came with the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution.
While the Magna Carta came before a lot of British liberalism, it's unfair to say that there is no strain of liberalism in British culture (as far back as at least the 15th Century+). The Levellers for example are very much a product of Britain (granted, they're 17th Century, but nonetheless). It's also unfair to say that British capitalism is a dutch formation, when, more than likely it is some combination of Locke, The Corn League, Mill, Ricardo, etc.
|
|
|
On December 06 2017 06:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 06:03 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 05:37 Danglars wrote:The transcript is up on supremecourt.gov of today's oral arguments. Kennedy, a key swing vote, appears skeptical. Waggoner I think handles herself well before Ginsburg with some exceptions. You can read useful dialogue between both sides on the linked transcript. Kagan/Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor usefully ask if the forms of speech in creative artistic expression apply to florists, invitation designers, jewelers, hair stylists, makeup artists, tailors, sandwich artists. When is it message and when is it identity? Two pages of back and forth. As mentioned earlier, the dialogue from the commissioners present in the appendix ( link beginning at page 197) was mentioned by Kennedy and Gorsuch in light of the commissioner discussions. "If someone has an issue with the laws impacting his personal belief system, he has to look at compromising that belief system" Kennedy also at page 86 of the oral argument transcript talks about identity vs arrangements "suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against gay people, but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs." He very much rejects Cole's version and says that there's something extra and detached than just protected categories. "I think your identity thing is just too facile" - Kennedy. Alito's good on the individual requesting cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in accordance with his Judeo-Christian creed. His characterization: "It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage." Later, Kennedy follows with the observation "Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs." Interesting note that same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado during this case. Alito "If Craig and Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license, they would not have been accommodated ... Massachusetts marriage ... civil union. Well, we won't accommodate that either. And yet when he goes to this bake shop and says "I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won't do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he's created a grave wrong. How does that all that fit together?" Followed by a smack down of Yarger's brief lol. This is why I need same day audio so I can listen while out and about. It sucks enough to miss "The Origins and Superiority of Western Culture v3.0." xDaunt needs to do more nighttime posting As for this, if we look at some of Kennedy's opinions, or what has been written about him as a justice in other important matters (though I am certainly no expert) I could see how he's conflicted more than might be expected. He voted against the Obamacare individual mandate, and for Citizens United (yes i know that's just two data points). It always seemed to me that in his own head he was going to have to balance his culture warrior legacy building and some of these other inclinations he's had. Maybe his former clerk will be a good influence for him One other conflict is Kennedy's text in Obergefell. He said that religions may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that same-sex marriage should not be condoned. One big point from the Colorado commissioners is that it's opposition to their identity not the marriage, and Kennedy clearly thinks principles opposed to same-sex marriage are rich and proceed from conviction. Also, there's several apps that will load up a pdf and read it to you on the road. Yes but some theorized that it was just a fig leaf to be removed when a case like this inevitably made its way to the Court. I hope not. Also I could read pdfs, but if something is spoken (like an argument or a debate) I much prefer to hear it rather than read it, even if it is much slower. edit:apparently my phone is not familiar with either 'fig' or 'leaf'
Yeah, I get that theory. Roberts referenced specifically that part of Kennedy's writing in Obergefell in oral arguments today. "it went out of its way to talk about the decent and honorable people who may have opposing views"
|
This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party?
Later Flake, your name suits you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/France_1154-en.svg/800px-France_1154-en.svg.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/magna%20carta/collection%20items/magna-carta-anglo-norman-french-add-32085-f102-b20152-44.jpg)
