|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 04 2018 22:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well I think that's the problem folks like Mueller saw from the beginning. Trump is supposed to take some lumps and get off with a slap on the wrist and everyone pretends like the system worked (they settled down to this after everything else failed). Problem is Trump won't. He sees everything as zero-sum. He wants to crush them. That means gloating that they can't touch him, even symbolically.
Trump is above the law and answerable only to the, and to a more significant degree his, voters.
Now they're trying to scramble to figure out what to do. Do they do their best to throw the book at Trump and risk him just upending the perception of our system by just pardoning himself for even heinous crimes? Or do they take the last 2 years and flush them down the toilet and let Trump off with an even gentler "extremely careless" as to avoid forcing people's hands to get us to the pardoning himself part?
They've completely lost the political side of this already btw. There is 0 hope for impeachment before 2020. Well... the problem is that the people with the power to enforce punishment on him won't do it. I believe Bill Clinton was dead right when he said if a Democrat was in office right now and had done even half of what Trump's done, the Republicans would be running articles of impeachment through congress. But if Trump pardons himself I expect the Republicans to turn on him. T
They can't though. They are less popular than Trump, they will be whether Trump pardons himself or not. If they had any moral center we'd have seen it by now. They will do whatever secures their power and that's supporting Trump as long as his supporters do.
+ Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't be so sure you'd even get every Democrat to support impeaching Trump.
Which again, best case, leaves us with Pence who is worse in pretty much every way except how he comes off to people unaware of how horrible he is and basically none of the 'drama' baggage.
|
On June 04 2018 21:55 Plansix wrote:
I’m going to go out on a limb and say this wouldn’t work. The president commit a crime and then pardon him/herself. That’s isn’t what the founding fathers had in mind.
Then again, Trump himself isn’t what the founding fathers had in mind either. Guy walked straight out of Huckelberry Finn.
|
It looks like a major win for religious liberty is in the works. You may remember this thread by and large unanimously considered the case outright discrimination, without comparable respect for the religious liberty rights of the defendants. Early reporting suggests that the Colorado bakers have won their case, but the Court punted on a big decision with regards to the first amendment with far more reaching impact. “The civil rights commissions has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility towards the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” I have to say this thread gave a reflective echo of this hostility.
|
On June 04 2018 23:27 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/reutersus/status/1003641472619614208It looks like a major win for religious liberty is in the works. You may remember this thread by and large unanimously considered the case outright discrimination, without comparable respect for the religious liberty rights of the defendants. Early reporting suggests that the Colorado bakers have won their case, but the Court punted on a big decision with regards to the first amendment with far more reaching impact. “The civil rights commissions has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility towards the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” I have to say this thread gave a reflective echo of this hostility.
I think the hostility in this thread was aimed more at the discrimination that is a necessary consequence of these sincere religious beliefs, rather than at the beliefs themselves. I could be wrong - but that is certainly my position. People are free to believe whatever they want, I personally don't think they should discriminate against gay people because of those beliefs.
|
I will wait to read the full decision to see how narrow it is. But I have no doubt this ruling will be used as a powerful tool for bigots to justify discrimination against gay citizens.
|
Ruling was 7-2. I imagine they ruled extremely narrowly if they nabbed 2 of the liberals.
|
On June 04 2018 23:27 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/reutersus/status/1003641472619614208It looks like a major win for religious liberty is in the works. You may remember this thread by and large unanimously considered the case outright discrimination, without comparable respect for the religious liberty rights of the defendants. Early reporting suggests that the Colorado bakers have won their case, but the Court punted on a big decision with regards to the first amendment with far more reaching impact. “The civil rights commissions has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility towards the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” I have to say this thread gave a reflective echo of this hostility. I think people are free to believe in whatever spaghetti monster they want.
I object to using that belief to then discriminate against others.
|
On June 04 2018 23:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 23:27 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/reutersus/status/1003641472619614208It looks like a major win for religious liberty is in the works. You may remember this thread by and large unanimously considered the case outright discrimination, without comparable respect for the religious liberty rights of the defendants. Early reporting suggests that the Colorado bakers have won their case, but the Court punted on a big decision with regards to the first amendment with far more reaching impact. “The civil rights commissions has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility towards the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” I have to say this thread gave a reflective echo of this hostility. I think the hostility in this thread was aimed more at the discrimination that is a necessary consequence of these sincere religious beliefs, rather than at the beliefs themselves. I could be wrong - but that is certainly my position. People are free to believe whatever they want, I personally don't think they should discriminate against gay people because of those beliefs.
I observed and concluded the opposite. The mere thought of consequences for their religious liberty against a prospective customer of their services justified all the slander in their minds. It had no careful consideration of where rights intersected. It entirely discounted the religious owner’s rights in the face of their conceptions of discrimination against the gay couple. I think the line of a second class citizen with second class rights was pretty obvious. Any intersection should give careful examination, and all I saw was outright dismissal that due consideration should be given to the baker’s dilemma. I’ll re-read the section to be sure.
As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol- ocaust.
|
From my quick reading, it specifically cites that the baker was willing to back goods for gay couples for any other event, but would not create a cake with religious imagery(marriage) a gay wedding. It would seem the ruling says that the government cannot specifically compelling someone to create something that would violate their religious beliefs. Denying all services based on religious beliefs would not be allowed, from what I can gather from the ruling.
Edit: it also seems to lean into the idea that the commission was hostile towards religion and had it been more neutral, the court may have ruled different. It seems to be a punt, saying that the commission poisoned the well from the start.
|
A "victory for religious liberty". Is that a joke Danglers? Religious liberty has never been in danger in this country.
|
Christian religious liberty certainly.
|
That SCOTUS just issued a ruling heavily couched in the words and acts of the enforcement body that goes against said body may augur positively in terms of how they plan to rule on Trump's Muslim ban. The template has been cast.
|
It's a victory for religious ignorance.
|
On June 04 2018 23:56 Slaughter wrote:
A "victory for religious liberty". Is that a joke Danglers? Religious liberty has never been in danger in this country.
That's not entirely true. There's a significant number of Republicans who want to ban a particular religion.
|
Who thought it possible that so many of our thread experts could be wrong? Shocking.
|
Who thought it possible that dog-wagging counter-experts would seize on a court decision and then gesture ambiguously towards an imaginary consensus as evidence that they were right all along? Shocking.
|
Passive aggressively tilting windmills.
|
On June 04 2018 23:56 Slaughter wrote:
A "victory for religious liberty". Is that a joke Danglers? Religious liberty has never been in danger in this country.
He was compelled to bake a cake in sincere compliance with his religious beliefs. The commission otherwise allowed other creeds to assert their rights not to bake a cake they disagreed with. Despite your protestations to the contrary, the baker’s religious exercise rights were demeaned and dismissed.
How else would you characterize the commission’s comments that religion is often used to justify discrimination ... and it’s despicable to him that anyone can use their religion to hurt others? Or take the judge’s words:
To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
|
Yeah no-one has been proven right or wrong here.. There's been a few debates that's all.
I will say that as danglars says, people are very quick to ridicule or minimize the importance of religious beliefs. I think it was made worse in this case because the immediate reaction is normally to think "Its just a cake".
There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store.
I know that, as a musician, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I disagreed with. I don't know if that's comparable though.
|
On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yeah no-one has been proven right or wrong here.. There's been a few debates that's all.
I will say that as danglars says, people are very quick to ridicule or minimize the importance of religious beliefs. I think it was made worse in this case because the immediate reaction is normally to think "Its just a cake".
There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store.
I know that, as a musician, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I disagreed with. I don't know if that's comparable though.
It also bears worth mentioning that many of the conversations related to normative assessments of the dispute itself, not predictions about how SCOTUS would rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/04/impeachmentvote-1024x1024.png)
