Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A SCOTUS Among UsFollow

#27 Jun 26 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The Publisher's Clearing House of Job applications?
That or a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Jun 26 2013 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Maybe it was just foolish of me, but as jumpy as they all are about voter fraud you'd think there'd be room in there for some kind of punitive reaction to cases where it's been shown to happen

Voter fraud only consists of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote (darkies and the like) voting. People not voting is never fraud, it's states rights.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Jun 26 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe it was just foolish of me, but as jumpy as they all are about voter fraud...

They don't give a shit about "voter fraud". They care about using "voter fraud" as an excuse to create barriers to low income (esp. minority) voters such as requiring state IDs, eliminating polling places in low income neighborhoods, making it harder to vote absentee, making it harder to vote without a permanent place of residence, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jun 26 2013 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Wonder how it'll effect the six deployed overseas people that still vote.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Jun 26 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
MURICA
#32 Jun 26 2013 at 3:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
My only concern is the definitions and applications of "constitutional" vs. "unconstitutional". We obviously know what they are, but why did it take so long for something openly practiced to be deemed "unconstitutional". Nothing has changed over the years, but time and this seems to be a trend in other topics.

Why does it take so much energy, time and money to declare something unconstitutional when the facts are in your face? This is the same gripe that I have had before and will continue to have until we just start calling a spade and spade and stop wasting resources.
#33 Jun 26 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Because the only ones who can say something is or is not constitutional is the Supreme Court, and they can only do it when presented with a case challenging the legality of an existing law?

There are a ******* of laws that are probably unconstitutional, but until a legal challenge against them goes all the way to the top, even if it's obvious to everyone that it's a bad law, no one can do anything about it except repeal it with another law.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#34 Jun 26 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Keep in mind that the primary arguments in the DOMA case weren't "poor gays" but rather states' rights arguments. Determining the line between federal and state issues isn't always obvious or a simple matter of "calling a spade a spade".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jun 26 2013 at 5:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Catwho wrote:
Because the only ones who can say something is or is not constitutional is the Supreme Court, and they can only do it when presented with a case challenging the legality of an existing law?

There are a sh*tton of laws that are probably unconstitutional, but until a legal challenge against them goes all the way to the top, even if it's obvious to everyone that it's a bad law, no one can do anything about it except repeal it with another law.


As I said in a previous thread, if the law were "Women can't work" (as once before), it wouldn't have lasted long enough to be annotated in history. Regardless whether what you say is accurate or not, it displays a weakness in the system.

So, basically, it comes down to if enough of the "right" people care about it as opposed to it actually being constitutional or not. At that point, it becomes subjective as opposed to objective. Things are only "unconstitutional" if it goes against certain people's beliefs and things are only "constitutional" when it favors certain people's beliefs.

The constitution has become a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people. As a result, we waste time in manners such as these. Hopefully, everything will be completed in this "movement", so we don't have to waste more resources on such topics.


Or will we? Given the turn on the Voting Rights Act, it only supports my argument even more. We need more objectivity and less subjectivity.
#36 Jun 26 2013 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The constitution has become a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

Become implies it was ever any different. Politics is why we have a bicameral legislature.
#37 Jun 27 2013 at 1:51 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Keep in mind that the primary arguments in the DOMA case weren't "poor gays" but rather states' rights arguments. Determining the line between federal and state issues isn't always obvious or a simple matter of "calling a spade a spade".

You're absolutely right, but if I understand the argument correctly, that only substantiates my point.

First, forgive me as I'm no longer in the US, so I don't have the full coverage as I did. The message that I received was that DOMA was deemed "unconstitutional". So, unless I'm missing something, it's either unconstitutional because it was federally mandated or unconstitutional due to the restrictions of marriage. Given that we have a ton of federal mandates, my assumption is that 'twas the latter.

So, if the main arguments used were that it should be a state's decision on the rulings of marriage, then it completely contradicts the aforementioned. That essentially says, "The restrictions of marriage is unconstitutional, but only at the federal level, it's ok at the state level"

I'm sure that I'm missing something, so please expound.

Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The constitution has become a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

Become implies it was ever any different. Politics is why we have a bicameral legislature.


'Twas indeed different. I'm not a history buff, but you're allowing the negative connotation of "politics" skew reality. There is a difference between laying the foundation of rules and regulations for a nation vs purposely interpreting the aforesaid rules in a way to bolster personal motives. I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.
#38 Jun 27 2013 at 3:23 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

Care to offer something more than conjecture toward that point"?
#39 Jun 27 2013 at 4:16 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

Care to offer something more than conjecture toward that point"?


See post #37.
#40 Jun 27 2013 at 4:26 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
You can just "no."
#41 Jun 27 2013 at 6:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
In before multiple pages of people trying to argue with Alma while he just points back to a previous post that doesn't say ****.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#42 Jun 27 2013 at 6:30 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
In before multiple pages of people trying to argue with Alma while he just points back to a previous post that doesn't say sh*t.


Don't expect me to waste time and energy because you're either too lazy and/or not intelligent enough to read and comprehend a simple post. As always, point out specifically what you don't understand and I'll address your concern. Else, you'll simply get a reference to the already established answer.
#43 Jun 27 2013 at 6:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Alma wrote:
I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.


You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality? And then Allegory pointed that out and somehow you thought pointing him back to the post was a good idea.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:47pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#44 Jun 27 2013 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
First, forgive me as I'm no longer in the US, so I don't have the full coverage as I did. The message that I received was that DOMA was deemed "unconstitutional". So, unless I'm missing something, it's either unconstitutional because it was federally mandated or unconstitutional due to the restrictions of marriage. Given that we have a ton of federal mandates, my assumption is that 'twas the latter.

So, if the main arguments used were that it should be a state's decision on the rulings of marriage, then it completely contradicts the aforementioned. That essentially says, "The restrictions of marriage is unconstitutional, but only at the federal level, it's ok at the state level"

The issue is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states to define. The argument made as that the federal government was infringing on the traditional domain of the state by effectively saying "You can call that marriage but it's not and we won't honor it". Without exceptional cause to justify the intrusion (as in miscegenation), that provision of the law was struck down.

That it was "marriage" is somewhat secondary except that you'd need something within the state's sphere to act as a catalyst for the case. For an opposite example, the SCotUS struck down provisions from Arizona's state laws regarding immigration enforcement; immigration being the traditional sphere of the federal government and the state not having the right to interfere.

Neither case was argued so much about "marriage" or "immigration" but rather "How far can the federal/state infringe into the working of the other?" If not for the social aspect, conservatives would be hailing this as a huge win for state's rights.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Jun 27 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Am I the only one that has a good chuckle whenever someone argues that amendments shouldn't be changed, or interpreted based on 1800s culture?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Jun 27 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Am I the only one that has a good chuckle whenever someone argues that amendments shouldn't be changed, or interpreted based on 1800s culture?

Screenshot
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jun 27 2013 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
No. In related news, homosexual couples in the State of Tasmania can now adopt children, although they still can't marry. Baby steps, baby steps [heh], but I think the right to **** up children just like any other couple is an important one. Also, our new-old Prime Minister is very pro-*** marriage. This might not move things any faster here, since the MPs vote as individuals in a "conscience" vote on the issue, and most present MPs are socially conservative, but it does help the "tone" of the public argument.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#48 Jun 27 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
No. In related news, homosexual couples in the State of Tasmania can now adopt children,
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Jun 27 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality?
No no no, you know you can't skip ahead like that. Just check back in 15 pages once someone manages to wring an answer out of him.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Jun 27 2013 at 12:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The issue is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states to define. The argument made as that the federal government was infringing on the traditional domain of the state by effectively saying "You can call that marriage but it's not and we won't honor it". Without exceptional cause to justify the intrusion (as in miscegenation), that provision of the law was struck down.


It was a pretty predictable decision, doubly so given the current make up of the court. Obviously, I disagree with it, but that's a whole different discussion (which we've had many times). It'll be interesting to see how the federal government responds to this in the future. The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize. Either we'll see all states recognize *** marriage (which is presumably what the SSM advocates want), or we'll see a movement to eliminate or change the requirements for the relevant federal benefits (which could shake out a number of different ways).

The prop 8 ruling/dismissal, while also not totally unexpected, is disappointing most because it effectively means that the referendum process has no high court constitutional protection. IMO, that's a far far bigger issue than the specific marriage issue in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Jun 27 2013 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.

Probably because it's not an issue. It's federal tax money being disbursed through the federal system. If your state is creating a barrier to accessing that money, that's an issue with the state, not the federal government.

Out of your outcomes, I'd see if far more likely that states are forced to remove that barrier than a massive change in apportioning the money. Really though, I expect the real (federal) outcome from that avenue to be nil and married SS couples in states legally recognizing the marriage will get the benefits and those who don't won't. And they'll either continue to petition the states or move to friendlier climates.


Edited, Jun 27th 2013 1:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 4 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (4)