Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A SCOTUS Among UsFollow

#102 Jun 30 2013 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I nominate myself the authority, if we go with an authoritarian regime!
A sort of planet of the apes thing?
____________________________
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.
#103 Jun 30 2013 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
And of course it isn't over.

Because those stalwart defenders of mawwiage just can't admit they lost this one. Even though they failed over and over to show how gays getting married damages the institution of marriage, the precious, precious children, or the American way... it just can't be over. /sob

Well, it's over now.

WSJ wrote:
Gay-marriage opponents Sunday lost a last-ditch bid to reinstate California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, when a Supreme Court justice denied a motion to suspend the wedding ceremonies, which resumed in the state last week.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, lifted its stay Friday of a 2010 federal district court order invalidating Proposition 8, following Wednesday's Supreme Court decision dismissing the appeal of that order.

In an emergency petition filed with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees the Ninth Circuit, Proposition 8 backers said the appeals court lacked authority to issue its Friday order because the Supreme Court hadn't yet sent out a certified copy of its Wednesday ruling, and because Supreme Court rules generally require a 25-day delay before rulings become final.

On Sunday, Justice Kennedy denied the application without comment


Edit: They can ask another SC Justice to reinstate it but I'd be mildly surprised if anyone wanted to continue to drag this out longer and the request was granted.

Edited, Jun 30th 2013 2:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Jun 30 2013 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Quote:
Gay-marriage opponents Sunday lost a last-ditch bid to reinstate California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, when a Supreme Court justice denied a motion to suspend the wedding ceremonies, which resumed in the state last week.


And on a Sunday!

/clutch the pearls
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#105 Jun 30 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Idd wrote:
That said, the "back and forth" is the very essence of a democracy. It's one of the prices you pay in having a peoples' government. There's just no way to have a government with less discourse and still maintain an acceptable level of organization. Unless you're going to advocate for a authoritarian regime, there's no going around it.


I have no problem with the concept of challenging a law. I have a problem with how the current system handles those challenges. The SCOTUS should be proactive, not reactive.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#106 Jul 01 2013 at 5:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Idd wrote:
That said, the "back and forth" is the very essence of a democracy. It's one of the prices you pay in having a peoples' government. There's just no way to have a government with less discourse and still maintain an acceptable level of organization. Unless you're going to advocate for a authoritarian regime, there's no going around it.


I have no problem with the concept of challenging a law. I have a problem with how the current system handles those challenges. The SCOTUS should be proactive, not reactive.



Except that that's not how ANY court works in any purportedly free society.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#107 Jul 01 2013 at 5:53 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
How would the judicial branch be proactive and still fall under the scope of its powers?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 Jul 01 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit: They can ask another SC Justice to reinstate it but I'd be mildly surprised if anyone wanted to continue to drag this out longer and the request was granted.
You'd be surprised?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Jul 01 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, actually. Granting the stay wouldn't prevent the SCOTUS ruling from applying, it would just delay its application for a couple weeks. From what I've heard (take as you will) Roberts is at least somewhat sensitive to the perception of the Court. Granting the stay would cause a commotion for zero gain.

I wouldn't be shocked if it happened, but I'd be mildly surprised that they went that route.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Jul 01 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
California is in a strange gray state on this issue though. The Courts ruling last week did not rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a state to deny marriage licenses to **** couples, and arguably strongly suggested that it would be (given the limited ruling on DOMA itself). In California, the state law, and in fact the state constitution denies marriage licenses to **** couples. It's presumed that had the SCOTUS ruled on prop 8, it would have held it constitutional (again, else why stop short in other parts that they did rule on?). And they only passed on it because of a technicality (of which there have been a lot in this silly process). They declined to rule because those bringing the suite were not formal representatives of "the state".

Which, as I said earlier, is problematic because it effectively says that public referendums have no constitutional protection (arguably any state law which the executive chooses not to defend in court). It's troubling because regardless of how you feel about the issue itself, we have a situation where the people voted, not once but *twice* on this issue, and are now being told that via a really bizarre set of nutty judicial proceedings, what they voted on is going to be ignored. It's probably the most irritating aspect of this whole issue. In our society, people are often going to disagree on a number of issues. But we accept that if our position is unpopular or in the minority that "hey. I guess most people want it the other way" and we move on.

The clear message from the SCOTUS was that states did have the right to decide what constituted a marriage within their state, and that the federal government had to abide by what those states decided. Which clearly suggests that had they actually ruled on prop 8, it would have been ruled constitutional. And that's what is really frustrating to a lot of people. It's less about what you think on the issue as the way the result has come about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Jul 01 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,764 posts
gbaji wrote:
California is in a strange gray state on this issue though. The Courts ruling last week did not rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a state to deny marriage licenses to **** couples, and arguably strongly suggested that it would be (given the limited ruling on DOMA itself). In California, the state law, and in fact the state constitution denies marriage licenses to **** couples. It's presumed that had the SCOTUS ruled on prop 8, it would have held it constitutional (again, else why stop short in other parts that they did rule on?). And they only passed on it because of a technicality (of which there have been a lot in this silly process). They declined to rule because those bringing the suite were not formal representatives of "the state".

Which, as I said earlier, is problematic because it effectively says that public referendums have no constitutional protection (arguably any state law which the executive chooses not to defend in court). It's troubling because regardless of how you feel about the issue itself, we have a situation where the people voted, not once but *twice* on this issue, and are now being told that via a really bizarre set of nutty judicial proceedings, what they voted on is going to be ignored. It's probably the most irritating aspect of this whole issue. In our society, people are often going to disagree on a number of issues. But we accept that if our position is unpopular or in the minority that "hey. I guess most people want it the other way" and we move on.

The clear message from the SCOTUS was that states did have the right to decide what constituted a marriage within their state, and that the federal government had to abide by what those states decided. Which clearly suggests that had they actually ruled on prop 8, it would have been ruled constitutional. And that's what is really frustrating to a lot of people. It's less about what you think on the issue as the way the result has come about.


Um, no.

The court refused to rule on Prop 8 for reasons that were completely unrelated to the subject matter. They didn't "stop short" and fail to go all the way with their ruling, they didn't rule at all.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#112 Jul 01 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Samira wrote:

Except that that's not how ANY court works in any purportedly free society.


Tirith wrote:
How would the judicial branch be proactive and still fall under the scope of its powers?


I brought this up at work yesterday and a coworker brought up the same/similar argument. You can't have it both ways. If you prefer the SCOTUS to be reactive, then you will forever be "fighting the good fight" for years/decades, being unfairly discriminated against. Many people lives will be severely and negatively affected, while the fight continues when you have the choice to end it.

Being proactive doesn't mean controlling everything. If something is blatantly unconstitutional and is widely known and practiced, there is absolutely NO reason why it can't be immediately addressed. As in my example, if California said "Women can no longer work". The SCOTUS shouldn't have to wait until someone from California brought it up. However, if California said, no stores shall be open between the hours 0200-0500, that wouldn't necessarily send up a red flag.


Edited, Jul 2nd 2013 12:42am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Jul 01 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Quote:
As in my example, if California said "Women can no longer work". The SCOTUS shouldn't have to wait until someone from California brought it up.


How else does a judiciary work in your world?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#114 Jul 01 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
If something is blatantly unconstitutional and is widely known and practiced, there is absolutely NO reason why it can't be immediately addressed. As in my example, if California said "Women can no longer work". The SCOTUS shouldn't have to wait until someone from California brought it up.

No, they should wait. Because unconstitutional laws are passed constantly, that's why we have lower courts that can address those issues. SCOTUS should only have to deal with the ones where there's debate, which there wouldn't be in your example. Understand? JSOC also shouldn't be out writing parking tickets. It's a hierarchical structure for a reason.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Jul 01 2013 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
What about a constitutional commissar behind every senator, ready to blow their brains out if they vote to pass an unconstitutional law?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#116 Jul 01 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Sadly, people would probably line up for that job. You wouldn't have to pay them.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#117 Jul 01 2013 at 10:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Samira wrote:

How else does a judiciary work in your world?


It doesn't, hence the post. It SHOULD work the way that I stated.

Smash wrote:

No, they should wait. Because unconstitutional laws are passed constantly, that's why we have lower courts that can address those issues. SCOTUS should only have to deal with the ones where there's debate, which there wouldn't be in your example. Understand? JSOC also shouldn't be out writing parking tickets. It's a hierarchical structure for a reason.


Waiting is expensive, long, negative to people's lives, therefore overall illogical. If something is already at the state level (which is what we've been talking about the whole time, not parking tickets), the SCOTUS should be able to step in when something is clearly unconstitutional.

Your definition of "debatable" is debatable. There are people who fervently believe that women shouldn't work in certain jobs or be only able to work in certain jobs (i.e. secretaries, school teachers, maids, etc.) (not to the extreme in my example).

You take a conservative state (i.e. Arizona), with people who believe in "legitimate rape" and it can very well create an environment that is blatantly unconstitutional. The majority doesn't equate to being right neither should it take someone to fight against the wrong doing for it to be changed.

There should be defined left and right limits. Everything in the middle is handled by the states. If you cross those lines, then and only then can the SCOTUS intervene. The fact that we are doing the things the way we are doing them now is the exact reason why it's taking years/decades of wasting time, money and effort to get something accomplished.

Furthermore, intervening doesn't mean directly changing state laws.The ban on SSM is either constitutional or its not. Make a decision and go with it. Stop wasting people's time, money and effort making people suffer while each state slowly decides to follow a constitutional law regardless of the topic.

You or no one else has yet provided a reason on why it shouldn't be that way other than "That's not the way its done".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#118 Jul 02 2013 at 12:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot

Smiley: lol.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#119 Jul 02 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,818 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Your definition of "debatable" is debatable.
Smiley: motz no u!


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#120 Jul 02 2013 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Samira wrote:
Sadly, people would probably line up for that job. You wouldn't have to pay them.
I'd expect at least full laundry services, ammunition and snack expenses.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#121 Jul 02 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Um, no.

The court refused to rule on Prop 8 for reasons that were completely unrelated to the subject matter. They didn't "stop short" and fail to go all the way with their ruling, they didn't rule at all.


Huh? They refused to rule on prop 8 because the "State of California" chose not to defend the law in court. They did not recognize that the interested parties who did step up and take the case had the authority to argue on behalf of the state. One can absolutely infer from the ruling on DOMA that had the California AG defended prop 8, it would have been ruled constitutional. So we have a case where the law in California is in a default "unconstitutional" state, not because it actually *is* unconstitutional, but because of procedural technicalities.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Jul 02 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
One can absolutely infer

Not really. But you said "absolutely" so I guess that counts for something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Jul 02 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,764 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Um, no.

The court refused to rule on Prop 8 for reasons that were completely unrelated to the subject matter. They didn't "stop short" and fail to go all the way with their ruling, they didn't rule at all.


Huh? They refused to rule on prop 8 because the "State of California" chose not to defend the law in court. They did not recognize that the interested parties who did step up and take the case had the authority to argue on behalf of the state. One can absolutely infer from the ruling on DOMA that had the California AG defended prop 8, it would have been ruled constitutional. So we have a case where the law in California is in a default "unconstitutional" state, not because it actually *is* unconstitutional, but because of procedural technicalities.


Only you would claim that it's a logical inference to go from "We refuse to rule on this matter because the enforcing party refuses to defend it" to "We refuse to rule on this matter because the enforcing party refuses to defend it, which totally **** us off because those gays are **** nasty."
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 Jul 02 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Um, no.

The court refused to rule on Prop 8 for reasons that were completely unrelated to the subject matter. They didn't "stop short" and fail to go all the way with their ruling, they didn't rule at all.


Huh? They refused to rule on prop 8 because the "State of California" chose not to defend the law in court. They did not recognize that the interested parties who did step up and take the case had the authority to argue on behalf of the state. One can absolutely infer from the ruling on DOMA that had the California AG defended prop 8, it would have been ruled constitutional. So we have a case where the law in California is in a default "unconstitutional" state, not because it actually *is* unconstitutional, but because of procedural technicalities.


Only you would claim that it's a logical inference to go from "We refuse to rule on this matter because the enforcing party refuses to defend it" to "We refuse to rule on this matter because the enforcing party refuses to defend it, which totally **** us off because those gays are @#%^ing nasty."


Huh? That doesn't even make sense. The decision they did reach regarding DOMA did not address the issue of whether **** relationships were protected, but rather ruled on the states rights angle. The ruling therefore rests on the fact that the states themselves have the right to decide what is and what is not a legal marriage and that the federal government must abide by each state's individual definition. This means that states are free to make that determination themselves. The court absolutely did not rule on the constitutionality of a state deciding not to extend that status to same **** couples, but the strong inference is that this is purely up to the states to decide.

Which in turn means that had the State of California actually defended prop 8, this court almost certainly would have ruled it constitutional by the same logic. Which was the point I was making. It puts California in an interesting legal limbo. Since the court refused on rule on the case for technical reasons, the lower federal court ruling stands, which effectively allows same **** marriage (in California, via technicality). However, there's an interesting twist to this. If say, someone sues another state which currently does not allow same **** marriage, and that state chooses to defend it, and that case goes before the Supreme Court, and the court does rule that states have the right to set their own marriage laws (thus saying that it's no more a violation of the constitution to disallow same **** marriages as to allow them), then guess what happens in California? It would revert to same **** marriage not being allowed because now the court would have ruled that prop 8 (or laws similar to it) were constitutional.


The point is that the question of whether it's a violation of some constitutional right for a state to not allow same **** couples to qualify for state marriage status remains undecided. More correctly, we've got the lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional. Which suggests that the next case brought in a no-gay-marriage state will arrive at the Supreme Court, but this time, assuming the state defends its law, we'll get a ruling. And it may not be what **** marriage advocates would want.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Jul 03 2013 at 5:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
The point is that the question of whether it's a violation of some constitutional right for a state to not allow same **** couples to qualify for state marriage status remains undecided. More correctly, we've got the lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional. Which suggests that the next case brought in a no-gay-marriage state will arrive at the Supreme Court, but this time, assuming the state defends its law, we'll get a ruling. And it may not be what **** marriage advocates would want.

Unlikely. The Kennedy language in the DOMA decision indicates a very likely 5/4 decision overturning such a ban. No one really wants that case, though. Not SCOTUS not HRC, not anyone. There's not really a good outcome available for either side.
____________________________
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 whore. 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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#126 Jul 05 2013 at 10:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
I like how over the years, I've been labeled as a bigoted closeted homophobe, but when I argue a method that could essentially enhance LBGT privileges "instantly" nationwide, it's given the same treatment.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#127 Jul 06 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I like how over the years, I've been labeled as a bigoted closeted homophobe, but when I argue a method that could essentially enhance LBGT privileges "instantly" nationwide, it's given the same treatment.....

Marriage equality?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#128 Jul 06 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Debalic wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I like how over the years, I've been labeled as a bigoted closeted homophobe, but when I argue a method that could essentially enhance LBGT privileges "instantly" nationwide, it's given the same treatment.....

Marriage equality?


I'm not sure what you're asking.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#129 Jul 06 2013 at 11:12 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
I haven't even read most of this thread. You're offering LBGT privileges? That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#130 Jul 07 2013 at 2:22 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Debalic wrote:
I haven't even read most of this thread. You're offering LBGT privileges? That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.


I'm not offering privileges. I'm offering a fairer and quicker way of handling such said issues. Admittedly, it was a partially loaded statement, but my focus was to address the irony. The irony of supporting a system that makes it harder for the aforesaid privileges.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Jul 08 2013 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Debalic wrote:
That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.
As long as they marry someone of the opposite sex, they're the same.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#132 Jul 08 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I haven't even read most of this thread. You're offering LBGT privileges? That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.


I'm not offering privileges. I'm offering a fairer and quicker way of handling such said issues. Admittedly, it was a partially loaded statement, but my focus was to address the irony. The irony of supporting a system that makes it harder for the aforesaid privileges.
You're not offering a fairer and quicker way of handling anything, just a pointless fantasy that would never work in real life.
____________________________
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.
#133 Jul 08 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,818 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I haven't even read most of this thread. You're offering LBGT privileges? That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.


I'm not offering privileges. I'm offering a fairer and quicker way of handling such said issues. Admittedly, it was a partially loaded statement, but my focus was to address the irony. The irony of supporting a system that makes it harder for the aforesaid privileges.

What post # was it in?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#134 Jul 08 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Debalic wrote:
I haven't even read most of this thread. You're offering LBGT privileges? That would mean giving them access to marriage same as straights.


I'm not offering privileges. I'm offering a fairer and quicker way of handling such said issues. Admittedly, it was a partially loaded statement, but my focus was to address the irony. The irony of supporting a system that makes it harder for the aforesaid privileges.
You're not offering a fairer and quicker way of handling anything, just a pointless fantasy that would never work in real life.


You obviously don't know what it is and/or don't understand, given the fact that's exactly how the business world operates. I understand that governing a nation isn't the same as running a business, but you're obviously clueless to label it a "pointless fantasy that would never work in real life". At this point you're just a tool who went with the default "Alma is stupid" as opposed to actually knowing what is going on. You can't even provide a logical counter... You can do better..

Edit:
Elinda wrote:

What post # was it in?


I recapped the concept in post #117. It's intermixed with a counter. It's sub-defaulted though, so make sure it isn't filtered.

Edited, Jul 9th 2013 2:14am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#135 Jul 09 2013 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,764 posts
The business world doesn't operate by searching out quicker and fairer methods of operation, it operates by trying to make things more efficient with regards to profit.

Justice isn't a simple measure of input vs. output. You can't just boil it down the same way you can a profit motive.

If my job is to generate profit, it's a simple matter. My first priority is to generate profit, my second priority is to maximize that profit (by increasing revenue and decreasing operating costs). Pesky laws and regulations, ethics, etc. are what stand in my way to do so.

If my job is to seek justice, it's far from simple.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#136 Jul 09 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Iddigory wrote:
The business world doesn't operate by searching out quicker and fairer methods of operation, it operates by trying to make things more efficient with regards to profit.


I didn't say that it did. I said that the concept that I'm proposing is how the business world operates. That same concept just so happens to be quicker and fairer methods of operations, which should be a huge concern as a government.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#137 Jul 09 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The point is that the question of whether it's a violation of some constitutional right for a state to not allow same **** couples to qualify for state marriage status remains undecided. More correctly, we've got the lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional. Which suggests that the next case brought in a no-gay-marriage state will arrive at the Supreme Court, but this time, assuming the state defends its law, we'll get a ruling. And it may not be what **** marriage advocates would want.

Unlikely. The Kennedy language in the DOMA decision indicates a very likely 5/4 decision overturning such a ban. No one really wants that case, though. Not SCOTUS not HRC, not anyone. There's not really a good outcome available for either side.


Looks like folks in Pennsylvania have different ideas. We'll see what happens with this one, but it seems less likely that the state will refuse to defend their own law in this case. Who knows though?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Jul 09 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,764 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Iddigory wrote:
The business world doesn't operate by searching out quicker and fairer methods of operation, it operates by trying to make things more efficient with regards to profit.


I didn't say that it did. I said that the concept that I'm proposing is how the business world operates. That same concept just so happens to be quicker and fairer methods of operations, which should be a huge concern as a government.



Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#139 Jul 09 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Iddigory wrote:
The business world doesn't operate by searching out quicker and fairer methods of operation, it operates by trying to make things more efficient with regards to profit.


I didn't say that it did. I said that the concept that I'm proposing is how the business world operates. That same concept just so happens to be quicker and fairer methods of operations, which should be a huge concern as a government.



Smiley: oyvey


My sentiments exactly. As with Athein, you have no idea what you're arguing against.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#140 Jul 11 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Looks like folks in Pennsylvania have different ideas. We'll see what happens with this one, but it seems less likely that the state will refuse to defend their own law in this case. Who knows though?

Political Wire wrote:
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) is expected to announce that her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on **** marriage, the Philadelphia Daily News reports.

"Pennsylvania is the sole state in the Northeast without same-sex marriage or a civil-union statute."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Jul 11 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
I was under the impression that standard protocol was to take gbaji's prediction, and put money on the polar opposite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Jul 11 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I was under the impression that standard protocol was to take gbaji's prediction, and put money on the polar opposite.


I said "less likely" (than in California), not "it wont happen". In California, there's close to zero odds that the folks in charge wont be Democrats through the entire process. In Pennsylvania, that could easily change in the time it takes this case to wind its way through the courts.

Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Jul 11 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
It's a silly but convenient way to move with the times I guess.
____________________________
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.
#144 Jul 11 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
It's a silly but convenient way to move with the times I guess.


It's a terrible use of "ends justify the means" though. If you have to use trickery to get your agenda through, you might want to reconsider what you're doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Jul 11 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
It's a silly but convenient way to move with the times I guess.


It's a terrible use of "ends justify the means" though. If you have to use trickery to get your agenda through, you might want to reconsider what you're doing.
Not really. If the state doesn't feel motivated to defend the law but isn't willing to change it either then it's better to leave it to someone else to defend it than to force them to defend something they don't want to defend which would only lead to a token defense anyway.
____________________________
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.
#146 Jul 11 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
It's a silly but convenient way to move with the times I guess.


It's a terrible use of "ends justify the means" though. If you have to use trickery to get your agenda through, you might want to reconsider what you're doing.
Are they appointed or elected? If they're appointed, then I agree. If elected, then disagree.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#147 Jul 11 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... And one's position on the issue aside, I still think it's complete BS for a state AG to refuse to defend the state law.
It's a silly but convenient way to move with the times I guess.


It's a terrible use of "ends justify the means" though. If you have to use trickery to get your agenda through, you might want to reconsider what you're doing.
Are they appointed or elected? If they're appointed, then I agree. If elected, then disagree.


Why does that make a difference? The job of an AG is to enforce/defend the laws of their respective jurisdiction, regardless of how they personally feel about that law. It's the job of the legislature to write the laws, the job of the executive to enforce/defend them, and the job of the judiciary to rule on how to interpret them. The AG is part of the executive branch. Whether elected or appointed, it's not his job to decide if a law is a good law or not. If the people don't like a law, they can elect a legislature that will change that law. That's how our votes affect our laws. When people elect an AG (or a president/governor who appoints one), it's usually not with much concern about that AG choosing *not* to defend a law in court. And choosing to do so can hardly be claimed in the name of serving the "will of the people" when the people clearly (and intentionally) elected legislatures who wrote that particular law (or in the case of California, those people voted directly on the law itself).


That's why it's BS.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Jul 11 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Also, I'll point out that the situation is still not identical anyway. In California, it was a special case because the law in question was passed by public referendum. I believe that the Pennsylvania law was passed by their legislature (don't feel like looking it up, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Assuming that is the case, then any member or group of members of said legislature can choose to defend the law. The California case was a special one because since the legislature didn't pass the law themselves, they were not legally a party to the laws creation, and thus could not defend it. And the Court ruled that "the people" didn't have standing to defend it either (which is why they handed it back to the lower court).

I happen to also think that was a bad decision for the court, not because of any effect on **** marriage, but because it sets a horrible precedent with regard to the creation of a huge gaping hole in the representation of the people with regards to public referendums. Several states have referendum processes, but now any referendum has less protection in the courts because of what I view as a short sighted decision. As suggested prior, any party to the creation (or maintenance) of a law can defend it if the AG of a state chooses not to. But the court just ruled that those parties have to be "official" in some way (ie: part of the state government). Which means that if the AG choose not to defend the law, no one can.

Which is IMO a much bigger issue than the **** marriage issue itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Jul 11 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
It makes a difference because if they're elected, then if he/she didn't do as the people wanted, then they'd be removed next cycle.

AG's always decide on what cases are worth their time and what aren't so this really isn't out of the ordinary.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#150 Jul 11 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It makes a difference because if they're elected, then if he/she didn't do as the people wanted, then they'd be removed next cycle.


Public pressure can require the person who appointed them to request their resignation though. We could argue that's technically quicker. Neither changes the fact that the AGs job isn't to decide what laws to defend though.

Quote:
AG's always decide on what cases are worth their time and what aren't so this really isn't out of the ordinary.


When prosecuting, yes. When defending the constitutionality of the law itself, it's generally assumed that this is part of their job description and not optional. Obviously, anything is optional if you want to be technical enough though. Hence why I said I think it's "BS", and not "illegal" or somesuch. Although one could make an argument that failing to do so qualifies as failing to "faithfully fulfill the duties of the office of ...", but that's still only subject to whatever pressure can be applied. Who's going to charge the AG with failure to fulfill his duty?


Kinda similar to the issues with the DoJ right now. Who watches the watchmen. When it's the part of our government which is charged with enforcing the law, which is either failing to do so or even breaking it themselves, who does something about that? I know that many people get so caught up on supporting "their side" that this sort of thing gets lost, but we really ought to be concerned about this kind of behavior by our government regardless of which "side" we're on and whether something happens to benefit us at the moment. It's just a bad practice to allow to happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Jul 11 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,551 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who watches the watchmen.


I read the comic YEARS before the movie came out!

Also, the AG may choose not to defend it if the AG feels that there is not a winnable case. Much like the AG may choose not to prosecute if there is not a winnable case. He was appointed or elected because he is a good attorney, and a good attorney knows when to hold 'em, knows when to fold 'em. Knows when to walk away, knows when to run.

Maybe that's not what an attorney knows, I forget.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT