Red Mosquito

Electromatic wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:I groan every time the same sex marriage topic comes up. I guess I just don't care.

To me, this should never have been a court case. It's ridiculous that the woman in this case had to pay the government $300,000 because her chosen spouse didn't have the proper gender.

DOMA was always ridiculous to me because I don't view that as a role of government. It's a great success for people who are homosexual but it's kind of silly that it is even that big a deal. It's a wrong that was righted and now people can go on about their lives, choose whomever they want to marry and have the same protections and frustrations everyone else has with the law.

It's like Jim Crow or Blue Laws.... just really stupid legislation.

Oh I know it's important for other people. I'm just looking back on my high school days when my political science class was forced to debate topics like gay-marriage. What's the point, I thought? It will be legal some day. It's inevitable. Let those people fight the system and they'll eventually win. But why do we hold these topics at such high priority? Because it makes us feel good that justice in America still works? When much of the rest of the world is thinkking, "Good for you. You've finally stated the obvious, America. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back" Or perhaps the cause needs the media for greater influence. Which might be the case, but it still annoys me.

It's the media's constant attention towards it. I have a big issue with the media. They try to dictate what I should and should not care about. Trayvon Martin being exhibit #1. Steve Jobs once had a quote, "The people don't know what they want until you show it to them." t seemed the media took that quote and spun it and said, "The people don't know what they want...until you shove it down their throats and force them to care."

Sorry, long rant.

Harry Lime wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:I groan every time the same sex marriage topic comes up. I guess I just don't care.

To me, this should never have been a court case. It's ridiculous that the woman in this case had to pay the government $300,000 because her chosen spouse didn't have the proper gender.

DOMA was always ridiculous to me because I don't view that as a role of government. It's a great success for people who are homosexual but it's kind of silly that it is even that big a deal. It's a wrong that was righted and now people can go on about their lives, choose whomever they want to marry and have the same protections and frustrations everyone else has with the law.

It's like Jim Crow or Blue Laws.... just really stupid legislation.

Oh I know it's important for other people. I'm just looking back on my high school days when my political science class was forced to debate topics like gay-marriage. What's the point, I thought? It will be legal some day. It's inevitable. Let those people fight the system and they'll eventually win. But why do we hold these topics at such high priority? Because it makes us feel good that justice in America still works? When much of the rest of the world is thinkking, "Good for you. You've finally stated the obvious, America. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back" Or perhaps the cause needs the media for greater influence. Which might be the case, but it still annoys me.

It's the media's constant attention towards it. I have a big issue with the media. They try to dictate what I should and should not care about. Trayvon Martin being exhibit #1. Steve Jobs once had a quote, "The people don't know what they want until you show it to them." t seemed the media took that quote and spun it and said, "The people don't know what they want...until you shove it down their throats and force them to care."

Sorry, long rant.

I hear you, I'm overall completely negative on our Political, Judicial and Medical systems in this country. They are all generally worthless and yet we're talking about a fucking TV cook.

.

Electromatic wrote:It's a wrong that was righted and now people can go on about their lives, choose whomever they want to marry and have the same protections and frustrations everyone else has with the law.

* in 12 states. In the rest, there's still the added and unnecessary frustration.

I've heard a few times now that this "paves the way" for legal gay marriage everywhere, because it was a broader ruling, citing equal protection. Do people here agree with that assessment? I don't really know enough about the judicial process (or history) to comment. I hope so.

Rob wrote:

Electromatic wrote:It's a wrong that was righted and now people can go on about their lives, choose whomever they want to marry and have the same protections and frustrations everyone else has with the law.

* in 12 states. In the rest, there's still the added and unnecessary frustration.

I've heard a few times now that this "paves the way" for legal gay marriage everywhere, because it was a broader ruling, citing equal protection. Do people here agree with that assessment? I don't really know enough about the judicial process (or history) to comment. I hope so.

I think it's more like "another brick in the path". Kennedy could have weaseled out of the EPC path by striking down DOMA on federalism grounds, but he didn't. So that's significant, and a promising sign. He also would have ruled on the merits in the Prop 8 case, but (in a real tease to the non-lawyer public) didn't elaborate on how he would have ruled. After reading a bit, the speculation seems to go down two lines of thought:
--Kennedy simply wasn't ready to declare SSM across the whole nation, and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan went down the non-standing route in hopes that he'd be ready a few years from now.
--Or, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan had legitimate concerns about standing in that case, and that they're confident that this issue will come again in a more justiciable case.

I would be cautiously optimistic, though--and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a lawsuit within the next few months in a state where standing isn't going to be an issue.

The left starts to get nervous....

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... ressure-to

Justice Ginsburg Won’t Bow To Liberal Pressure To Retire Before 2016
Catherine Thompson 10:09 AM EDT, Thursday July 4, 2013

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she'll resist any pressure from liberals to retire from the bench so that President Barack Obama may nominate her replacement before the November 2016 presidential elections, Reuters reported Thursday.

"It really has to be, ‘Am I equipped to do the job?'" Ginsburg told Reuters in an interview Tuesday. "I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect."

Ginsburg, 80, said her new "model" was Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired after almost 35 years on the bench at 90 years old, according to Reuters.

In an interview with The New Yorker earlier this year, Ginsburg said she wouldn't be stepping down in 2013.

Joe Paterno has laid out why no one should hold highly important positions past 75 or even 70 but that said this president picking anyone is probably bad for the country.

Electromatic wrote:Joe Paterno has laid out why no one should hold highly important positions past 75 or even 70 but that said this president picking anyone is probably bad for the country.

Stevens was fine when he retired at 90. Hell, even at 93 today he could still do fine on the Court.

I'll take your word for it GH. I was only speaking generally.

Electromatic wrote:I'll take your word for it GH. I was only speaking generally.

Generally, I think you're not that far off base. A lot of people have suggested term limits for justices, but I don't like that. One idea that I haven't seen suggested yet is an age limit of say, 55 or 60. It wouldn't have made sense at the Founding, but might make so now with today's life expectancies.

RBG rolls the dice...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:I think it’s going to be another Democratic president. The Democrats do fine in presidential elections; their problem is they can’t get out the vote in the midterm elections.

Meanwhile, the Court's new term opens on Monday, and we've got a couple of humdingers to start off the season:

--McCutcheon v. FEC (another campaign finance case testing whether an limit on aggregate contributions is unconstitutional)
--Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (whether a statewide ban on usage of race-based preferences violates the Equal Protection Clause)

Regardless of what you think of his viewpoints, Scalia sure does know how to make interviews entertaining. All eight pages are good reads.

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

Rut roh.

Green Habit wrote:Rut roh.

Not surprising given how conservative the current Court has been with campaign financing.

Mitchell wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Rut roh.

Not surprising given how conservative the current Court has been with campaign financing.

@SkitchP wrote:

Mitchell wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Rut roh.

Not surprising given how conservative the current Court has been with campaign financing.

Good. It's a stupid rule.

@SkitchP wrote:

Mitchell wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Rut roh.

Not surprising given how conservative the current Court has been with campaign financing.

guys, bring mitchell back.

Props to Richard Posner for admitting that he was wrong on voter ID laws. Now it's time for Stevens to admit that he screwed up as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... 74890.html

Down go the aggregrate contribution limits.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 6_e1pf.pdf