The Liberal Supreme Court

124678

Replies

  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I'll say this: Roberts opinions in the ACA case and the gay marriage seem irreconciliable. Why would he go one way in the ACA case and the other way in the gay marriage case? In actuality, he didn't. In BOTH CASES, Roberts attempted to give effect to the principle of judicial restraint. With the ACA case, even though his opinion is sorta ridiculous and obviously wrong as a matter of common English usage, one can see that he was attempting to defer to the legislative branch. I think it would have been better to simply apply Chevron Deference to the ACA, but still, I can see where Roberts was going and what he was doing.

    But I can also see how his dissent in the gay marriage case makes sense. In that case he is deferring to the states, rather than to the Congress, but the prudential principle is the same.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Congrats. You just proved his point. Disagree with the gay politburo, and you're being hateful.

    Its not enough to win, is it? Everyone must also agree, or they're unreconstructed bigots.

    No call them facsists and you are hateful. But if you do not hate gays, why would you want to deny them basic human rights?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Richard's point exactly. You can disagree with Roe, but not gay marriage. Hell, you don't even have to think there's anything wrong with gay marriage, all you have to think is that it's not protected by the Constitution.

    Show me where I have said this. Your buddy called them fascists. This was not about the constitution. I am fine that Sherb and I disagree on that, even though he is not.

    To be honest if the court found the other way, I would be fine with it. As Sherb stated we were going to win in the state houses eventually anyway. But if you are willing to set yourself on fire over this, I fail to see how that is not hateful.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    As a human (albeit a Ginger) does Buffy have the right to say gay marriage is immoral without being called a bigot?
    I feel perfectly fine calling anybody who says Buffy is a bigot a fascist. And I don't hate gays.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    No call them facsists and you are hateful. But if you do not hate gays, why would you want to deny them basic human rights?

    Are you kidding me?

    Epstein is a well-known libertarian. He flat out said that he supported the adoption of Gay Marriage by the states. He just doesn't think the constitution mandates it. Which pace Anthony Kennedy, it clearly does not.

    Basic human rights. . .holy ****. 15 years ago this issue didn't even exist, and now opposition to the FORM (not the substance) of how its implemented is hateful?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    sorta ridiculous and obviously wrong as a matter of common English usage

    The word state is pretty commonly used to designate government in general. There is no way in hell that the writers intended for the subsidies to only go to states with their own exchange and those writers testified as much. To find the other way would have been ridiculously pedantic.

    state
    stāt/
    noun
    noun: state; plural noun: states

    1.
    the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
    "the state of the company's finances"
    synonyms: condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position; More
    predicament, plight
    "the state of the economy"
    a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure.
    "water in a liquid state"
    informal
    an agitated or anxious condition.
    noun: a state
    "don't get into a state"
    synonyms: fluster, frenzy, fever, fret, panic, state of agitation/anxiety; More
    informalflap, tizzy, dither, stew, sweat
    "don't get into a state"
    informal
    a dirty or untidy condition.
    "look at the state of you—what a mess!"
    synonyms: mess, chaos, disorder, disarray, confusion, muddle, heap, shambles; More
    clutter, untidiness, disorganization, imbroglio
    "your room is in a state"
    Physics
    short for quantum state.
    2.
    a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
    "Germany, Italy, and other European states"
    synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
    "an autonomous state"
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    As a human (albeit a Ginger) does Buffy have the right to say gay marriage is immoral without being called a bigot?
    I feel perfectly fine calling anybody who says Buffy is a bigot a fascist. And I don't hate gays.

    Just to be clear none of us would be bigots or fascists for hating gingers right?

    [/thinking about packing bag for Canada...again]
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The word state is pretty commonly used to designate government in general. There is no way in hell that the writers intended for the subsidies to only go to states with their own exchange and those writers testified as much. To find the other way would have been ridiculously pedantic.

    state
    stāt/
    noun
    noun: state; plural noun: states

    1.
    the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
    "the state of the company's finances"
    synonyms: condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position; More
    predicament, plight
    "the state of the economy"
    a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure.
    "water in a liquid state"
    informal
    an agitated or anxious condition.
    noun: a state
    "don't get into a state"
    synonyms: fluster, frenzy, fever, fret, panic, state of agitation/anxiety; More
    informalflap, tizzy, dither, stew, sweat
    "don't get into a state"
    informal
    a dirty or untidy condition.
    "look at the state of you—what a mess!"
    synonyms: mess, chaos, disorder, disarray, confusion, muddle, heap, shambles; More
    clutter, untidiness, disorganization, imbroglio
    "your room is in a state"
    Physics
    short for quantum state.
    2.
    a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
    "Germany, Italy, and other European states"
    synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
    "an autonomous state"

    yeah. Clever. Courts don't use Webster's. They used the definition given in the statute. Read the opinion, and then tell me if "state" means anything other than the states and not the federal government.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The word state is pretty commonly used to designate government in general.

    I don't think a single justice bought this argument. In fact, they laughed at Verrilli when he tried this in his argument. (Not to mention, it would make the 10th Amendment completely meaningless).
    Roberts' argument was that Congress wouldn't pass a law that was designed to fail, therefore "established by the State," in the instance of subsidies could be ignored.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Well they certainly rejected the argument that it clearly stated the intent to deny subsidies to persons in states without an exchange.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Basic human rights. . .holy ****. 15 years ago this issue didn't even exist, and now opposition to the FORM (not the substance) of how its implemented is hateful?

    I find libertarians to be a bunch of annoying Ayn Rand worshipers.

    And then he called them fascists. How is that not hateful?

    We cannot agree that the right to happiness is a basic human right?

    You are developing a tendency to reading my posts selective. I said more than once that not agreeing with this decision does not make you a bigot. Can you show me even once where I have suggested that you were a bigot? Because if you can find it, I will say it was not my intent and I will delete it.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I find libertarians to be a bunch of annoying Ayn Rand worshipers.

    And then he called them fascists. How is that not hateful?

    We cannot agree that the right to happiness is a basic human right?

    You are developing a tendency to reading my posts selective. I said more than once that not agreeing with this decision does not make you a bigot. Can you show me even once where I have suggested that you were a bigot? Because if you can find it, I will say it was not my intent and I will delete it.

    No, you didn't. But you are saying that other people who are not bigots are in fact bigots, and this mirrors the worst and most illiberal tendencies of the left. Its a good way to shut down debate, but as an argument its terrible and sophomoric.

    And since you don't know anything about Ayn Rand, you think maybe you could read a couple of her books before you continue to spout nonsense?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    As a human (albeit a Ginger) does Buffy have the right to say gay marriage is immoral without being called a bigot?
    I feel perfectly fine calling anybody who says Buffy is a bigot a fascist. And I don't hate gays.

    They do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs, it is when they feel that their beliefs allow them to take rights away from someone who disagrees they are bigots and I am actually quite comfortable in saying that.

    The people saying it is immoral are also calling them pedophiles and supporting the government in Uganda murdering gay people.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Well they certainly rejected the argument that it clearly stated the intent to deny subsidies to persons in states without an exchange.

    Yes, as noted in post 102, because Roberts decided it made no sense. He didn't even rely on Chevron.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    They do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs, it is when they feel that their beliefs allow them to take rights away from someone who disagrees they are bigots and I am actually quite comfortable in saying that.

    You realize this makes no sense, right? You can believe whatever you want to believe, unless its the wrong belief. Then you're a bigot.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    No, you didn't. But you are saying that other people who are not bigots are in fact bigots, and this mirrors the worst and most illiberal tendencies of the left. Its a good way to shut down debate, but as an argument its terrible and sophomoric.

    And since you don't know anything about Ayn Rand, you think maybe you could read a couple of her books before you continue to spout nonsense?

    So I am not to take her at her word when in interviews she thinks the only true morality is self satisfaction and calling Social Security fascism? BTW she took it when she needed it. I have to read her books to have an opinion on the crap she spews directly from her mouth?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    They do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs, it is when they feel that their beliefs allow them to take rights away from someone who disagrees they are bigots and I am actually quite comfortable in saying that.

    So, if Buffy says he's going to vote for a Presidential candidate that will work to stack the Supreme Court with justices that will over turn this decision, he should be denounced as a bigot?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    You realize this makes no sense, right? You can believe whatever you want to believe, unless its the wrong belief. Then you're a bigot.

    Okay so when a religious zealot believes that his religion allows him to make homosexuality a crime, he is not a bigot? Would that not be a form of fascism?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    So I am not to take her at her word when in interviews she thinks the only true morality is self satisfaction and calling Social Security fascism? BTW she took it when she needed it. I have to read her books to have an opinion on the crap she spews directly from her mouth?

    I think it would sharpen your arguments. I didn't think much of her either, but someone convinced me to read a couple of her books. They aren't great literature or anything, but there is more to her than just caricature. And I think it would force you to reckon with why you believe the things you believe.

    I'm also not a libertarian. But her critique of liberal democracy must be answered. Her opinions can in fact be rebutted, but it takes work.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    So, if Buffy says he's going to vote for a Presidential candidate that will work to stack the Supreme Court with justices that will over turn this decision, he should be denounced as a bigot?

    Should he be called tolerant?

    But if it had only to do with his beliefs on what a good constitutional decision would have been no. If he is doing it just because he believes that he must deny them this right by any means necessary, how can you say not?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    he should be left alone to say what he wants.

    Is the Pope a bigot?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Should he be called tolerant?

    zooming out, one can clearly see that we are in a period of ascendant cultural liberalism. And that means that the left gets to decide the terms of the debate. Henceforth we must all hew to their definitions of what constitutes tolerance and what constitutes bigotry.

    This isn't an argument. It assumes that the debate is over, and now there is only one correct position on any given social issue. But opposition to a given position only counts as bigotry if in fact the issue is beyond debate. Which I don't think it necessarily is. Sullivan, for example, never assumed that he didn't have to make his case for gay marriage. He knew that fundamentally altering an ancient social institution would take work and persuasion. It never would have occurred to Sullivan that opposition to such a change would count as bigotry.

    Don't take my word for it. Go read.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    he should be left alone to say what he wants.

    Is the Pope a bigot?

    Absolutely. He's anti-Catholic. (I read it on the internet so it must be true - even if I'm the one who wrote it, right? Asking for a friend)
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The "Honeymoon" thread just reminded me of something else Richard said...both the ACA decision and the Gay Marriage decision were unbelievably pro-Big Business.

    He also said that the decisions were the best thing that could happen to the Republicans in 2016 (but I had already figured that).
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    How so? What makes you think that?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    For the more moderate Republicans, the decisions (particularly the ACA decision) take a lot off the table.

    Boehner can barely control the Tea Party. Imagine a scenario in which millions of Americans were suddenly not getting the subsidies beginning January 1 2016. Sane Republicans would have tried a temporary fix (say extending the subsidies until 1/1/17. But that would only be after a bruising battle with the Tea Party which wants Obamacare die (despite not having a real alternative). Now Republicans can talk about repealing Obamacare (which most Americans hate) without potential voters feeling the pain until after the election. It's ACA redux.

    Same kind of deal with the gay marriage thing. Somebody like Bush or Rubio can say the Supreme Court decided and it's the law of the land, while pledging to only appoint conservative originalists, who may someday find the opportunity to overturn the decision. This will make the base happy and not really scare off any independents.

    It was a bad week for the Republic but a great week for Republicans.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I'll buy that.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,933 Senior Member
    They do not have a problem with anyone's beliefs, it is when they feel that their beliefs allow them to take rights away from someone who disagrees they are bigots and I am actually quite comfortable in saying that.

    The people saying it is immoral are also calling them pedophiles and supporting the government in Uganda murdering gay people.

    Wait a minute. I've never said either of those things, and I do believe it is immoral behavior.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    After all these years, you've never learned anything. Democrats are individuals who all can think for themselves. Republicans all think the same because Rush Limbaugh told us how to think.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    zooming out, one can clearly see that we are in a period of ascendant cultural liberalism. And that means that the left gets to decide the terms of the debate. Henceforth we must all hew to their definitions of what constitutes tolerance and what constitutes bigotry.

    This isn't an argument. It assumes that the debate is over, and now there is only one correct position on any given social issue. But opposition to a given position only counts as bigotry if in fact the issue is beyond debate. Which I don't think it necessarily is. Sullivan, for example, never assumed that he didn't have to make his case for gay marriage. He knew that fundamentally altering an ancient social institution would take work and persuasion. It never would have occurred to Sullivan that opposition to such a change would count as bigotry.

    Don't take my word for it. Go read.

    Here is an idea, why don't you read what is being said by the people that are being called bigots, they are not the people that are opposed solely to gay marriage, they are opposed to the entire idea of gays being allowed to live their lives in a free society, they call them pedophiles. Are you going to sit here and tell me that Bryan Fischer is a tolerant man?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.