Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on September 18, 2020, 04:36:48 PM
-
.
https://share.par.pw/post/168f08531e814435984a1648e61e220d
-
All the more reason not to elect this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NKtxk1v/Ei-JHf-r-X0-Ak-KMj-X.jpg)
-
Since this election won't be decided for months after November 3rd with these mail in ballots they won't let Trump pick someone. Trump if he beats the election fraud we won't have another Supreme court justice for probably six months.
-
Since this election won't be decided for months after November 3rd with these mail in ballots they won't let Trump pick someone. Trump if he beats the election fraud we won't have another Supreme court justice for probably six months.
True.
RIP to her, but the democrats forced her to hold onto that spot for far too long, they are terrible people.
-
Shit is about to get interesting.
-
Trump needs to push someone foward asap!
-
gee thats terrible.... she was one tough bitch tho........ cancer for 20 years.. she has my respect for that.
-
Shit is about to get interesting.
I thought we were already there, but now, watch out! It’s like M. Night Shyamalan wrote a screenplay during a meth binge.
-
Trump needs to push someone foward asap!
Cant do it...would be easily stalled before election but I'm sure he'll tey
-
Trump needs to push someone foward asap!
Is there any question that the Democrats would do that?
If you thought the circus they created around Kavannaugh was bad.......just wait.
-
Ginsburg's death comes just weeks before Democrats hope to win the White House and potentially a Senate majority, given Joe Biden's lead in the polls. But Republicans will hold the Senate at least until Jan. 3, and Trump the presidency at least until Jan. 20, giving them a chance to gain a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
National Public Radio reported that Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter shortly before her death, in which she said: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
The president and Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have little time to nominate and confirm a successor before facing voters. If they lose the White House or Senate in November, Republicans might have a harder time confirming a Trump nominee during a lame-duck session at year's end. But McConnell has vowed to "leave no vacancy behind."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-234532489.html
-
Ginsburg's death comes just weeks before Democrats hope to win the White House and potentially a Senate majority, given Joe Biden's lead in the polls. But Republicans will hold the Senate at least until Jan. 3, and Trump the presidency at least until Jan. 20, giving them a chance to gain a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
National Public Radio reported that Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter shortly before her death, in which she said: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
The president and Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have little time to nominate and confirm a successor before facing voters. If they lose the White House or Senate in November, Republicans might have a harder time confirming a Trump nominee during a lame-duck session at year's end. But McConnell has vowed to "leave no vacancy behind."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-234532489.html
(https://metrosource.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Wayland-Flowers-and-Madame.png)
-
I don't really give a fuck about her fervent wishes.
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NauticalFavoriteFattaileddunnart-small.gif)
-
I don't really give a fuck about her fervent wishes.
But it’s in the Constitution, Article 3, Section 4, Fervent Wishes. ;D
-
But it’s in the Constitution, Article 3, Section 4, Fervent Wishes. ;D
My fervent wish is that people in government would stop clinging to their power until they fucking die of old age.
-
Not to be morbid...but looks like I got some points here:
[1] Alex Trebek
[2] Chris Rea
[3] Harry Reid
[4] Ruth Ginsburg
[5] Ian McKellen
-
Trump needs to fill the spot ASAP
-
What was she, 113? Fuck sake.
-
Fuck that evile creature. She held on from pure(ile) spite. That fucubus hated our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and every single American that is American.
I hope that there is a Hell and she is burning in it for eternity.
I can hear Straw Man and Prime now...The wailing. The moaning. The weeping and gnashing of dentures. Music to our ears. That vile creature is gone. Ding Dong the Bitch is Dead.
-
Kirk Douglas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Prince Andrew
Prince Phillip
Ron Coleman
Tekashi 6ix9ine
#1 and #2 so far....I definitely should have put the disgusting soggy old queer #3.
-
True.
RIP to her, but the democrats forced her to hold onto that spot for far too long, they are terrible people.
In your head. She held on to it out of her own beliefs. You know better than this
-
I remember when Mitch McConnell put forth the argument under Obama that since it was February and the election was in November that they should allow the next president to choose. Now all you God fearing Americans on this board that are Republican, who really thinks Mitch is gonna say that now?
-
I remember when Mitch McConnell put forth the argument under Obama that since it was February and the election was in November that they should allow the next president to choose. Now all you God fearing Americans on this board that are Republican, who really thinks Mitch is gonna say that now?
Well, that's politics....you know, like when Harry Reid said he had proof that Romney didn't pay his taxes - and later on when called on the blatant lie - Reid said "he didn't win did he?".
-
I remember when Mitch McConnell put forth the argument under Obama that since it was February and the election was in November that they should allow the next president to choose. Now all you God fearing Americans on this board that are Republican, who really thinks Mitch is gonna say that now?
;D. ;D
;D ;D
-
.
-
Trump needs to fill the spot ASAP
I’m sure he will. Under 50 days left I can’t see him missing this opportunity
-
The dumb bitch Sotomayor said that a judge's job is to legislate from the bench.
Excuse me?
A judge's job is to ENFORCE LAW, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THOSE LAWS OR NOT. It is up to lawmakers/legislators to actually change the laws.
Whether those laws are fair or not. A good Supreme Court judge [or good judge, period] will enforce the laws as written.
-
Cant do it...would be easily stalled before election but I'm sure he'll tey
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-supreme-court-nominee-vote-floor
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/?fbclid=IwAR2LLsVfPVXxGXOZl9JwrqcELO0kDlFD-fX_SlTfZpICUc9qejOFmV-bAtY
-
The dumb bitch Sotomayor said that a judge's job is to legislate from the bench.
Excuse me?
A judge's job is to ENFORCE LAW, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THOSE LAWS OR NOT. It is up to lawmakers/legislators to actually change the laws.
Whether those laws are fair or not. A good Supreme Court judge [or good judge, period] will enforce the laws as written.
The Supreme Courts job is to enforce the constitution and to ensure that law passed by Congress are constitutional... but I get what you are saying
While I vehemently disagree with most (if not all of Ginsburgs record) I do respect her story... I can disagree with someone without hating them.
That being said - I do hope there is a chance to install a new justice that isn’t so radically left... we need a true Libertarian justice - one that understands that the federal government should be as SMALL as possible.
-
Quote the Raven never more.
-
I remember when Mitch McConnell put forth the argument under Obama that since it was February and the election was in November that they should allow the next president to choose. Now all you God fearing Americans on this board that are Republican, who really thinks Mitch is gonna say that now?
Cocaine Mitch said this was only when the Senate and President were of different parties. Try again
-
Ginsburg's death comes just weeks before Democrats hope to win the White House and potentially a Senate majority, given Joe Biden's lead in the polls. But Republicans will hold the Senate at least until Jan. 3, and Trump the presidency at least until Jan. 20, giving them a chance to gain a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
National Public Radio reported that Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter shortly before her death, in which she said: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
The president and Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have little time to nominate and confirm a successor before facing voters. If they lose the White House or Senate in November, Republicans might have a harder time confirming a Trump nominee during a lame-duck session at year's end. But McConnell has vowed to "leave no vacancy behind."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-234532489.html
If your last words to your granddaughter are about politics, you have wasted your life
-
.
-
Cant do it...would be easily stalled before election but I'm sure he'll tey
Shut up, you idiot.
-
The dumb bitch Sotomayor said that a judge's job is to legislate from the bench.
Excuse me?
A judge's job is to ENFORCE LAW, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THOSE LAWS OR NOT. It is up to lawmakers/legislators to actually change the laws.
Whether those laws are fair or not. A good Supreme Court judge [or good judge, period] will enforce the laws as written.
The Supreme Courts job is to enforce the constitution and to ensure that law passed by Congress are constitutional... but I get what you are saying
While I vehemently disagree with most (if not all of Ginsburgs record) I do respect her story... I can disagree with someone without hating them.
That being said - I do hope there is a chance to install a new justice that isn’t so radically left... we need a true Libertarian justice - one that understands that the federal government should be as SMALL as possible.
The job of the Judicial Branch (federal courts and judges) of the US government is to interpret the laws.
The job of the Executive Branch (the president, vice president, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees) is to enforce the laws.
The job of the Legislative Branch (Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate) is to make the laws.
-
Not a lawyer here, but does anyone else find the idea of appointing a judge "for life" a little ridiculous?
Views change, people evolve, neurological deficits due to age can ensue and it just seems like a bad idea. Nothing should just be set in stone with a few exceptions of course. Just like I firmly believe the constitution should be revamped given that we are no longer living in those times, I think fresh judges should be brought in after at least 4 years.
You can have a tyrant at the Supreme Court for life and it would be very difficult to remove that person (even if majority vote rules there).
"1"
-
Not a lawyer here, but does anyone else find the idea of appointing a judge "for life" a little ridiculous?
Views change, people evolve, neurological deficits due to age can ensue and it just seems like a bad idea. Nothing should just be set in stone with a few exceptions of course. Just like I firmly believe the constitution should be revamped given that we are no longer living in those times, I think fresh judges should be brought in after at least 4 years.
You can have a tyrant at the Supreme Court for life and it would be very difficult to remove that person (even if majority vote rules there).
"1"
It is foolish and not something much considered at the time they passed the Constitution. It doesn't actually say they are appointed "for life" it says during "good behaviour" which was interpreted as for life. Horseshit. Should be max 75, max.
-
In your head. She held on to it out of her own beliefs. You know better than this
This is where we differ. She was forced to hold onto it by the dnc, just like Biden is being forced to run for President. Every decision she's been involved in for the last several years should be reviewed, her treatments and drug regimen had put her in a mentally unstable position for years.
If you were to take Trump out of it and view her as a regular person, you would see it. That was somebodies grandmother that was taken advantage of because of a position of power that she held. Terrible.
-
Not a lawyer here, but does anyone else find the idea of appointing a judge "for life" a little ridiculous?
Views change, people evolve, neurological deficits due to age can ensue and it just seems like a bad idea. Nothing should just be set in stone with a few exceptions of course. Just like I firmly believe the constitution should be revamped given that we are no longer living in those times, I think fresh judges should be brought in after at least 4 years.
You can have a tyrant at the Supreme Court for life and it would be very difficult to remove that person (even if majority vote rules there).
"1"
I don't agree with your constitution statement but I don't think judges should be appointed for life, there should be term limits, in every branch, at every level of government.
-
Ginsburg's death comes just weeks before Democrats hope to win the White House and potentially a Senate majority, given Joe Biden's lead in the polls. But Republicans will hold the Senate at least until Jan. 3, and Trump the presidency at least until Jan. 20, giving them a chance to gain a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
National Public Radio reported that Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter shortly before her death, in which she said: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
The president and Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have little time to nominate and confirm a successor before facing voters. If they lose the White House or Senate in November, Republicans might have a harder time confirming a Trump nominee during a lame-duck session at year's end. But McConnell has vowed to "leave no vacancy behind."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-234532489.html
She would have had to have hung on 4 more years to see another president installed.
-
Trump needs to appoint a black gay hardcore rightwing republican .... this way when the dems try to pick him/her apart he/she can just yell back "you're being racist and homophobic" to every question
-
Crazy woman PISSED OFF that RBG died while Trump's in office:
-
Trump needs to appoint a black gay hardcore rightwing republican .... this way when the dems try to pick him/her apart he/she can just yell back "you're being racist and homophobic" to every question
Is Vince right wing enough? :-\
-
😉
-
.
-
:-X
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjXmDN/Ei-PXfg-PXg-AEsbvo.jpg)
-
:-X
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjXmDN/Ei-PXfg-PXg-AEsbvo.jpg)
Exactly. I'm guessing it'll be Straw Man in drag. FTN.
-
:D
-
Crazy woman PISSED OFF that RBG died while Trump's in office:
Was going to post this. And no, it’s not an act.
-
That woman is incredibly annoying.
-
Libtards. Bunch of Emos.
-
:-X
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8sjXmDN/Ei-PXfg-PXg-AEsbvo.jpg)
She will be a women, so this might be harder to push this false narrative.
-
Maybe someone has mentioned this already but something occurred to me. How do we know that Ginsburg just now died?
Is it possible that she's been dead for a while but they held off letting it go public until closer to the election? That way they can have a better chance to stop a Trump appointed replacement from being confirmed. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. Demoncunts will go to great lengths in order to get their way.
-
Maybe someone has mentioned this already but something occurred to me. How do we know that Ginsburg just now died?
Is it possible that she's been dead for a while but they held off letting it go public until closer to the election? That way they can have a better chance to stop a Trump appointed replacement from being confirmed. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. Demoncunts will go to great lengths in order to get their way.
Could be, she's been out of the spotlight for a long time.
-
Could be, she's been out of the spotlight for a long time.
I have no idea when the last time we got proof of life on this woman.
-
I have no idea when the last time we got proof of life on this woman.
At least several months.
-
AOC wants all Bolsheviks to radicalize!
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1307378855804645376 (https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1307378855804645376)
-
Crazy woman PISSED OFF that RBG died while Trump's in office:
LMAO! Mental illness personified.
-
Maybe someone has mentioned this already but something occurred to me. How do we know that Ginsburg just now died?
Is it possible that she's been dead for a while but they held off letting it go public until closer to the election? That way they can have a better chance to stop a Trump appointed replacement from being confirmed. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. Demoncunts will go to great lengths in order to get their way.
1000% this is exactly what happened imo AND will energize their voting base as its another incentive to make sure they vote out "orange man bad"
-
Maybe someone has mentioned this already but something occurred to me. How do we know that Ginsburg just now died?
Is it possible that she's been dead for a while but they held off letting it go public until closer to the election? That way they can have a better chance to stop a Trump appointed replacement from being confirmed. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. Demoncunts will go to great lengths in order to get their way.
We don't know. It's possible she died months ago. It's a typical commie, liabatd move.
"After defecting from Venezuela, former bodyguard for Chávez, Leamsy Salazar, stated that he died in December 2012, nearly three months before the 5 March 2013 date was officially announced.
In July 2018, former Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz also said that Chávez had actually died in December 2012 and the announcement of his death was delayed for political reasons. In an interview cited by Venezuelan daily El Nacional, the former Chávez supporter said that the Venezuelan president died on 28 December 2012, but his closest allies decided to delay the announcement and never submitted the death certificate to the Office of the Attorney General.
The supposed delay in announcing Chávez's death raised concerns that laws signed in his name during that period were forged for political purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiRCSKyXYAA-okc?format=jpg&name=4096x4096).
:CurbYourEnthusiasmMusic:.
-
Not saddened in the slightest.
Another statist, anti Constitution piece of shit.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CFUm6oEptCY/
-
-
I think after trump wins again they are going to need to redefine "Trail of Tears" in the history books
liberals on my FB feed are already having a meltdown
-
All the more reason not to elect this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NKtxk1v/Ei-JHf-r-X0-Ak-KMj-X.jpg)
Over the years, I’ve seen thousands of get big threads and I’d say about 80% of the time the first response is the best😂😂
-
LMAO! Mental illness personified.
;D that was priceless.
-
Was going to post this. And no, it’s not an act.
White people.... ::)
-
White people.... ::)
As if.
Now think, no...Really think about this Count Chocula (or do you prefer Count Cucula or Count Cocula or maybe Frankenferry?):
"Pick a card. Any card. Is this your card?
Think. I'm bettin' you pick the "race" card. Again.
Oh, by the way...It's called writing. Typist.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiRCSKyXYAA-okc?format=jpg&name=4096x4096).
:CurbYourEnthusiasmMusic:.
Just about the only time I've seen McConnell smile was when he spoke of installing 2 SCOTUS. He will go to bat on this one.
Odds are on Amy Coney Barrett, her name has been around for a while but she's Catholic - with RBG having been Jewish and Kushner's strong influence that may be a problem.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/4930/Who-will-be-Trump's-next-Supreme-Court-nominee
The country badly needs a more strict constitutional court as the contested elections and other fuckery will never end if dems think they can run to the courts.
-
I don't agree with your constitution statement but I don't think judges should be appointed for life, there should be term limits, in every branch, at every level of government.
But also not four. If they are good, they should get 8-10 years. Presidents get up to two terms. Elected for life? He'll no.
-
On a bad day with a lot of alcohol involved, I might plow Kamala Harris in the shitpipe.
-
.
-
I heard the Democrats plan to pack the Supreme Court a soon as they are able to (May God forbid it).
-
I heard the Democrats plan to pack the Supreme Court a soon as they are able to (May God forbid it).
Yep, and this will start a shitshow every 8 years when the new party in power will just add Supreme Court justices. Eventually will have a hundred judges on the court.
-
Yep, and this will start a shitshow every 8 years when the new party in power will just add Supreme Court justices. Eventually will have a hundred judges on the court.
This country is quickly becoming a banana republic. The Democrats are causing it with their evil schemes and the Republicans are enabling it with their weakness and incompetence.
Trump is one of a tiny handful of people in Washington that are worth a shit. Most of them are selling our country out to enrich themselves and they are willing to burn the whole thing down to get their way.
If there was anyplace better or more free to run to I'd seriously consider bailing on this sinking ship.
-
As if.
Now think, no...Really think about this Count Chocula (or do you prefer Count Cucula or Count Cocula or maybe Frankenferry?):
"Pick a card. Any card. Is this your card?
Think. I'm bettin' you pick the "race" card. Again.
Oh, by the way...It's called writing. Typist.
Shut the fuck up you porridge wog. I didnt ask you to respond Groundskeeper Willie
-
My fervent wish is that people in government would stop clinging to their power until they fucking die of old age.
So then you support term and/or maximum age limits?
-
So then you support term and/or maximum age limits?
No question. We can all debate what the limits should be, but I'm completely against lifetime appointments.
-
The dumb bitch Sotomayor said that a judge's job is to legislate from the bench.
Excuse me?
A judge's job is to ENFORCE LAW, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THOSE LAWS OR NOT. It is up to lawmakers/legislators to actually change the laws.
Whether those laws are fair or not. A good Supreme Court judge [or good judge, period] will enforce the laws as written.
Sounds like someone skipped civics class: a key role of the judiciary is to interpet the law. On top of that, Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have the power of judicial review. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, all the way back from 1803 for the implications of that.
-
No question. We can all debate what the limits should be, but I'm completely against lifetime appointments.
I’m with you on that.
-
I heard the Democrats plan to pack the Supreme Court a soon as they are able to (May God forbid it).
I’d be fine with expanding the Supreme Court to, say, 15 provided that each case drew a random lot of 7 Justices and the decision was final with no possibility of an en banc rehearing.
-
I’d be fine with expanding the Supreme Court to, say, 15 provided that each case drew a random lot of 7 Justices and the decision was final with no possibility of an en banc rehearing.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FwYyTHMm50f4Dm%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FwYyTHMm50f4Dm%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
Fair enough but why?
If the concern is packing the Court, the random lot provision should prevent an attempt at packing from being effective. In fact having random lots would make it very tricky for any side to manipulate the Court by pushing cases for cert at a time that’s beneficial to them (that is when they feel they have a majority. It’s simple math, really: 7 random members from a 15 member pool translates to 6,435 distinct panels.
The random lot process also means that the Court will be able to avoid cases where the absence of a single Justice could mean a tie.
You could have a total of 13 Justices (one for each Court of Appeals) and have their terms set to expire so that one seat opens up per year, naturally forcing a rotation.
-
RBG wanted 9, thought 9 was the optimal number.
Video from her NPR interview here - https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1307395289960132611 .
-
Fair enough but why?
If the concern is packing the Court, the random lot provision should prevent an attempt at packing from being effective. In fact having random lots would make it very tricky for any side to manipulate the Court by pushing cases for cert at a time that’s beneficial to them (that is when they feel they have a majority. It’s simple math, really: 7 random members from a 15 member pool translates to 6,435 distinct panels.
The random lot process also means that the Court will be able to avoid cases where the absence of a single Justice could mean a tie.
You could have a total of 13 Justices (one for each Court of Appeals) and have their terms set to expire so that one seat opens up per year, naturally forcing a rotation.
I haven't fully researched or considered this idea so take this with a grain of salt.......but my initial reaction is that you would end up with highly inconsistent rulings.
-
I haven't fully researched or considered this idea so take this with a grain of salt.......but my initial reaction is that you would end up with highly inconsistent rulings.
That’s not an unreasonable concern, but then again are existing decisions “consistent”? And, really, do we care for consistency or do we care for good, objective and unbiased decisions?
Consider the situation we’re in right now. Assume Trump manages to appoint someone and the Court’s majority becomes a consistent 6-3 and that holds for, say, a decade. People who believe the current Court favors their positions will push to have cases heard by the Court, in the hopes for a favorable outcome.
Don’t think of this in terms of your specific political beliefs. Ask yourself if you’d feel differently if the new Justice was someone so liberal that it made RBG seem ideologically close to Antonin Scalia, and the addition would cement a 6-3 majority.
A random panel, selected from a larger pool, would make it more difficult for that to happen, which is always a good thing, in my opinion..
-
No political position should be for life, elected or appointed. Neither should their pay.
-
That’s not an unreasonable concern, but then again are existing decisions “consistent”? And, really, do we care for consistency or do we care for good, objective and unbiased decisions?
Consider the situation we’re in right now. Assume Trump manages to appoint someone and the Court’s majority becomes a consistent 6-3 and that holds for, say, a decade. People who believe the current Court favors their positions will push to have cases heard by the Court, in the hopes for a favorable outcome.
Don’t think of this in terms of your specific political beliefs. Ask yourself if you’d feel differently if the new Justice was someone so liberal that it made RBG seem ideologically close to Antonin Scalia, and the addition would cement a 6-3 majority.
A random panel, selected from a larger pool, would make it more difficult for that to happen, which is always a good thing, in my opinion..
Here's the problem as I see it with the court. We have radical judges that disregard the Constitution. They don't want to interpret the law, they want to legislate from the bench. They consider things like international law in their opinions. The role of the court is pretty clear but like everything it's now been politicized up the ass (mostly by Democrats). There's a lot I could say on this topic but I'm not sure this is the place or if I would even want to. In simple terms, I want originalist judges on the court which in my opinion is the only thing that makes sense. I have no idea why someone would want international law or modern societal interpretations guiding decisions. To me it's insane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
-
Shut the fuck up you porridge wog. I didnt ask you to respond Groundskeeper Willie
You’d catfish yourself. You are gonna have to think hard on that one, Count Cucula.
-
Here's the problem as I see it with the court. We have radical judges that disregard the Constitution.
Genuine question: Can you provide a specific instance of a Judge explicitly disregarding the Constitution?
They don't want to interpret the law, they want to legislate from the bench. They consider things like international law in their opinions.
I’d need to know more about the specific instances you are concerned with; it’s possibly relevant to consider things like International law if such law is part of a treaty that the U.S. has ratified; see of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution for more on this.
Also note that the Constitution imposes few restrictions on the Supreme Court and how it is to interpret laws.
I also find it amusing to suggest that using international law is, somehow, abhorrent, when so much of our legal system and jurisprudence is based on English common law and has been adopted by the early Court.
The role of the court is pretty clear but like everything it's now been politicized up the ass (mostly by Democrats).
If it’s pretty clear, perhaps you could tell us, in your own words, what it is?
As for politicization, the Court has, sadly, been politicized and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. No better proof of that exists than the flip-flopping that Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and company are now engaged in: holding up the Garland nomination because of the upcoming election was their “sacred duty” then, so the “People” could get a say; now, with an election even closer, the “People” can go fuck themselves and the Senators wants to fulfill their “sacred duty” and confirm the nominee. What’s the difference? Who made the nomination. What was the deciding factor? Politics.
There's a lot I could say on this topic but I'm not sure this is the place or if I would even want to. In simple terms, I want originalist judges on the court which in my opinion is the only thing that makes sense. I have no idea why someone would want international law or modern societal interpretations guiding decisions. To me it's insane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Again, international law may be relevant to the case at hand. Remember the Court also has original jurisdiction in cases arising out of “maritime jurisdiction” which, under an Originalist interpretation, involves things the law of the High Seas, which was basically the international law of its day.
As for desire for originalism, you’ll need to be more specific. For example, is it originalism, to you, to say that the 6th Amendment affords a Defendant the right to Counsel but doesn’t explicitly require that one must be provided by the Court to defendants who cannot afford one, and the Court “invented” that right in Gideon v. Wainwright?
Do you believe it is appropriate for the Courts to decide that, say, the Fourth Amendment against searches and seizures applies to computers and data residing inside a computer by arguing that “papers and effects” applies to digital documents today just as it did to actual paper documents back in the day even though the Founders couldn’t imagine a computer or a “digital document”?
Do you believe that the originalist interpretation of the “full faith and credit” clause requires a State that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage to accept, as married, a gay couple that was married in a State they does?
Would you favor disbanding the Air Force because, under an originalist reading of the Constitution, Congress was only empowered to create the Army and Navy? If not, why not?
I’m not trying to challenge you; I too believe that Originalism has its place in our jurisprudence and would prefer to avoid judges expanding the scope of the Constitution too much, regardless of whether they do so in a direction I approve or disapprove. However, strict originalism has its own issues and they’re serious.
The beauty of our Constitution is it’s succinctness. It doesn’t focus too much on issues of a particular time period (references to the importation of slaves aside and 1808 aside) but focuses on first principles. It’s why it has survived, relatively unaltered, for as long as it has: bevause it remains relevant.
Other countries have Constitutions spanning hundreds of pages, enumerating in excruciating detail, issues very specific to the time period in which they were written. And they’re worse for it because of that.
I’ll leave you with one last thing about originalism: the concept of judicial review itself is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, yet the early Court adopted it. I doubt you’ll find an originalist that claims that was an activist decision by the Court. Ask yourself what that means about strict originalism.
-
We all die one day. This is tough.
-
Genuine question: Can you provide a specific instance of a Judge explicitly disregarding the Constitution?
I’d need to know more about the specific instances you are concerned with; it’s possibly relevant to consider things like International law if such law is part of a treaty that the U.S. has ratified; see of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution for more on this.
Also note that the Constitution imposes few restrictions on the Supreme Court and how it is to interpret laws.
I also find it amusing to suggest that using international law is, somehow, abhorrent, when so much of our legal system and jurisprudence is based on English common law and has been adopted by the early Court.
If it’s pretty clear, perhaps you could tell us, in your own words, what it is?
As for politicization, the Court has, sadly, been politicized and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. No better proof of that exists than the flip-flopping that Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and company are now engaged in: holding up the Garland nomination because of the upcoming election was their “sacred duty” then, so the “People” could get a say; now, with an election even closer, the “People” can go fuck themselves and the Senators wants to fulfill their “sacred duty” and confirm the nominee. What’s the difference? Who made the nomination. What was the deciding factor? Politics.
Again, international law may be relevant to the case at hand. Remember the Court also has original jurisdiction in cases arising out of “maritime jurisdiction” which, under an Originalist interpretation, involves things the law of the High Seas, which was basically the international law of its day.
As for desire for originalism, you’ll need to be more specific. For example, is it originalism, to you, to say that the 6th Amendment affords a Defendant the right to Counsel but doesn’t explicitly require that one must be provided by the Court to defendants who cannot afford one, and the Court “invented” that right in Gideon v. Wainwright?
Do you believe it is appropriate for the Courts to decide that, say, the Fourth Amendment against searches and seizures applies to computers and data residing inside a computer by arguing that “papers and effects” applies to digital documents today just as it did to actual paper documents back in the day even though the Founders couldn’t imagine a computer or a “digital document”?
Do you believe that the originalist interpretation of the “full faith and credit” clause requires a State that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage to accept, as married, a gay couple that was married in a State they does?
Would you favor disbanding the Air Force because, under an originalist reading of the Constitution, Congress was only empowered to create the Army and Navy? If not, why not?
I’m not trying to challenge you; I too believe that Originalism has its place in our jurisprudence and would prefer to avoid judges expanding the scope of the Constitution too much, regardless of whether they do so in a direction I approve or disapprove. However, strict originalism has its own issues and they’re serious.
The beauty of our Constitution is it’s succinctness. It doesn’t focus too much on issues of a particular time period (references to the importation of slaves aside and 1808 aside) but focuses on first principles. It’s why it has survived, relatively unaltered, for as long as it has: bevause it remains relevant.
Other countries have Constitutions spanning hundreds of pages, enumerating in excruciating detail, issues very specific to the time period in which they were written. And they’re worse for it because of that.
I’ll leave you with one last thing about originalism: the concept of judicial review itself is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, yet the early Court adopted it. I doubt you’ll find an originalist that claims that was an activist decision by the Court. Ask yourself what that means about strict originalism.
I appreciate your posts and the genuine nature with which you are asking questions. It would take a while for me to fully articulate my point of view on a lot of this stuff and provide the supporting evidence that you asked for. The fact is that I'm too tired and pissed off these days now to do a deep dive like that. Generally speaking I try to avoid going into that level of detail on complex issues like this because it's not very enjoyable. It's much easier to just complain about stuff and give my pithy and amusing opinions. ;D I hope you understand.
-
I understand. And certainly, deep philosophical discussions on politics are a little pointless, though I do appreciate the conversation. Now, I don’t know about you could use another set or two of biceps curls or triceps push downs. ;D
-
I understand. And certainly, deep philosophical discussions on politics are a little pointless, though I do appreciate the conversation. Now, I don’t know about you could use another set or two of biceps curls or triceps push downs. ;D
Probably one of the most common over steps with the Supreme court is completely disregarding the 10th amendment. The Constitution is very specific as to the powers of the Federal government. It is very limited and the rest is left to the States. This was to prevent centralize power that always leads to totalitarianism.
Roe vs Wade is a prime example. When Republicans talk about overturning Roe vs. Wade it is always interpretated as making abortion illegal. No, that is not the case. Roe vs. Wade was just bad law. It should be repealed as it is not for the Federal government to decide. It should have been left to the States. Before Roe vs. Wade abortions were legal in twenty states.
Other laws like the Brady bill was also unconstitutional. It is left to the States to determine their own gun laws.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-
I understand. And certainly, deep philosophical discussions on politics are a little pointless, though I do appreciate the conversation. Now, I don’t know about you could use another set or two of biceps curls or triceps push downs. ;D
Cheers
Curls or tricep push downs? No, I can't. If my arms were any more perfect women would start mobbing me and causing a scene every time I leave the house. Other men would become despondent and start killing themselves because they can't live up to my arm development. I have to limit my curls and tricep work for the safety of others. I wouldn't want anyone to be injured in the stampede when the women are trying desperately to get close to me. It very sad really.
-
This wretch is so pro-Ginsburg that she wishes she had been aborted:
-
You’d catfish yourself. You are gonna have to think hard on that one, Count Cucula.
LOL
-
Fuck that evile creature. She held on from pure(ile) spite. That fucubus hated our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and every single American that is American.
I hope that there is a Hell and she is burning in it for eternity.
I can hear Straw Man and Prime now...The wailing. The moaning. The weeping and gnashing of dentures. Music to our ears. That vile creature is gone. Ding Dong the Bitch is Dead.
She was pro abortion. So I say good riddance.
-
Democrats: Trump must replace Ginsburg NOW!
They argue for why Trump should fill the vacancy before the election. 9 is the number of SCOTUS judges Democrats say there must be at all times.
-
This is going to happen. Get used to it.
-
Ginsburg comes out as pro-Trump. From her crypt, she tells the Senate to "wake up" and understand that Trump's power "continues into year four".
“The president is elected for four years, not three years,” she added. “So the power that he has in year three continues into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
What Ginzboyg said in 2016: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/22/ginsburg-in-2016-presidents-power-to-fill-scotus-for-four-years-not-three-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29 (https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/22/ginsburg-in-2016-presidents-power-to-fill-scotus-for-four-years-not-three-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29)
Watch her say it:
in other news...
Corporate dribblers don Ruth Bader Ginsburg uniforms to honor abortionists:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdcjQkr0/article-7054-1.jpg)
-
This is going to happen. Get used to it.
I certainly hope so. It's exactly what the Democrats would do if they were in this position, they've said so.
I don't understand why the Republican's always have so many fucking turncoats in their party but I wish they would all fuck off so we can get some actually Republicans in those seats.
-
Genuine question: Can you provide a specific instance of a Judge explicitly disregarding the Constitution?
I’d need to know more about the specific instances you are concerned with; it’s possibly relevant to consider things like International law if such law is part of a treaty that the U.S. has ratified; see of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution for more on this.
Also note that the Constitution imposes few restrictions on the Supreme Court and how it is to interpret laws.
I also find it amusing to suggest that using international law is, somehow, abhorrent, when so much of our legal system and jurisprudence is based on English common law and has been adopted by the early Court.
If it’s pretty clear, perhaps you could tell us, in your own words, what it is?
As for politicization, the Court has, sadly, been politicized and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. No better proof of that exists than the flip-flopping that Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and company are now engaged in: holding up the Garland nomination because of the upcoming election was their “sacred duty” then, so the “People” could get a say; now, with an election even closer, the “People” can go fuck themselves and the Senators wants to fulfill their “sacred duty” and confirm the nominee. What’s the difference? Who made the nomination. What was the deciding factor? Politics.
Again, international law may be relevant to the case at hand. Remember the Court also has original jurisdiction in cases arising out of “maritime jurisdiction” which, under an Originalist interpretation, involves things the law of the High Seas, which was basically the international law of its day.
As for desire for originalism, you’ll need to be more specific. For example, is it originalism, to you, to say that the 6th Amendment affords a Defendant the right to Counsel but doesn’t explicitly require that one must be provided by the Court to defendants who cannot afford one, and the Court “invented” that right in Gideon v. Wainwright?
Do you believe it is appropriate for the Courts to decide that, say, the Fourth Amendment against searches and seizures applies to computers and data residing inside a computer by arguing that “papers and effects” applies to digital documents today just as it did to actual paper documents back in the day even though the Founders couldn’t imagine a computer or a “digital document”?
Do you believe that the originalist interpretation of the “full faith and credit” clause requires a State that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage to accept, as married, a gay couple that was married in a State they does?
Would you favor disbanding the Air Force because, under an originalist reading of the Constitution, Congress was only empowered to create the Army and Navy? If not, why not?
I’m not trying to challenge you; I too believe that Originalism has its place in our jurisprudence and would prefer to avoid judges expanding the scope of the Constitution too much, regardless of whether they do so in a direction I approve or disapprove. However, strict originalism has its own issues and they’re serious.
The beauty of our Constitution is it’s succinctness. It doesn’t focus too much on issues of a particular time period (references to the importation of slaves aside and 1808 aside) but focuses on first principles. It’s why it has survived, relatively unaltered, for as long as it has: bevause it remains relevant.
Other countries have Constitutions spanning hundreds of pages, enumerating in excruciating detail, issues very specific to the time period in which they were written. And they’re worse for it because of that.
I’ll leave you with one last thing about originalism: the concept of judicial review itself is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, yet the early Court adopted it. I doubt you’ll find an originalist that claims that was an activist decision by the Court. Ask yourself what that means about strict originalism.
excellent post
-
If that photo of the NBA players dressed up like Ruth isn't a photoshop they definitely need to turn in their man cards. The NBA jumped the shark a long time ago.
-
If that photo of the NBA players dressed up like Ruth isn't a photoshop they definitely need to turn in their man cards. The NBA jumped the shark a long time ago.
It's a photoshop but there's nothing they wouldn't do to please the right people.
-
It's a photoshop but there's nothing they wouldn't do to please the right people.
That's why I had to ask.
-
'No Accident': Conservative Pastor Says His Prayer Responsible for Ruth Bader Ginsberg's Death
BY JEFFERY MARTIN ON 9/22/20 AT 5:22 PM EDT
Video Player is loading.Pause
Unmute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration1:00
QualityFullscreen
President Trump Says He Will Nominate A New Supreme Court Justice 'Very Soon,' Will Be A 'Woman'
SHARE
U.S.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG
TEXAS
EVANGELICALS
PRO-LIFE
Conservative Texas pastor Robert Henderson of Waco's Radiant Church said Sunday that Ruth Bader Ginsburg died because he prayed for it to happen.
Ginsburg passed away Friday at the age of 87 after a battle with pancreatic cancer. During her tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ginsburg was an outspoken advocate of women's rights including the right to have an abortion. Henderson claimed that Ginsburg represented a "lion spirit" within the court system that God wanted to be removed.
Henderson said he told a meeting of Washington, D.C. evangelicals that they
"'need to ask for a judgment against the lion that has actually been devouring and intends to devour from the Supreme Court. We need to get a judgment against this lion that Paul said God shut the mouth of.' So, I led us into that place."
"Well, guess what?" Henderson continued. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away. President [Donald] Trump will establish a new Supreme Court justice. That's no accident."
NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
Henderson said that allowing abortion in the U.S. was allowing demons to make their presence known. "It's not just about the babies," Henderson said, "it's about a blood altar that is inviting demonic powers."
Newsweek reached out to Radiant Church for comment.
ruth bader ginsburg
Texas pastor Robert Henderson said on Sunday that the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a direct answer to his prayers. Ginsburg died Friday at 87.
MARK WILSON/GETTY
Henderson has been a longtime supporter of President Trump. In January, Henderson claimed that Trump spoke to him on the phone during a prophetic dream. During that conversation, President Trump asked Henderson to serve as his "running mate."
NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
"I knew he wasn't asking me to be his vice president," Henderson said during an interview with televangelist Jim Bakker. "But I knew that God was asking me to run in the spirit with him."
While Ginsburg's passing was mourned by many, some pro-life lawmakers viewed her death as a victory for their cause. On Friday, Georgia Republican Representative Doug Collins tweeted, "RIP to the more than 30 million babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonald Trump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live."
-
'No Accident': Conservative Pastor Says His Prayer Responsible for Ruth Bader Ginsberg's Death
BY JEFFERY MARTIN ON 9/22/20 AT 5:22 PM EDT
Video Player is loading.Pause
Unmute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration1:00
QualityFullscreen
President Trump Says He Will Nominate A New Supreme Court Justice 'Very Soon,' Will Be A 'Woman'
SHARE
U.S.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG
TEXAS
EVANGELICALS
PRO-LIFE
Conservative Texas pastor Robert Henderson of Waco's Radiant Church said Sunday that Ruth Bader Ginsburg died because he prayed for it to happen.
Ginsburg passed away Friday at the age of 87 after a battle with pancreatic cancer. During her tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ginsburg was an outspoken advocate of women's rights including the right to have an abortion. Henderson claimed that Ginsburg represented a "lion spirit" within the court system that God wanted to be removed.
Henderson said he told a meeting of Washington, D.C. evangelicals that they
"'need to ask for a judgment against the lion that has actually been devouring and intends to devour from the Supreme Court. We need to get a judgment against this lion that Paul said God shut the mouth of.' So, I led us into that place."
"Well, guess what?" Henderson continued. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away. President [Donald] Trump will establish a new Supreme Court justice. That's no accident."
NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
Henderson said that allowing abortion in the U.S. was allowing demons to make their presence known. "It's not just about the babies," Henderson said, "it's about a blood altar that is inviting demonic powers."
Newsweek reached out to Radiant Church for comment.
ruth bader ginsburg
Texas pastor Robert Henderson said on Sunday that the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a direct answer to his prayers. Ginsburg died Friday at 87.
MARK WILSON/GETTY
Henderson has been a longtime supporter of President Trump. In January, Henderson claimed that Trump spoke to him on the phone during a prophetic dream. During that conversation, President Trump asked Henderson to serve as his "running mate."
NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
"I knew he wasn't asking me to be his vice president," Henderson said during an interview with televangelist Jim Bakker. "But I knew that God was asking me to run in the spirit with him."
While Ginsburg's passing was mourned by many, some pro-life lawmakers viewed her death as a victory for their cause. On Friday, Georgia Republican Representative Doug Collins tweeted, "RIP to the more than 30 million babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonald Trump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live."
::)
-
All I know is after she’s (hoping Amy Coney Barrett) confirmed, we’ll be that much closer to abolishing Roe v. Wade and repealing Obamacare
-
All I know is after she’s (hoping Amy Coney Barrett) confirmed, we’ll be that much closer to abolishing Roe v. Wade and repealing Obamacare
I like Amy, but I think he will choose the Cuban american women from Florida. She will help him seal the deal in Fl.
-
All I know is after she’s (hoping Amy Coney Barrett) confirmed, we’ll be that much closer to abolishing Roe v. Wade and repealing Obamacare
Curious: why do you believe that repealing Roe v Wade is important? What, specifically, is your issue with the case and in what way do you believe it to be incorrectly decided?
As for Obamacare, plenty wrong with the law, but how is it not judicial activism to have the Court overturn a law that the people’s representatives voted for? Or is judicial activism abhorrent to you only when the “activism” goes against your positions, and wonderful when it coincides with your beliefs?
-
Ginsburg comes out as pro-Trump. From her crypt, she tells the Senate to "wake up" and understand that Trump's power "continues into year four".
“The president is elected for four years, not three years,” she added. “So the power that he has in year three continues into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
What Ginzboyg said in 2016: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/22/ginsburg-in-2016-presidents-power-to-fill-scotus-for-four-years-not-three-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29 (https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/22/ginsburg-in-2016-presidents-power-to-fill-scotus-for-four-years-not-three-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29)
Watch her say it:
I'm really glad to see that she agrees that Trump was elected for (at least) 4 years and it's his right and responsibility to fill her seat.
-
There's a video of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's personal trainer doing pushups in front of her coffin. So, somebody compositing a bunch of people cross training and doing one-arm push ups all around her casket.
Video: https://twitter.com/SirWilliamScot5/status/1309606437681868801 (https://twitter.com/SirWilliamScot5/status/1309606437681868801)
All these people are training in the video link above. It's like her whole life was about fitness or something. :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS2VN7NS/ginzzz.jpg)
Joe Biden jerked off a 10 lb. dumbbell out of respect.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwtTjQ5z/savetweetvid-Eiysbideb-Xk-TXk-AAb9-WW.gif)
-
I hope that there is a Hell and she is burning in it for eternity.
there most certainly is a hell.. and i believe that u know so, deep down.
repentance can, perhaps, still b yours - just barely... salvation thru Christ... is the only way.
always has been.... always will b.
hell.... is one hell of a price to pay – for foolish pride.
-
Curious: why do you believe that repealing Roe v Wade is important? What, specifically, is your issue with the case and in what way do you believe it to be incorrectly decided?
As for Obamacare, plenty wrong with the law, but how is it not judicial activism to have the Court overturn a law that the people’s representatives voted for? Or is judicial activism abhorrent to you only when the “activism” goes against your positions, and wonderful when it coincides with your beliefs?
Women's rights vs. a baby's right to life?
-
I just got off the Ghost Phone with Ruthie. She said she was lied to. It's not a "dry heat".
Fuck that bitch to Hades.
-
Women's rights vs. a baby's right to life?
Great point and raises a great many issues. Let’s walk through some of them together, shall we?
1. When does a fetus stop being a fetus and becomes a baby? Is the clump of cells that exists a second after conception a baby? What about a week later? Two weeks? A month?
2. A “right” can’t impose obligations on others. Your right to free speech doesn’t require anyone to provide you with a megaphone. My right to bear arms doesn’t require anyone to provide me with a free S&W. Our “right to life” doesn’t require anyone to provide us with the barest necessities of life: food & water. A fetus is entirely dependent on the woman carrying it, so its “right to life” actually is very different than all these other rights, which begs the question: is it a right at all?
3. If a fetus does, indeed, have a right to life, why is it not illegal for women to do things that might or surely do increase the risk to their fetus? Why not prevent them from drinking? Why not force them to eat nutritious meals? Why not prevent them from participating is potentially dangerous activities like playing sports or riding bikes?
4. If a fetus is entitled to all the rights and protections afforded citizens, why aren’t children conceived in the U.S., U.S. citizens? Why is birth the “cutoff”? Seems wrong, doesn’t it?
5. Where, exactly, in the Constitution is there a reference to a “right to life”?
Don’t interpret these questions as indicative of my support of abortion; I find it to be both barbaric and sick and I don’t think I’d ever opt for one for myself if I were a woman. But my personal feelings about abortion are just that: my personal feelings. I don’t believe that they should be the law of the land or they others should have to placate me or be reduced from “human” to “gestation chamber” for a period of time.
-
If the abortion law is changed it will probably be state by state and not a federal mandate.
-
If the abortion law is changed it will probably be state by state and not a federal mandate.
I would be fine with that in theory. The irony is that those shouting “let the States” decide are the first to scream about the need for Federal action, perhaps even an Amendment if the States make a decision they disagree with.
-
If the abortion law is changed it will probably be state by state and not a federal mandate.
If put to a state vote, not sure how many would repeal but certainly many states would restrict further.
-
Women's rights vs. a baby's right to life?
With the issue of Roe v Wade. It was not an argument about the right to life but rather who should decide. It was just bad law. It was not for the Federal court to decide. It should have been left to the States. If it was the issue would not be what it is now and if Roe v Wade is overturned this would not out law abortion. Before Roe about 13 States already legalize abortion.
It is clear in the Constitution and in the 10 amendment. The Constitution was to limit and decentralize government power. It is having activist judges that want to make law that is one of main battles we are fighting. Even if Trump loses, he has change the make up of the court for decades and I believe that will have more of an impact on our culture and society whether or not he wins reelection. One of the things I would worry about if Biden wins is that someone on the Left will assassinate one of the conservative judges so that Biden can appoint a Liberal. That doesn't seem to be that difficult because they don't have the security that other politicians often have.
-
With the issue of Roe v Wade. It was not an argument about the right to life but rather who should decide. It was just bad law. It was not for the Federal court to decide. It should have been left to the States. If it was the issue would not be what it is now and if Roe v Wade is overturned this would not out law abortion. Before Roe about 13 States already legalize abortion.
It is clear in the Constitution and in the 10 amendment. The Constitution was to limit and decentralize government power. It is having activist judges that want to make law that is one of main battles we are fighting. Even if Trump loses, he has change the make up of the court for decades and I believe that will have more of an impact on our culture and society whether or not he wins reelection. One of the things I would worry about if Biden wins is that someone on the Left will assassinate one of the conservative judges so that Biden can appoint a Liberal. That doesn't seem to be that difficult because they don't have the security that other politicians often have.
The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote.
-
The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote.
Correct-O-Mundo!
They legislate to mutilate. FTN, my brother!
-
The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote.
Both sides try to use the Court as a means to an end: to advance their agenda. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only one side does or does more often.
-
Both sides try to use the Court as a means to an end: to advance their agenda. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only one side does or does more often.
Examples on the right?
-
Examples on the right?
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
As a follow up to Hobby Lobby and whatever your personal opinion about Obamacare is, are conservatives not currently and actively trying to undercut the ACA by having the Court gut legislation that they don’t have the votes to repeal? Is that not judicial activism and not unlike what they accuse the left of perpetrating?
-
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
As a follow up to Hobby Lobby and whatever your personal opinion about Obamacare is, are conservatives not currently and actively trying to undercut the ACA by having the Court gut legislation that they don’t have the votes to repeal? Is that not judicial activism and not unlike what they accuse the left of perpetrating?
All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.
-
All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.
That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.
Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.
The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?
-
Hobby Lobby isn't required to offer health insurance at all.
-
That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.
Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.
The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?
As is often the case, what starts out as a benefit eventually begins to be considered an entitlement. The whole business of employers providing benefits, including health care, began when once again the government inserts itself into a free market which only should concern the buyer and the seller. Employee benefits were created to bypass the price control and restriction government placed on employers. They were not allow to pay above a certain rate. So because they couldn't give raises to keep or recruit good qualified employees they hade to figure out another way to compensate them and give them an incentive to work for them due to the labor shortage caused by the war.
It was purely the purview of the employer as to what benefits they could offer. After all, it was coming out of their pocket. Consistent with the natural tendency often expressed with the adage, "Give them a foot and they want a yard." More demands for more benefits increased. Now we are at the point where, due to political pressure, insurance has to cover things like viagra and birth control. Nothing to do with the health of the person.
In a free market, anyone can give or not give you anything they want. It should be up to the employer to pay you whatever they want, give or not give you any vacation or sick time or maternity leave, or even health insurance. It is up the prospective employee to decide whether ot not he will accept whatever terms are offered.
-
Hobby Lobby isn't required to offer health insurance at all.
Haha! I wish I read this post before I wrote my post. You essentially said the same thing as I did except in one sentence.
But Matt still beats me as far as verbosity.
-
That's one interpretation, sure. But you asked for cases which the right politicized and those cases were all heavily politicized, especially Hobby Lobby. But see, what you're doing is this: you treat cases that you agree with as "acceptable" and disregard political bias by virtue of the fact that you agree with those cases. Conversely, cases that you disagree with must surely be biased because, well, you disagree with them.
Let's talk about Hobby Lobby: here's a case where an employer basically wants to insert itself between a doctor and a patient and decide that certain medical legal procedures are not to be allowed. You claim that the decision "maximizes" individual freedoms; it may maximize them for some, sure, but it savagely curtails them for others so it's not as cut and dry as you suggest.
The cathecism of the Catholic Church considers birth control to be a sin. Would you be OK with your employer saying "Sorry Mr. Narcissist, you can't get that vasectomy because our CEO is Catholic and believes it's a sin"? What about an employer whose religious views which boil down to "Prayer Heal"? Can he get away with providing no health insurance at all? Can your boss tell you to stop getting vaccinated because he believes vaccines cause autism? More broadly, which of your boss' personal religious beliefs are to be ~shoved down your throat~ considered in connection with your healthcare?
When living in Torrance, CA. I often went to the Little Company of Mary which is a privately own Catholic hospital. They would not perform abortions. I think there is a huge chasm in trying to make a moral equivalence between abortion, the killing of a nascent human life, and a vasectomy, but nonetheless I think I get the gist of your argument. I don't know what the stand was regarding vasectomies were at the hospital but yes, as a private business, they do have the right not to prefer that procedure. In fact, I believe they have the right to not provide any procedure they don't want to for any reason or no reason. Little Company of Mary is a private business. You, as a prospective patient, are the customer. A customer does not have the right to tell a business what kind of service or products he thinks they should or want them to provide.
-
All of those cases are to limit government power and maximize individual freedoms.
Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.
In the Masteroiece Cakeshop case, where the bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. It is not required that an employee be forced to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.
-
Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.
In the case where, for instance, that bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. Is is not required that an employee be force to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.
The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise. Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree.
-
When living in Torrance, CA. I often went to the Little Company of Mary which is a privately own Catholic hospital. They would not perform abortions. I think there is a huge chasm in trying to make a moral equivalence between abortion, the killing of a nascent human life, and a vasectomy, but nonetheless I think I get the gist of your argument. I don't know what the stand was regarding vasectomies were at the hospital but yes, as a private business, they do have the right not to prefer that procedure. In fact, I believe they have the right to not provide any procedure they don't want to for any reason or no reason. Little Company of Mary is a private business. You, as a prospective patient, are the customer. A customer does not have the right to tell a business what kind of service or products he thinks they should or want them to provide.
No no, what you're saying is an entirely different thing and something which I mostly agree with. It's one thing for a hospital or a doctor to not wish to perform a procedure. Hobby Lobby was a case where an employer tailored the health insurance plan it provided to its employees that refused to cover certain procedures that it found morally objectionable.
-
The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise. Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree.
Uhm, newsflash: the "Left" successfully passed Obamacare, a huge part of the left's "agenda". Who's trying to use the Courts to undo it after failing to repeal it?
-
Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.
I have no beef in the whole "gay wedding" thing; frankly, I don't care who you marry or how you get off provided that it only involves consenting adults; beyond that knock yourself out.
The issue, here, or at least how I see it, is that the State confers several "benefits" to married couples: rights of survivorship, the right to make decisions for your spouse if he or she is in the hospital and unable to make such decisions, the ability to file taxes jointly and more.
The government can't force me (an individual) to accept any marriage and nothing in the current law or jurisprudence changes that. And that's not at issue. At issue is whether the government can discriminate against people based on who they marry. I don't know if you're gay, but let's say you are. Why should the law, for example, allow your property to flow through to a spouse tax free after your death, but only if that spouse is female?
As for businesses, while I generally think they can't be compelled to do things, they typically require licensing by the State and I think it's reasonable for the State to impose some requirements on the business. I don't think that gives the State carte blanche to force businesses to do anything and everything but it does give the State the ability to set a baseline. For example, I would be fine with a regulation that says: "you want a license to be a contractor? Fine, but you can't refuse to build a home because of someone's sexual orientation" because sexual orientation is irrelevant to the task at hand.
In the Masteroiece Cakeshop case, where the bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. Is is not required that an employee be forced to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.
I agree that the baker in Masterpiece is, broadly, free to turn away business, even if I personally thing that turning customers away is bad business. I don't think it's the government's place to force people to accept others. I think that social pressure and the nature of progress does that just fine.
-
Uhm, newsflash: the "Left" successfully passed Obamacare, a huge part of the left's "agenda". Who's trying to use the Courts to undo it after failing to repeal it?
Again, if the courts outlaw the ACA that is good for individuals. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates us to buy insurance from the government.
-
Again, if the courts outlaw the ACA that is good for individuals. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates us to buy insurance from the government.
I’m philosophically opposed to Obamacare, though I certainly believe that healthcare and health insurance in the United States is a huge clusterfuck and is this way in large part due to the Government’s shenanigans.
That aside, I’ll point out again: you are looking at things in a biased way: Court action in support of things you agree with is, automatically, good and conversely court action opposed to your beliefs is, automatically, bad.
Whatever your (and my) personal beliefs about Obamacare, it’s a law that was duly passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. Remember, you said:
"The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise. Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree."
Here’s a case where the right does the same: having failed to pass their repeal of Obamacare, they’re trying to get the Court to overturn it. Is this not judicial activism? Why? Because it doesn’t suit you?
-
I’m philosophically opposed to Obamacare, though I certainly believe that healthcare and health insurance in the United States is a huge clusterfuck and is this way in large part due to the Government’s shenanigans.
That aside, I’ll point out again: you are looking at things in a biased way: Court action in support of things you agree with is, automatically, good and conversely court action opposed to your beliefs is, automatically, bad.
Whatever your (and my) personal beliefs about Obamacare, it’s a law that was duly passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. Remember, you said:
"The left has to legislate from the bench because they can't pass their agenda otherwise. Abortion and gay marriage would have gone down in flames if not a judicial decree."
Here’s a case where the right does the same: having failed to pass their repeal of Obamacare, they’re trying to get the Court to overturn it. Is this not judicial activism? Why? Because it doesn’t suit you?
So now the truth is biased? Against what, falsehood? Fuck That Noise. The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance. They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance. THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them.
God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED. Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact.
This is Animal Farm and the Dems are the swine. Fuck all that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel I and my family and friends and all real Americans will be the plow horses of this theatrical nightmare.
You are either for America or against Her. I know where I stand. I know where many good men here stand. And I know who kneels.
Fuck them. I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness. TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.
-
So now the truth is biased? Against what, falsehood? Fuck That Noise. The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance. They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance. THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them.
God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED. Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact.
This is Animal Farm and the Dems are the swine. Fuck all that feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel I and my family and friends and all real Americans will be the plow horses of this theatrical nightmare.
You are either for America or against Her. I know where I stand. I know where many good men here stand. And I know who kneels.
Fuck them. I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness. TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.
Great Scott!! Legendary Post!
Libtardia will be in disarray if Donald wins again. Crying, melting, lootin, hootin, hollerin, pissing, crappin in streets.
Only this time (I hope) he says "Feck the ANTIFA clowns" and sends in military force to extinguish them ass-clowns!
What sad, puny-minded kommie-kuntz they are! :D
-
So now the truth is biased? Against what, falsehood? Fuck That Noise.
It's got nothing to do with "truth".
The government and that fuckwit Obama had NO Constitutional authority to DEMAND people have insurance.
Let's say I agree with you (and, I do, in fact, almost entirely agree with you) that the Government had no Constitutional authority to demand people have insurance. That's our interpretation. The Court, which under the Constitution which I know you love and cherish, is the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional refused to declare the law unconstitutional.
They fined the shit out of my brother and his wife because they had no health insurance.
I know people who are in the same boat and I think that's horrible and believe the law is one of many that ought to be changed.
THOUSANDS of dollars were stolen from them.
The funds were "stolen" in the same way that taxes are "stolen" from us (and I do believe that taxes are stolen from us at the maybe-not-so-proverbial point of the government's gun): in a perfectly "legal" way, under cover of bill duly voted on by our representatives and duly signed into law by the President.
And that's the whole point: Obamacare was voted in and is the law of the land, whether you or I like it or not. The Republicans failed to repeal it in Congress so they opted to use the legal route or getting a Court to invalidate it. Whether I think that it should be invalidated or not, the fact is that it's hypocrticial of Republicans to pretend that the Democrats use the Court to "legislate" when they're doing the very same thing themselves.
God damn Obama and his minions to an eternity of Hell. Communism was tried by the early Colonists and it FAILED. Look it up, it is historical fact as opposed to what libtards foist upon us, i.e., hysterical fact.
I am an atheist. There's no god and no hell, except the one we choose to make for ourselves here and now and I think we're pretty good at it.
You are either for America or against Her. I know where I stand. I know where many good men here stand. And I know who kneels.
I'm as American as Apple Pie, but I don't buy this false dichotomy bullshit. I love my country, but my love isn't predicated on agreeing with everything the Country does, the unconditional belief that we're both special and the best, or the blind belief that one political party is clothed with the flag while the other is the enemy.
Fuck them. I hope every libtard assumes room temperature when Trump is sworn in for a second term of greatness. TDS is far more deadly than this fucking bullshit plannedemic called Covid19.
::)
I don't think I ever quite understood why so many right-leaning voters have such disdain of science and IQs ranging between "dagnabbit, I done goofed" and "bodybuilding is a sport!"
-
It's got nothing to do with "truth".
Let's say I agree with you (and, I do, in fact, almost entirely agree with you) that the Government had no Constitutional authority to demand people have insurance. That's our interpretation. The Court, which under the Constitution which I know you love and cherish, is the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional refused to declare the law unconstitutional.
I know people who are in the same boat and I think that's horrible and believe the law is one of many that ought to be changed.
The funds were "stolen" in the same way that taxes are "stolen" from us (and I do believe that taxes are stolen from us at the maybe-not-so-proverbial point of the government's gun): in a perfectly "legal" way, under cover of bill duly voted on by our representatives and duly signed into law by the President.
And that's the whole point: Obamacare was voted in and is the law of the land, whether you or I like it or not. The Republicans failed to repeal it in Congress so they opted to use the legal route or getting a Court to invalidate it. Whether I think that it should be invalidated or not, the fact is that it's hypocrticial of Republicans to pretend that the Democrats use the Court to "legislate" when they're doing the very same thing themselves.
I am an atheist. There's no god and no hell, except the one we choose to make for ourselves here and now and I think we're pretty good at it.
I'm as American as Apple Pie, but I don't buy this false dichotomy bullshit. I love my country, but my love isn't predicated on agreeing with everything the Country does, the unconditional belief that we're both special and the best, or the blind belief that one political party is clothed with the flag while the other is the enemy.
::)
I don't think I ever quite understood why so many right-leaning voters have such disdain of science and IQs ranging between "dagnabbit, I done goofed" and "bodybuilding is a sport!"
It has everything to do with truth.
You are an atheist. Me? I am an Atheist. I did not lose my faith, I threw it aside. Let us not go further on that matter, trust me. As for IQ, well let us not go there as I am trying to break a lifelong habit, if you will. Suffice to say that while I will never say, "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do", science and more are not my forte.
Pussies refused to declare that which is wrong, wrong. It is the folly of mankind that some will sell their Nation out for emotional trinkets. These false pharos serve at the pleasure of their ego and those they wish to please.
For me President Trump represents what is best about America. He has put back the "us" in the U.S.A. He is for the citizens, not the shitizens. He is for the Constitution.
And the dems? They are for the constipation. They are for the stagnation and damnation of all that is good in these United States. Fuck them. Enough of my rambling.
-
It has everything to do with truth.
Is it not true that the Republicans failed to repeat Obamacare and are trying to now gut if via legal challenges? Is it not true that this is judicial activism by any other name? Didn't Antonin Scalia himself write that it was wrong for the Court to reverse a law "specifically approved by the Congress of the United States" as part of what he termed "a Kulturkampf" because of their personal beliefs? Did Justice Scalia not explicitly decry using the Judiciary to strike down the action of elected legislative bodies? Or did I miss the part where he added "unless of course, it's to strike down things that align with our personal beliefs"?
You are an atheist. Me? I am an Atheist. I did not lose my faith, I threw it aside. Let us not go further on that matter, trust me. As for IQ, well let us not go there as I am trying to break a lifelong habit, if you will. Suffice to say that while I will never say, "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do", science and more are not my forte.
I don't know what the difference between an "atheist" and an "Atheist" is and I don't play the "random capitalization game" which seems to be popular these days.
For me President Trump represents what is best about America. He has put back the "us" in the U.S.A. He is for the citizens, not the shitizens. He is for the Constitution.
Boy, if you think that Donald Trump (or, really, any politician) represents what is best about America you must have have a rather jaded and warped view of this wonderful country. I feel sorry for you.
And the dems? They are for the constipation. They are for the stagnation and damnation of all that is good in these United States. Fuck them. Enough of my rambling.
I'm not sure where you shop for those blinders, but let me tell you, they do a great job!
-
Is it not true that the Republicans failed to repeat Obamacare and are trying to now gut if via legal challenges? Is it not true that this is judicial activism by any other name? Didn't Antonin Scalia himself write that it was wrong for the Court to reverse a law "specifically approved by the Congress of the United States" as part of what he termed "a Kulturkampf" because of their personal beliefs? Did Justice Scalia not explicitly decry using the Judiciary to strike down the action of elected legislative bodies? Or did I miss the part where he added "unless of course, it's to strike down things that align with our personal beliefs"?
I don't know what the difference between an "atheist" and an "Atheist" is and I don't play the "random capitalization game" which seems to be popular these days.
Boy, if you think that Donald Trump (or, really, any politician) represents what is best about America you must have have a rather jaded and warped view of this wonderful country. I feel sorry for you.
I'm not sure where you shop for those blinders, but let me tell you, they do a great job!
You are as I thought. You do know the purpose of "blinders", do you not? For the horse to remain focused on the job ahead and not on what is going on around them.
Given your clever closing remarks I suppose your version is to have your head up your ass. I am not your enemy but neither are we yet friends. I cannot see eye to eye with someone whose view of the world is throttled by their balloon-knot. You remind me of Napoleon and no, I do not mean the French Emperor.
How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg. - Abraham Lincoln
-
You are as I thought. You do know the purpose of "blinders", do you not? For the horse to remain focused on the job ahead and not on what is going on around them.
Yes: the purpose of blinders are for the horse to remain focused on the task. The task its master sets for it, allowing it to be a better tool.
Given your clever closing remarks I suppose your version is to have your head up your ass. I am not your enemy but neither are we yet friends. I cannot see eye to eye with someone whose view of the world is throttled by their balloon-knot.
I never said you were my enemy, nor do I think in such terms generally.
You remind me of Napoleon and no, I do not mean the French Emperor.
Animal Farm is a great bit of satire and allegory, but I'm afraid I don't see the parallels.
How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg. - Abraham Lincoln
I much prefer another Honest Abe aphorism: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
-
No no, what you're saying is an entirely different thing and something which I mostly agree with. It's one thing for a hospital or a doctor to not wish to perform a procedure. Hobby Lobby was a case where an employer tailored the health insurance plan it provided to its employees that refused to cover certain procedures that it found morally objectionable.
I believe it is similar. The freedom of a person or an organization to provide or not provide anything they want. Hobby Lobby tries to recruit qualified employees by offering money and benefits that makes it worth their while. What they offer or not offer is entirely up to them. Just like it's entirely up to a person if the want to accept their terms. I believe they should be free offer any kind of health insurance they want or no health insurance at all.
I use to work part time as an apprentence for my Physics instructor while at UCLA. This job required me to come in on certain days, during certain hours, and performed specific duties. I did this all for free. This use to be very common in many professions because what you got in return was experience and knowledge. So yes, I even believe that an employer can offer you anything they want or offer you nothing at all and it's up to you if you want to accept these terms.
I'm a big believer in freedom and letting people make their own choices and accept the consequences of their choices, whether good or bad. When a third party, such as the government, who experiences none of the consequences and have little to no knowledge of the business being negotiated, presumes that they know best what one party should offer and what the other party should accept, that's when the trouble starts.
In a free society any transaction should be left to the buyer and the seller whether it's what you want to sell and pay for shoes and as well as what you want to sell or pay of labor.
-
Uhm, newsflash: the "Left" successfully passed Obamacare, a huge part of the left's "agenda". Who's trying to use the Courts to undo it after failing to repeal it?
I don't think he said or implied that because the Left will use the court to overturn or bypass legislation or the people's will to push their agenda through means that the Left always uses the court to promote their agenda. Before Roe v Wade abortion was legal in 13 States. It was made legal through the legislative process and not by a handful of unelected judges.
-
I have no beef in the whole "gay wedding" thing; frankly, I don't care who you marry or how you get off provided that it only involves consenting adults; beyond that knock yourself out.
The issue, here, or at least how I see it, is that the State confers several "benefits" to married couples: rights of survivorship, the right to make decisions for your spouse if he or she is in the hospital and unable to make such decisions, the ability to file taxes jointly and more.
The government can't force me (an individual) to accept any marriage and nothing in the current law or jurisprudence changes that. And that's not at issue. At issue is whether the government can discriminate against people based on who they marry. I don't know if you're gay, but let's say you are. Why should the law, for example, allow your property to flow through to a spouse tax free after your death, but only if that spouse is female?
As for businesses, while I generally think they can't be compelled to do things, they typically require licensing by the State and I think it's reasonable for the State to impose some requirements on the business. I don't think that gives the State carte blanche to force businesses to do anything and everything but it does give the State the ability to set a baseline. For example, I would be fine with a regulation that says: "you want a license to be a contractor? Fine, but you can't refuse to build a home because of someone's sexual orientation" because sexual orientation is irrelevant to the task at hand.
I agree that the baker in Masterpiece is, broadly, free to turn away business, even if I personally thing that turning customers away is bad business. I don't think it's the government's place to force people to accept others. I think that social pressure and the nature of progress does that just fine.
First I just want to make clear that, at the risk of splitting hairs, the issue isn't about gay marriage per se but rather same sex marriage. This is not just playing with semantics. As Arnold said when running for govenor, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man or a woman." This was to clarify the point that the gay agenda were demanding new special rights, rights that have never existed in all of human history. Everybody had the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. No one, gay or otherwise, had the right to marry a member of the same sex.
Your argument is base on our society giving special privileges to married couples. We, as a society, believe that the traditional family unit is the best scenario in a relationship and because a father and a mother each have something unique, something inherent in their gender, as the best scenario in raising children. If you disagree with that then you should fight to end such special privledges.
The argument you present to legalize same sex marriage can easily be applied to other scenarios as well. Why not legalize marriage between a brother or a sister? Father of daughter? Why not have two, three, four wives or husband? There are some that want to marry their cat?
You say the government can't force you to accept any marriage and that is true but if you don't you will be breaking the law. And yes, that does include your right to discriminate against someone for any reason you want. If you take an organization such as the Boy Scouts, justs as I think it would be inappropriate to have a man leading and going camping with Girl Scouts, I think it would be inappropriate to have a gay man leading and going camping with teen boys. The Boy Scouts is a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want. Though you may not personally accept these terms you are now forced to follow it.
Anybody, can leave their property to anybody they want to. And you can believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant to building someone a house or performing any service at all then why make it a law? If I don't want build a house for a gay person or because he screwed my wife when I was on a business trip or is a member of Antifa it should be my right. Licensing requirements should be based on your qualifications and training you have received to preform your job safely and competently and not your personal preferences as to whom you want to work for.
-
I agree that the baker in Masterpiece is, broadly, free to turn away business, even if I personally thing that turning customers away is bad business. I don't think it's the government's place to force people to accept others. I think that social pressure and the nature of progress does that just fine.
This is a good point. While I think government coercion should be used very sparingly I do believe in moral persuasion. Through public and social pressure whether it's boycotts or protests.
-
Again, if the courts outlaw the ACA that is good for individuals. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates us to buy insurance from the government.
That is my biggest objection. The idea that the government can force you buy something is anathema to the idea of a free society.
-
It's way past three days...Did the bitch get up yet? Fuckin' cucks act like she's their Methsiah. She's dead and there's no sequel.
-
.
-
USA Today felt they had to "fact check" satire about Ginsburg's death being overturned. They feared that others who also have impaired abstract thinking will fall for satire that they themselves were "clever" enough to figure out. They have to sound the alarm because they're the only ones "smart" enough to get a joke that everyone else is already in on. Someone did that on the Netflix pedo thread re:Babylon Bee.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBf5BkQV/Ej-B6m-ZOXc-AE9v0c.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/1t8GVNWZ/Ej-B6n2-KXk-AUPT4o.jpg)
-
Ha, ha, ha. They have no sense of humor.
-
I don't think he said or implied that because the Left will use the court to overturn or bypass legislation or the people's will to push their agenda through means that the Left always uses the court to promote their agenda.
That's exactly what he said: "The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=668491.msg9473167#msg9473167)"
-
First I just want to make clear that, at the risk of splitting hairs, the issue isn't about gay marriage per se but rather same sex marriage.
Good point, although this might drag this thread furher off-topic than it already has. It's also not a particularly interesting topic to me, but hey, nothing better to do so let's play ball!
This is not just playing with semantics. As Arnold said when running for govenor, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man or a woman." This was to clarify the point that the gay agenda were demanding new special rights, rights that have never existed in all of human history. Everybody had the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. No one, gay or otherwise, had the right to marry a member of the same sex.
Marriage itself a special privilege granted by the State and one which was, at the time, limited only to members of the opposite sex. Beyond that, if a State wished to allow same-sex couples to wed other States actively refused to accept that marriage as valid, in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Your argument is base on our society giving special privileges to married couples. We, as a society, believe that the traditional family unit is the best scenario in a relationship and because a father and a mother each have something unique, something inherent in their gender, as the best scenario in raising children. If you disagree with that then you should fight to end such special privledges.
I disagree that marriage is about procreation or the raising of children and if you believe that is the case, then you should not be opposed if women who've had had a hysterectomy, men who've had a vasectomy, and, in general, people who are sterile either naturally or have become sterile should not be able to marry. Right?
And what about married couples that don't have children, for whatever reason? Should they be allowed to remain married? For how long?
The argument you present to legalize same sex marriage can easily be applied to other scenarios as well.
Yes, let's look at your scenarios. I'm betting they'll get increasingly ridiculous.
Why not legalize marriage between a brother or a sister? Father of daughter? Why not have two, three, four wives or husband? There are some that want to marry their cat?
And there it is: man-and-cat marriage. ::) I'm happy to have a serious discussion but, unlike the Church at Corinth, I do not suffer fools gladly. I hadn't really pegged you as a fool and expected better from you, but if you really need the ELI5 explanation, here you go: a prerequisite to marriage is the ability to legally consent to get married and a cat is, by nature, incapable of legally consenting since it lacks the requisite rational faculty associated with that kind of agency.
You say the government can't force you to accept any marriage and that is true but if you don't you will be breaking the law.
That's not true. No law exists that forces me to accept any marriage in my personal capacity. This shouldn't be confused with cases where the law might impose requirements on me in my professional capacity. For example, if I was a Doctor and my married patient was incapable of consenting to a procedure, I couldn't just ignore their spouse because I'm personally opposed to or refuse to recognize their marriage.
And yes, that does include your right to discriminate against someone for any reason you want.
Yes, individuals can, in their personal capacity, broadly discriminate against anyone and for any reason. But even that isn't absolute. For example, under the Fair Housing Act, an individual, in their capacity as a landlord, can't refuse to rent to a woman on account of her gender, or a Muslim on account of his faith, or a twink on account of his faggotism sexual orientation.
If you take an organization such as the Boy Scouts, justs as I think it would be inappropriate to have a man leading and going camping with Girl Scouts, I think it would be inappropriate to have a gay man leading and going camping with teen boys.
I don't buy the premise that human beings are animals that are unable to control their sexual impulses, which is what your comment is predicated on. With that said, I don't think that your position is necessarily imprudent either.
Tell me, do you believe that classes should be segregated by sex? Or that homosexuals should not be teachers?
The Boy Scouts is a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want. Though you may not personally accept these terms you are now forced to follow it.
So, you would be OK if the Boy Scouts were to officially adopt a "No N*ggers, No Ch*nks, No B*aners" policy, right? After all, they are, to quote you, "a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want."
Anybody, can leave their property to anybody they want to.
Yes, but married couples receive different tax treatment on estate transfers: all property left to a surviving spouse is entirely exempt from federal estate tax, which can be important when the average estate tax rate exceeds 15% and can go higher than the highest income tax bracket we currently have.
And you can believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant to building someone a house or performing any service at all then why make it a law?
I draw a line between laws and regulations. I don't think there should be a law that says that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But I have no problem with a regulation that requires licensed businesses to not discriminate based on private, consensual and non-illegal behavior.
If I don't want build a house for a gay person or because he screwed my wife when I was on a business trip or is a member of Antifa it should be my right. Licensing requirements should be based on your qualifications and training you have received to preform your job safely and competently and not your personal preferences as to whom you want to work for.
I agree that licensing requirements should be objective but I don't see an issue with the State imposing requirements on licensees. My dentist is required to take continuing education credits to keep her license. My lawyer, in addition to continuing education credits, is required to have a "positive moral character" to remain a member of my State Bar. There are dozens of other examples I could provide if you want.
But we've strayed a bit far, haven't we?
The question why about same-sex marriage and the suggestion that it's somehow a "new" right that hasn't existed before. That's not true. First of all, marriage isn't a right to begin with and, broadly, I believe that the State shouldn't be involved as little as possible and, to the extent that it is involved, the State should make that privilege available to all equally, barring reasonable restrictions, the same way that we have restrictions for who can get, say, a driver license.
My personal preference would be to have all marriages be civil marriages and have civil marriage available to all consenting adults. If you want to have a 'super-duper' religious marriage on top of that and can find a religious organization that approves of you and your partner, then have at it.
-
That's exactly what he said: "The Left use the courts to pass laws that they could never get passed by vote. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=668491.msg9473167#msg9473167)"
I don't think they ALWAYS use the court to pass agendas that have failed. They just keep chipping away incrementally getting their people in power and to pass their agenda. Roe v Wade has already been decided. Now it's been pushed to the point where you can kill a baby after they are born. And don't think it's going to stop with same-sex marriage. Soon State legislator will support polygamy and marriage with family members. When a precedent as been set it's going to be push further and further.
-
I don't think they ALWAYS use the court to pass agendas that have failed. They just keep chipping away incrementally getting their people in power and to pass their agenda. Roe v Wade has already been decided. Now it's been pushed to the point where you can kill a baby after they are born. And don't think it's going to stop with same-sex marriage. Soon State legislator will support polygamy and marriage with family members. When a precedent as been set it's going to be push further and further.
Why say something that’s blatantly false? Do you think it’ll help you win an argument?
As for polygamy, it’s ok if a State wants to allow that as long as the Federales stay out of it, no?
-
Why say something that’s blatantly false? Do you think it’ll help you win an argument?
As for polygamy, it’s ok if a State wants to allow that as long as the Federales stay out of it, no?
I'll address your previous posts which requires much more time and consideration as you make some very powerful points. As for this one. And to be clear, as I don't want to post the whole 54 minute interview, that "discussion" while the infant is being made "comfortable" laying on a stainless steel table, is to determine whether to kill the newborn or not. There's no longer any aborting of the procedure as it has already been done. The infant is now born.
Governor Ralph Northam: "So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
-
:o
(https://image.businessinsider.com/54de1316eab8eae6277461b4?width=1100&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
In 2020 President Trump finally gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg !
-
I'll address your previous posts which requires much more time and consideration as you make some very powerful points. As for this one. And to be clear, as I don't want to post the whole 54 minute interview, that "discussion" while the infant is being made "comfortable" laying on a stainless steel table, is to determine whether to kill the newborn or not. There's no longer any aborting of the procedure as it has already been done. The infant is now born.
Governor Ralph Northam: "So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Well, that ended that argument. :D
-
I'll address your previous posts which requires much more time and consideration as you make some very powerful points. As for this one. And to be clear, as I don't want to post the whole 54 minute interview, that "discussion" while the infant is being made "comfortable" laying on a stainless steel table, is to determine whether to kill the newborn or not. There's no longer any aborting of the procedure as it has already been done. The infant is now born.
Governor Ralph Northam: "So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Thanks for the additional context. I'll watch the video later (have a class to teach over Zoom in 5 minutes) and follow up, but if your quotes are accurate (and I have no reason to suspect they aren't), that's fucked up.
-
Thanks for the additional context. I'll watch the video later (have a class to teach over Zoom in 5 minutes) and follow up, but if your quotes are accurate (and I have no reason to suspect they aren't), that's fucked up.
The interview posted is just an excerpt taking about 22 seconds. What kind of class do you teach?
-
The interview posted is just an excerpt taking about 22 seconds. What kin of class do you teach?
I am a Professor at a Mid-Western University. I'm teaching the intro-level algorithms and data structures course that the computer science department offers.
-
Marriage itself a special privilege granted by the State and one which was, at the time, limited only to members of the opposite sex. Beyond that, if a State wished to allow same-sex couples to wed other States actively refused to accept that marriage as valid, in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Yes, society has determine that they want to encourage traditional marriage. That was what the fight was about. Should we now give gays new and special rights that have never existed before in human history?
I disagree that marriage is about procreation or the raising of children and if you believe that is the case, then you should not be opposed if women who've had had a hysterectomy, men who've had a vasectomy, and, in general, people who are sterile either naturally or have become sterile should not be able to marry. Right?
And what about married couples that don't have children, for whatever reason? Should they be allowed to remain married? For how long?
You read more to what I stated. I never said that having children is the only reason why society believes same-sex unions are the ideal. It's one of the reasons. Another is that women have a civilizing influence on men. At least, they use to have or were intended to have. A man's natural tendency is to be promiscuous, get together with their friends and be rowdy and fall for peer pressure irresponsibility... before the feminist movement which somehow convinced women that being like men was inherently better, (which only has resulted in them being more masculinize, crude, and promiscuous) woman would not commit (read: have sex with) until the man behaves more responsibly and monogamous. Men, generally speaking, become better men when they marry and have children (although this has been diminished a lot when the government took over the role as the father and provider so that now a man can more easily abandon their children). Women civilize men. There are other benefits as well.
Yes, let's look at your scenarios. I'm betting they'll get increasingly ridiculous.
And there it is: man-and-cat marriage. ::) I'm happy to have a serious discussion but, unlike the Church at Corinth, I do not suffer fools gladly. I hadn't really pegged you as a fool and expected better from you, but if you really need the ELI5 explanation, here you go: a prerequisite to marriage is the ability to legally consent to get married and a cat is, by nature, incapable of legally consenting since it lacks the requisite rational faculty associated with that kind of agency.
Although I thought it was obvious that I was being flippant, it was not entirely so. Once you redefine something, in this case marriage, you leave open many possibilities. If I had told you thirty years ago that one day a male can dress and act like female and be recognized and legally protected as a female and use female bathrooms, compete and set new world records in sports competing as women you would think I was crazy. Now that we are opening the door wider why should we bind ourselves that you have to get consent from both sides if one side is not able to consent? After all we are allowed to, and did, kill an innocent person if a husband gives consent even though their parents were against it and was willing to bear all the cost and responsibilities for her care as they did in the Terri Schiavo case.
So once we redefine marriage don't be so sure people won't be allowed to marry animals. Especially since it has already be done in other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_goat_marriage_incident
https://www.foxnews.com/story/man-in-india-marries-dog-to-atone-for-stoning-to-death-mating-canines
https://www.foxnews.com/story/british-woman-marries-dolphin
That's not true. No law exists that forces me to accept any marriage in my personal capacity. This shouldn't be confused with cases where the law might impose requirements on me in my professional capacity. For example, if I was a Doctor and my married patient was incapable of consenting to a procedure, I couldn't just ignore their spouse because I'm personally opposed to or refuse to recognize their marriage.
To say you can do anything you want is one thing. But there are consequences to not obeying the law. If I don't recognize, honor, and accept same-sex marriage and discriminate against them I am subject to penalties. If I have an adoption agency I have to treat and mother and a father just the same as I would a father and a father, or mother and a mother even though I don't believe they are the same and the mother/father union is far superior to the others.
Yes, individuals can, in their personal capacity, broadly discriminate against anyone and for any reason. But even that isn't absolute. For example, under the Fair Housing Act, an individual, in their capacity as a landlord, can't refuse to rent to a woman on account of her gender, or a Muslim on account of his faith, or a twink on account of his faggotism sexual orientation.
OK, this is what I consider a "backing me against the wall" kind of question and can I stay consistent. I claim that I believe in freedom. That when it comes to decisions made regarding a person's own life and body (to use drugs, join a cult, over eat, pierce themselves all over their body...) and their own private property -- who you allow and whom you can discriminate against. Since you brought up the issue of private property that's what I will focus on.
When it comes to personal private property, be it your house, you restaurant, your school; you can have or not have anyone you want. In Hawaii, to be able to go to Kamehameha High School you have to be able to prove you are part Hawaiian. They are a private school so I have no problem discriminating against race. Just like with my own home, I should also have the right to discriminate against anybody I want for any reason. I should have the right to require you to wear a shirt and footware (a common rule in Hawaii where going shirtless and barefoot is common in the beach community). I can accept only men if I want. (You can have all girl schools but now all men's schools are being attacked), smokers or non-smokers, and yes, to get at what you really are getting at, I believe I have the right to discriminate against Blacks or any other race I want just like I can in my own home. The argument that because I am providing a public service or product is irrelevant. If I have a garage sale at my home I don't have to accept anybody I don't want to. Whatever decision I make I want the free market to decide if this is the kind of establishment they want in their community.
Remember when we had Jim Crow laws? Well, what is the purpose of a law anyway? It is to prevent a behavior that a person would want to do and would do if it wasn't prohibited. They passed a law prohibiting serving Black people because if they didn't then they would, and were, willingly, being served. No matter how racist a person may be the desire for money and profits superceded their views of Blacks. So much so that they had to pass laws requiring restrictions against Blacks that wouldn't have existed to such an extent if it was left for the people to decide.
I don't buy the premise that human beings are animals that are unable to control their sexual impulses, which is what your comment is predicated on. With that said, I don't think that your position is necessarily imprudent either.
Tell me, do you believe that classes should be segregated by sex? Or that homosexuals should not be teachers?
Actually studies have shown that students do better when it is segregated by sex. I wouldn't make it a law requiring it but I wouldn't want it illegal.
As far as ones sexual orientation and the appropriateness it would depend on the situation. Because there is more intimate contact with the Scout leaders (I was a Cub Scount, Webelos, and Boy Scout) than with a teacher I wouldn't have any problem with the teachers sexual orientation. But it shouldn't be an issue because there is no reason why anyone should know what their sexual orientation is.
And I don't trust human nature. Not all humans act like animals and can't control themselves. In fact, I would say that the majority under normal circumstances (if joswift is reading this I'm sure he is nodding) are able to control their more base nature. But since I can't be sure I want to avoid testing them. As James Madison once said, "If men were angels we would have no need for government." I know for me personally, part of my strength is recognizing my weakenesses an, and not put myself in a position where I may be tempted. That includes not keeping chocolate around and not accepting a personal math tutoring assingment with a woman I was very much sexually attracted to but was married. Look what having gays has done to the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church
So, you would be OK if the Boy Scouts were to officially adopt a "No N*ggers, No Ch*nks, No B*aners" policy, right? After all, they are, to quote you, "a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want."
The Boy Scouts became a very popular and successful organization, something that took many years to achieve. The became so because parents agreed and approved with their Christian based value system and wanted it passed on to the boys. If the Boy Scouts start changing their values, valued I don't agree with, then I will not endourse or support them. Our family no longer allows any of the young girls in our family to join the Girl Scouts because they now support abortion. And I no longer buy their cookies as I have done for decades.
If someone wants to start an all Black organization, maybe call it the NAACP. Or an all White organization and call it the KKK they have the legal right to do so. I leave it to the people to decide whether or not they want to support such an organization. If the Boy Scouts want to change their value system and allow homosexuals, girls, discriminate against Blacks or Mexicans, it is their right but something I personally wouldn't approve and would no longer support them as I haven't in years and in our family we no longer allow our boys to join that organization.
Yes, but married couples receive different tax treatment on estate transfers: all property left to a surviving spouse is entirely exempt from federal estate tax, which can be important when the average estate tax rate exceeds 15% and can go higher than the highest income tax bracket we currently have.
Yes, because we as a society believe that the traditional family, which begins with the marriage of a man and a woman, benefits society as a whole and should be encouraged and incentified. In my personal opinion, I am against all these tax laws and want to go with a consumption tax or a straight flat tax. Our tax system is so complicated and convoluted that it just has to be overhauled.
I draw a line between laws and regulations. I don't think there should be a law that says that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But I have no problem with a regulation that requires licensed businesses to not discriminate based on private, consensual and non-illegal behavior.
And there's the rub. I don't want the government telling me who I can and cannot work for, and who I can and cannot choose who works for me. I want to have the right to discriminate against a Communist, Santanist, Witch or Wiccan, a Klansman... all which is legal private behavior. I would have no problem with gays
I agree that licensing requirements should be objective but I don't see an issue with the State imposing requirements on licensees. My dentist is required to take continuing education credits to keep her license. My lawyer, in addition to continuing education credits, is required to have a "positive moral character" to remain a member of my State Bar. There are dozens of other examples I could provide if you want.
But we've strayed a bit far, haven't we?
The question why about same-sex marriage and the suggestion that it's somehow a "new" right that hasn't existed before. That's not true. First of all, marriage isn't a right to begin with and, broadly, I believe that the State shouldn't be involved as little as possible and, to the extent that it is involved, the State should make that privilege available to all equally, barring reasonable restrictions, the same way that we have restrictions for who can get, say, a driver license.
My personal preference would be to have all marriages be civil marriages and have civil marriage available to all consenting adults. If you want to have a 'super-duper' religious marriage on top of that and can find a religious organization that approves of you and your partner, then have at it.
It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity. Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.
Never in all of recorded human history has a society recognized the right that marrying a member of the same sex be recognized, accepted, and honored by whatever governing system existing at the time. Same sex marriage is a new and special right being granted.
Many people don't believed that government shouldn't play a role in personal relationships. That's an entirely different subject.
As an aside, getting a driver's license is not a right but a privilege. It matters for when someone requires that you, like with Obamacare, require your to get health insurance equating that with requiring you to get car insurance. You own your body. The government can deny you or take away your license if you don't abide by certain laws they have determined. [/b]