Gosh, even the SCOTUS dudes are now arguing with each other. Supposed to be about law, but a lot of politics drives the justices. Me, I'm still steamed at 'Citizens United' and I guess if they piss off every one of us they must be doing something right?
Supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of the Guv't and I'm always uneasy when one branch gets too much power whether it's a president waging war or the SCOTUS telling states what to do.
Watch out for states rights; I was in Alabama in '63 and thought I was in Nazi Germany. My state wants to take over the National Forests. You know, sell them to Weyerhauser & Ajax Mining. Even cantankerous fed- fearing Idahoans polled 80% against that. But states rights trumps peoples rights where there is ready cash available. But, yeah, since when do the top lawyers decide dicey things like whether a fetus is a citizen, or WalMart is a citizen? Things like that are opinions.
We do we have legislative bodies??? Why not let the SCOTUS write our laws for us? Re fetuses thing is Roe went way beyond even what many pro-choice citizens believe namely that mid-term and late-term abortions are usually morally wrong. Would seem better to have legislative solutions to these sorts of things. Does Timothy Cardinal Dolan now have to marry gay couples in St. Patrick's Cathedral?
I've never quite understood the state vs federal patriotism. I lived in 6 different states, from WI, MO, AL, UT, MN and ID, and while they all had their flavor, pros/cons and peculiarities, I served under the US and always felt more loyal to the country as a whole. (You out to see my license plate collection)
IMO depending on POV, any branch may be the boogieman. Just depends on the era. For example, in the late 1800s, many states were controlled by big biz interests, rampant mining & pollution were the results. Then came Teddy and his big stick. The deal is, any special interest with $$ can bring a case to SCOTUS and that branch may or may not consider it. We recall that SCOTUS was hard on FDR and even Jefferson. Then there is the 'activist judge' thing which Scalia rails on. Yet, ol Antonine was the one that gutted normal questioning of the 2nd Amendment by declaring the phrase 'a well regulated militia, being necessary for a free state' as dated and meaningless. Anyone reading the amendment would, IMO, understand that the phrase is what gives the cause and meaning of the amendment. Hence Scalia is an activist judge, actually changing the meaning of the document. (I posted elsewhere that Scalia was the Judge Judy of SCOTUS and the poster noted that Judge Judy was nicer and smarter). The majority of the court is being royally castigated by Huckabee. Hope they take his confederate flag, ya know?
From what I know of Scalia from a judicial standpoint it's not that he's for or against abortion or gay marriage it's simply that he prefers the legislatures dealing with hot-button social issues and doesn't believe in legislating from the bench as the liberal justices do. Meanwhile Clarence Thomas is the quiet one. On one other matter from what I know about the late Robert Bork I'm glad he wasn't confirmed. IMO Scalia seems somewhat Borkian in his viewpoint but without going off the rails.
Back in the day, it seems folks weren't obsessed with minor and trivial news like what is SCOTUS up to, where do we hide the confederate flag, who is the latest transgendered athlete, which rapper shot which other rapper, whether coffee has more antioxidants than spinach, etc. We are bombarded by 24/7 media and instant communications. I was just getting used to "that Hitler guy looks like trouble", "did you see they made something called an A-bomb?" and "Hey when it's cloudy at 11PM, you can get Oklahoma City on the radio!" Easy to image aliens from Betelgeuse or K-Pax doing anthropology studies on us and remarking that all other species follow the simple, but effective process of instinct, while these advanced simians think they are logical, but screw up most everything.
It's always fascinated me how 9 SCOTUS members constantly disagree about what the Law says. Give 'em a toaster manual and they'll break down into the usual camps.
For me, this was all simply a legal issue. The fight over words is superfluous. When people say the meanings of words cannot be changed, and that it has never happened before, they are just not credible.
This could have all been solved years ago when gays asked for equal rights for civil unions, but conservatives said no. And with that, over 1000 different laws, tax breaks and what not, were not available to gay couples.
Conservatives had a chance to do the right thing morally in how they treated people, but they refused. By not allowing civil unions in the past, and allowing hospitals to tell a gay man he had no right to visit his dying life ling partner, they surrendered the moral high ground.
But... as it regards the SCOTUS, it is hard to see how they legally, using this as precedent, bar polygamy. After all, that presumably will also be between consenting adults and maybe an equal access question as well.
Hetero (or whatever the non-gay 'community' is called) people generally prefer the concept of civil union to same-sex marriage. Probably less confusing.
I don't think most gays would settle for this BB. First off civil unions are seen as giving them something so they'd stop annoying us with their complaining. No I think they want the whole package.
Here's where I differ from most conservatives re my opposition if you will to gay marriage. My main reason against is the slippery slope you mentioned Dave. How can we now bar polygamy or brother and sister marrying or whatever other sexual configuration we can conjure up? My anti-stance has nothing to do with I think gays are horrible people but rather I think the country as a whole needs to hit the PAUSE button and reflect which we never do. Nobody but nobody has thought this through because everybody's celebrating.
We set a record 111 degrees on Sunday, beating the old one by some seven *%&^# degrees..going on second week over 100 each day. When will we seen the runoff from the glaciers up at the Nat'l Park? (I used the extra second to comment here)
Now if you lived in India or Pakistan and had this type of heatwave you'd probably join the hundreds dead already. I don't blame the Pakistanis protesting their own government while they're dying in the streets.
Yeah, those temps are hard if one is out in the environment all day; most places over the the N Pacific coast don't have AC, so they are toughing it out. Me, I got the AC at 77 and ventured out onto the back deck this afternoon to down a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale under the shade of one of the big River Birches. But, heck, I still complain.
Jindal and Christie threw in their hats. Where is Karl Rove going to throw his well-toned weight? Meanwhile the Trumpster is suing all the networks, talk about Rich White Trash, ya know?
& Hannity is defending him. Trump can't paper over this one. Come to think of it though his thoughts on Mexicans aren't all that disimilar to some typical right-wing blogposts.
It has been reported- "So there's yer problem. The leadership of the party hates him for being an obnoxious asshole who spouts racist sentiments and bizarre conspiracy theories. The actual membership of the party like him very much for being an obnoxious asshole who spouts racist sentiments and bizarre conspiracy theories." -I mentioned to the Mrs. that I knew Jr. High kids with more maturity than that political dilettante. So, maybe Hannity would be the only person he could get to run as VP?
Sounds like that prison upstate is sort of a scandal. I'm amazed the two escapees did as well as they did in the deep woods; probably a new TV series "Escapees In The Woods', along the lines of 'Naked And Afraid', 'Fat Guy In The Woods', 'Dual Survival', etc. Maybe they watched "Man vs Wild" with Bear Grylls?
The 'Sasquatch Community' seems to have their own concert , bike tour and line of retail merchandize . Not bad for an ephemeral imaginary para humanoid species, no?
There's a fatal flaw in the Sasauatch theory. As Lt. Colombo would say not in all the fifty years Bigfoot has entered the public consciousness has a hiker stumbled upon a deceased Sasquatch in the woods. Not once. I find that very curious.
The cryptozoologists claim that the creatures are very meticulous about removing carcasses of their fellow Sasquatch, pointing out that a Sasquatch family in W Canada was run over by a woman driving a truck: the mommy BF, the daddy BF and the little kid BigFoot were laying in the road. She went to the next town to report, but when help arrived, the entire familial corpse mess was gone. Probably why cryptobiology is thought of as pseudoscience. Why haven't Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd done a film about this?
I'm not aware of any other licensure of which the government issues that precludes issuance based on sexual orientation so I suppose it stands to reason that this would happen. People would be better off not marrying under the state and as well institutions would be better off not clamoring to government for tax exempt status.
With all those perks comes a whole lotta strings. With enough of them you can craft a pretty slick noose with which to hang yourself.
Gosh, even the SCOTUS dudes are now arguing with each other. Supposed to be
ReplyDeleteabout law, but a lot of politics drives the justices. Me, I'm still steamed at 'Citizens United' and I guess if they piss off every one of us they must be doing something
right?
Supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of the Guv't and I'm always uneasy when one branch gets too much power whether it's a president waging war or the SCOTUS telling states what to do.
ReplyDeleteWatch out for states rights; I was in Alabama in '63 and thought I was in
DeleteNazi Germany. My state wants to take over the National Forests. You know, sell them to Weyerhauser & Ajax Mining. Even cantankerous fed-
fearing Idahoans polled 80% against that. But states rights trumps peoples rights where there is ready cash available. But, yeah, since when do the
top lawyers decide dicey things like whether a fetus is a citizen, or WalMart
is a citizen? Things like that are opinions.
We do we have legislative bodies??? Why not let the SCOTUS write our laws for us? Re fetuses thing is Roe went way beyond even what many pro-choice citizens believe namely that mid-term and late-term abortions are usually morally wrong. Would seem better to have legislative solutions to these sorts of things. Does Timothy Cardinal Dolan now have to marry gay couples in St. Patrick's Cathedral?
DeleteI've never quite understood the state vs federal patriotism. I lived in 6 different states, from WI, MO, AL, UT, MN and ID, and while they all had their flavor, pros/cons and peculiarities, I served under the US and always
Deletefelt more loyal to the country as a whole. (You out to see my license plate
collection)
In that case why even have state legislatures? Albany and Peoria can simply cede to the feds.
DeleteBut why not gay marriage in all 50 states? Look at the damage the SCOTUS did to the legislative process re abortion in Roe.
ReplyDeleteIMO depending on POV, any branch may be the boogieman. Just depends on the era. For example, in the late 1800s, many states were controlled by
Deletebig biz interests, rampant mining & pollution were the results. Then came
Teddy and his big stick. The deal is, any special interest with $$ can bring
a case to SCOTUS and that branch may or may not consider it. We recall
that SCOTUS was hard on FDR and even Jefferson. Then there is the
'activist judge' thing which Scalia rails on. Yet, ol Antonine was the one
that gutted normal questioning of the 2nd Amendment by declaring the
phrase 'a well regulated militia, being necessary for a free state' as dated and meaningless. Anyone reading the amendment would, IMO, understand that the phrase is what gives the cause and meaning of the amendment.
Hence Scalia is an activist judge, actually changing the meaning of the document. (I posted elsewhere that Scalia was the Judge Judy of SCOTUS
and the poster noted that Judge Judy was nicer and smarter). The majority of the court is being royally castigated by Huckabee. Hope they take his
confederate flag, ya know?
From what I know of Scalia from a judicial standpoint it's not that he's for or against abortion or gay marriage it's simply that he prefers the legislatures dealing with hot-button social issues and doesn't believe in legislating from the bench as the liberal justices do. Meanwhile Clarence Thomas is the quiet one. On one other matter from what I know about the late Robert Bork I'm glad he wasn't confirmed. IMO Scalia seems somewhat Borkian in his viewpoint but without going off the rails.
DeleteI take it you ain't got the bumper sticker ?
DeleteImpeach him on what basis? If it were up to me I'd impeach the whole 9 of 'em.
DeleteBack in the day, it seems folks weren't obsessed with minor and trivial news like
ReplyDeletewhat is SCOTUS up to, where do we hide the confederate flag, who is the latest
transgendered athlete, which rapper shot which other rapper, whether coffee has
more antioxidants than spinach, etc. We are bombarded by 24/7 media and instant
communications. I was just getting used to "that Hitler guy looks like trouble", "did
you see they made something called an A-bomb?" and "Hey when it's cloudy at
11PM, you can get Oklahoma City on the radio!" Easy to image aliens from Betelgeuse or K-Pax doing anthropology studies on us and remarking that all other species follow the simple, but effective process of instinct, while these advanced
simians think they are logical, but screw up most everything.
It's always fascinated me how 9 SCOTUS members constantly disagree about what the Law says. Give 'em a toaster manual and they'll break down into the usual camps.
ReplyDeleteWhat do GOP voters think?
ReplyDeleteRubio, Trump & Paul 11% Walker, Carson & Bush 10% Cruz 9%, Huckabee 6%,
Fiorina 3%, Perry, Kasitch, Fiorina, Santorum & Christie 2%,
Pataki & Jindal 0% and undecided 8% Anybody not running?
What's the point of such a crowded field? & where's Sarah Palin?
DeleteFor me, this was all simply a legal issue. The fight over words is superfluous. When people say the meanings of words cannot be changed, and that it has never happened before, they are just not credible.
ReplyDeleteThis could have all been solved years ago when gays asked for equal rights for civil unions, but conservatives said no. And with that, over 1000 different laws, tax breaks and what not, were not available to gay couples.
Conservatives had a chance to do the right thing morally in how they treated people, but they refused. By not allowing civil unions in the past, and allowing hospitals to tell a gay man he had no right to visit his dying life ling partner, they surrendered the moral high ground.
But... as it regards the SCOTUS, it is hard to see how they legally, using this as precedent, bar polygamy. After all, that presumably will also be between consenting adults and maybe an equal access question as well.
Dave your last paragraph is so true yet people made fun of me not that long ago when I made the same slippery slope argument.
DeleteHetero (or whatever the non-gay 'community' is called) people generally
Deleteprefer the concept of civil union to same-sex marriage. Probably less confusing.
I don't think most gays would settle for this BB. First off civil unions are seen as giving them something so they'd stop annoying us with their complaining. No I think they want the whole package.
DeleteBB, too bad they didn't move to codify that a few years ago... maybe they wouldn't be ready to jump off of bridges tonight.
ReplyDeleteZ... time will tell...
Here's where I differ from most conservatives re my opposition if you will to gay marriage. My main reason against is the slippery slope you mentioned Dave. How can we now bar polygamy or brother and sister marrying or whatever other sexual configuration we can conjure up? My anti-stance has nothing to do with I think gays are horrible people but rather I think the country as a whole needs to hit the PAUSE button and reflect which we never do. Nobody but nobody has thought this through because everybody's celebrating.
DeleteBut what I really need to know is what are you guys gonna do with your extra second today?
ReplyDeleteWe set a record 111 degrees on Sunday, beating the old one by some
Deleteseven *%&^# degrees..going on second week over 100 each day. When
will we seen the runoff from the glaciers up at the Nat'l Park? (I used the
extra second to comment here)
Now if you lived in India or Pakistan and had this type of heatwave you'd probably join the hundreds dead already. I don't blame the Pakistanis protesting their own government while they're dying in the streets.
DeleteYeah, those temps are hard if one is out in the environment all day; most
Deleteplaces over the the N Pacific coast don't have AC, so they are toughing it out. Me, I got the AC at 77 and ventured out onto the back deck this afternoon to down a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale under the shade of one of the big River Birches. But, heck, I still complain.
I took another swig of cold water.
DeleteBB, when you hit 111, what's the nite temp? Here in Vegas in the summer, we rarely get below 90 at nite.
I often wonder why firework stands don't combust during the day...
Jindal and Christie threw in their hats. Where is Karl Rove going to throw his
ReplyDeletewell-toned weight? Meanwhile the Trumpster is suing all the networks, talk about
Rich White Trash, ya know?
& Hannity is defending him. Trump can't paper over this one. Come to think of it though his thoughts on Mexicans aren't all that disimilar to some typical right-wing blogposts.
DeleteIt has been reported-
Delete"So there's yer problem. The leadership of the party hates him for being an obnoxious asshole who spouts racist sentiments and bizarre conspiracy theories. The actual membership of the party like him very much for being an obnoxious asshole who spouts racist sentiments and bizarre conspiracy theories."
-I mentioned to the Mrs. that I knew Jr. High kids with more maturity than that political dilettante. So, maybe Hannity would be the only person he
could get to run as VP?
So why doesn't he just run as an Independent and maybe siphon votes away from the Republican nominee?
DeleteI'm thinking Jeb may end up on top: he released 35 years worth of personal finances, a record. Gotta admit that is pretty classy.
DeleteMay as well include records of his weekly allowances while growing up.
DeleteSounds like that prison upstate is sort of a scandal. I'm amazed the two escapees
ReplyDeletedid as well as they did in the deep woods; probably a new TV series "Escapees
In The Woods', along the lines of 'Naked And Afraid', 'Fat Guy In The Woods',
'Dual Survival', etc. Maybe they watched "Man vs Wild" with Bear Grylls?
Probably had a dog-eared copy of that old classic "How to Shit in the Woods."
DeleteThe 'Sasquatch Community' seems to have their own concert ,
ReplyDeletebike tour and line of retail merchandize . Not bad for an ephemeral imaginary
para humanoid species, no?
There's a fatal flaw in the Sasauatch theory. As Lt. Colombo would say not in all the fifty years Bigfoot has entered the public consciousness has a hiker stumbled upon a deceased Sasquatch in the woods. Not once. I find that very curious.
ReplyDeleteThe cryptozoologists claim that the creatures are very meticulous about removing carcasses of their fellow Sasquatch, pointing out that a Sasquatch family in W Canada was run over by a woman driving a truck: the mommy BF, the daddy BF
ReplyDeleteand the little kid BigFoot were laying in the road. She went to the next town to report, but when help arrived, the entire familial corpse mess was gone. Probably
why cryptobiology is thought of as pseudoscience. Why haven't Bill Murray and Dan
Akroyd done a film about this?
I thought maybe they spontaneously combust.
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any other licensure of which the government issues that precludes issuance based on sexual orientation so I suppose it stands to reason that this would happen. People would be better off not marrying under the state and as well institutions would be better off not clamoring to government for tax exempt status.
ReplyDeleteWith all those perks comes a whole lotta strings. With enough of them you can craft a pretty slick noose with which to hang yourself.