Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread
#71

Do these rulings mean that if a gay couple marries in a state where it's legal, then move to one where it's not, the "moved to" state has to legally recognize their marriage?

EDIT:  As I look around, the answer is "apparently not" though most likely federal benefits would still apply.

So...it's ultimately a baby-step given that 38 states still don't recognize gay marriage.  Though at least it pretty much gets DOMA out of the way in the future.

Reply
#72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

OMIGOD.





Omigod, you guys.





You guys.





Brangelina can end their protest strike and get married now.





You guys. OMIGOD.

Reply
#73

pffft....Brangelina's thunder is stolen.

Quote:

In the rush of excitement after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, actress Kristen Bell jumped onto Twitter to propose to her fiancé, Dax Shepard, who is also the dad of her 3-month-old baby girl, Lincoln.

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/marriage...00886.html

Reply
#74

Dax Shepard?  Now I want to get rid of straight marriage.

Reply
#75

Well, that didn't take long

In a thoroughly unsurprising, but extremely quick move, the Texas AG pounces on the 'holy shit! we get to discriminate against minorities legally again!' wagon.

Reply
#76

Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.

Reply
#77
A[quote name="VTRan" url="/community/t/146967/who-elected-these-morons-the-supreme-court-thread/60#post_3538093"]Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.



[/quote]

Hahaha! That's great! I wish I could find the Old clip from the Daily Show showing Santorums freak out on the senate saying allowing gay marriage will lead to man on turtle sex. So funny. This was before the GOP was filled to the brim with loons so Stewarts reaction was amazing. This was 2004 I think that's when I first heard of Santorum and thought he committed professional and political seppuku. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
Reply
#78
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.


The fish can do better.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#79

Like father, like son.

Scalia's Son Says Homosexuality Doesn't Exist, Plans to Address Group that Encourages Lifelong Abstinence for Gays

Reply
#80

Just discovered this; this seemed the proper thread.

Reply
#81

Hey, guess what those conservative SCOTUS douchebags are doing now...




Quote:



Against the protests of liberals on the bench, conservative justices signaled Tuesday during oral arguments for McCutcheon v. FEC that the Supreme Court may further unwind campaign finance restrictions by eliminating federal limits on how much individuals may donate to political candidates and committees.



Justice Antonin Scalia, who led the charge for conservatives, disputed the idea that giving large amounts to candidates or parties reflects "corruption," instead likening it to "gratitude."



"I mean, if gratitude is corruption, don't those independent expenditures [by PACs] evoke gratitude?" he said. "It's not as if we're prohibiting big money from being in politics. Big money can be in political -- you just can't give to political parties."



Scalia was referring to the 2010 case, Citizens United v. FEC, which gave rise to super PACs by invalidating limits on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, labor unions and associations.



The case justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday was brought in 2012 by Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who argued that the Federal Election Campaign Act's biennial limit on individual contributions violated their First Amendment rights. It has the potential to further dismantle the campaign spending limits the justices scaled back with the Citizens United decision.



The irony of conservatives referring to Citizens United wasn't lost on Kagan. "If this court is having second thoughts," she said, "we could change that part of the law!" Laughs ensued in the courtroom.



Based on the justices' questioning during the hour-long oral arguments, it's plausible that conservatives could muster five votes to unwind some of the restrictions at stake.



<cont.>



On top of the Citizen's United decision, the decision here could fuck any future US electoral process and pretty much guarantee that the US is 'Brundled' into a full blown Plutocracy.

Reply
#82

This situation is so terrible that I don't even want to read the news to find out how they end up ruling.  I think the future of this country might rest in Justice Kennedy's hands right now.



"Who elected these morons" is right.  SCOTUS has WAY too much power for unelected lifetime appointments.

Reply
#83

To the sounds of billions of dollars spent on political advertising to influence all electoral races--from Presidential to school board--begins the end of the Republic.  Seriously.

Reply
#84

Yeah, remember when the President mentioned in his SOTU that SCOTUS' Citizens United ruling would open the door to foreign interests manipulating U.S. elections?  And remember when Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed "not true"?  Yeah, good times.



The Cable Feds: Mexican Tycoon Exploited Super PACs to Influence U.S. Elections


Reply
#85

yt, that man has a lot of money, so clearly that makes him better than us and I obviously want someone who is better than me deciding things. My modest, freelance, don't-know-how-I'm-going-to-pay-the-bills-for-4-months-a-year, slowly dissolving middle class mind just should not be left to help affect decisions that could affect all of us, GAWD!



:: runs to room, slams door, listens to the Cure ::

Reply
#86

This could get really ugly...



Supreme Court Weighing Obamacare Birth Control Coverage


Quote:

Two years after the entire law survived the justices' review by a single vote, the court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a religion-based challenge from family-owned companies that object to covering certain contraceptives in their health plans as part of the law's preventive care requirement.



Health plans must offer a range of services at no extra charge, including all forms of birth control for women that have been approved by federal regulators.


Some of the nearly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives object to paying for all forms of birth control. But the companies involved in the high court case are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.



The largest company among them, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and the Green family that owns it, say their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."


Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.




Would jewish or muslim owned businesses be able to discriminate against people that eat pork?



If I owned a business and thought that psychology and psychiatrists were 'evil', could I deny any sort of mental health insurance coverage for my employees?

Reply
#87
AIt's a potential minefield. What other laws would for-profit businesses be able to claim exemption from? Can the owners of a nuclear power plant get a waiver for environmental and workplace safety laws if they claim to belong to a doomsday cult?
Reply
#88

So I've been reading this extrapolation here and there on the internets over the last few days...



-The people that own Hobby Lobby don't want to have to pay for birth control because they feel that it is a form of abortion.



- Apparently Hobby Lobby sells a good number of items that are made in China



-No doubt taxes from these 'Made in China' items are collected by the Chinese government.



-Now according to wiki:


      -Abortion in China is legal and is a government service available on request for women


      -...in 2008, there were an estimated 13 million abortions performed, and approximately 10 million abortion pills sold



Therefore, using Hobby Lobby 'logic', they are guilty of being complicit in the abortion deaths of millions upon millions of Chinese children.




So, when are they going to stop selling products that are 'made in China'?

Reply
#89

Not to mention Hobby Lobby covered contraceptives until That One got ACA through.

Reply
#90

Yep. Which just underlines the reason Hillary shouldn't run in 2016.

Reply
#91
Quote:

Originally Posted by CDI F. Kelly View Post
 

Yep. Which just underlines the reason Hillary shouldn't run in 2016.


????

Reply
#92
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

????


Sorry, I should've quoted Jacob's previous post.



Hillary shouldn't run because the GOP will treat her in much the same way they've treated Obama -- not as an elected leader, but as an Other to be blocked, insulted, mischaracterized, and beaten down at every opportunity.   They hate him, and they will hate her too if she were to become president.  It has far less to do with his positions or initiatives or priorities and everything to do with what they perceive as an interloper presuming to take part in "their" government.



Nor am I making any comment on if HIllary would be a good president -- that's immaterial to the GOP.  If we want any movement in Congress, the Democrats would be wise to run a white guy.  He may be a Democrat, the GOP will say, but at least he's not black or a woman...especially that woman.



Disgusting but true.

Reply
#93
AOf course you must realize that the Republicans will treat any Dem candidate as an "other"
Reply
#94
A[quote name="CDI F. Kelly" url="/community/t/146967/who-elected-these-morons-the-supreme-court-thread/50#post_3690971"]

Sorry, I should've quoted Jacob's previous post. 

Hillary shouldn't run because the GOP will treat her in much the same way they've treated Obama -- not as an elected leader, but as an Other to be blocked, insulted, mischaracterized, and beaten down at every opportunity.   They hate him, and they will hate her too if she were to become president.  It has far less to do with his positions or initiatives or priorities and everything to do with what they perceive as an interloper presuming to take part in "their" government. 

Nor am I making any comment on if HIllary would be a good president -- that's immaterial to the GOP.  If we want any movement in Congress, the Democrats would be wise to run a white guy.  He may be a Democrat, the GOP will say, but at least he's not black or a woman...especially that woman.

Disgusting but true.
[/quote]

You're not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's presidency, are you? It doesn't matter who beats the Republicans. It's having lost an election that drives them, and their voter base, to fits of rage.
Reply
#95

Not that this should be a surprise to anyone....



Quote:

Hobby Lobby’s secret agenda: How it’s quietly funding a vast right-wing movement


Exclusive: How entities related to the company are quietly pumping tens of millions into a mélange of fringe causes



I hope I live long enough to see the day where churches end up being taxed like any other businesses (coughscamcough)....

Reply
#96
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


You're not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's presidency, are you? It doesn't matter who beats the Republicans. It's having lost an election that drives them, and their voter base, to fits of rage.

Oh yes, I remember.  I'm 36.  I also teach government and politics.  I also know that while many Republicans hated Bill Clinton, they still got shit done.  Now we have this:





This, even in the Senate, which is traditionally less partisan than the House.  This shows the enormous lack of consensus -- and that gap is, I believe, demonstrative of how the GOP have an intolerance for Obama that previous administrations haven't had to deal with.   They'll treat Hillary the same way.

Reply
#97

And historically speaking, the best way to overcome intolerance is to back off entirely and give the intolerant everything they ask for.  Am I following correctly?

Reply
#98

Fourth attempt, deleted. That graphic keeps lobbing me "conservatives achieving asexual reproduction" jokes, but I just can't get the bat on the ball in any way that makes sense. It's all so meta.

Reply
#99
AMe-me-me!!!-osis.

I tried . . .
Reply

When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare's contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.



Quote:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).



Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

Reply
AOne potential precedent that I wish I could find more analysis on: does recognizing a business owner's right to use his corporation as an expression of his religious attitudes break down the institutionalized unaccountability provided by corporate laws, to the extent that CEOs and stockholders can then be sued in person for the conduct of their corporations? Because that could be a game changer in the fight against climate change, among other issues.
Reply

Well, SCOTUS dealt another blow to the average American's ability to have any real voice in their government yet again:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...or-limits/



We need to change our textbooks to reflect that we are in fact a "Plutocratic Republic."  Though of course this will never happen.

Reply

Short of one of the anti-common human/pro-millionaire five retiring or shuffling off this mortal coil, the only thing that will stop fascism by SCOTUS degree is a constitutional amendment.  There is not other option at this point.

Reply

Welp, now we can stop paying lip service to that whole "democracy" illusion . . .

Reply

A Supreme Court Justice can be impeached.



Quote:

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.[76] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[77] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[78]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Cou...ted_States



Unfortunately, I don't think one should start holding their breath...

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)