Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IcyTea31]

http://thehill.com/regulation/240163-religious-leaders-want-justices-restrained-from-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage

Can you imagine if they did that on interracial marriage, or any other issue for that matter? One side just saying the other just literally CAN'T even have a chance of winning or even presenting their case at all? Just imagine a corporation paying to pass a law saying nobody could ever sue them because no judge ever had jurisdiction no matter what.

Ouch.

People have different opinions than we do! Let's stop them from getting a fair hearing, because we think we have authority over them, for some reason!

Everyone should definitely get a fair hearing for their opinions. Yes, even these fundies. Let's hear them: the judges are allegedly favoring the cause of the gay rights agenda. I disagree: treating people equally is the complete opposite of favoring a political cause. The argument is simply wrong, and they should come up with a new, more sensible one, or concede. Such a fair hearing and open debate should be a human right (if it isn't already, I don't know), not merely a gay right.

[Flying Dice]

Spoiler: Funnily enough, that was the plot of XIII. (click to show/hide)

The conspiracy was to launch a military coup under guise of similar "war games". Only the leaders were apparently the KKK, judging from their outfits.

Might have been some order of Catholic knights. IIRC that's where the Klan got the idea for their pointy-headed Halloween costumes.

[Dutrius]

...why don't they just set up a Moodle page? Even 21 megs is within sane upload levels, and 5 very much so. 134 pages is well outside sane printing ranges.

That's AQA for you.

[Lord Shonus]

http://thehill.com/regulation/240163-religious-leaders-want-justices-restrained-from-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage

Can you imagine if they did that on interracial marriage, or any other issue for that matter? One side just saying the other just literally CAN'T even have a chance of winning or even presenting their case at all? Just imagine a corporation paying to pass a law saying nobody could ever sue them because no judge ever had jurisdiction no matter what.

Ouch.

People have different opinions than we do! Let's stop them from getting a fair hearing, because we think we have authority over them, for some reason!

Everyone should definitely get a fair hearing for their opinions. Yes, even these fundies. Let's hear them: the judges are allegedly favoring the cause of the gay rights agenda. I disagree: treating people equally is the complete opposite of favoring a political cause. The argument is simply wrong, and they should come up with a new, more sensible one, or concede. Such a fair hearing and open debate should be a human right (if it isn't already, I don't know), not merely a gay right.

Put more charitably, the argument is that, as a few of the judges have officiated at gay weddings, they've already prejudged the case and will vote to strike down marriage bans no matter what arguments are presented, what the legal analysis is, or what evidence is presented. Which is actually a very solid reason to demand that a judge sits out - prejudged cases are by far the most dangerous threat to a society based on the concept that the law applies to everyone, even if the initial effect is a positive one. Fortunately, in this case the argument is bunk - there's a major difference between performing or participating an activity where it is legal and deciding in advance that you will make it legal everywhere else.

[TempAcc]

On the same sex marriage thing:
The fundies (IE north american protestants) legal argument on the matter isn't entirely quack though. A judge can be restrained from ruling on a case they have demonstrated previous a bias on, in favor or in disfavor of either party (as long as there is some proof of it) or at least they can in most democratic states.

Of course, wether or not said judges have actualy displaced a bias in relation to gay marriage is a question that is pretty much in the air and has no clear answer.

EDIT: Ninja'd TL;DR: They may be fundies, but they got valid legal argument for it.

[IcyTea31]

Yes. Equal, objective treatment should apply to both sides of the issue. It is acceptable to forbid a possibly biased judge, based on past evidence, from judging a case, as long as they're replaced by a fair one. To forbid every single judge from judging a case on the off-chance that they might be biased, however, is not. Note the slippery slope. Justice needs an impartial judge or jury; can that even be properly argued against?

Edit: I realize the explantation of the validity of the legal claim was conspicuously absent from the news article. It, along with my prejudices, painted me a picture of them being the usual ignorant windbags who have never heard of valid logic, which apparently is at least somewhat false an image. Elisive manipulation by the media or just innocent leaving out unimportant matters? Food for thought.

[Bauglir]

While I respect the desire to avoid biased judges, and certainly understand the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, it's pretty much bunk here. At this point, the argument would have us keep all married justices out because they have a stake in the definition of marriage, or something. What I expect justices at the level of the Supreme Court to do is separate the opinions they must inevitably have on the matter as a matter of cultural osmosis from the legal arguments at hand. Even Scalia manages to do that as often as not, and he's one of the most activist judges whose opinions I've had the misfortune of reading, right up there with Rehnquist.

[Lord Shonus]

While I respect the desire to avoid biased judges, and certainly understand the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, it's pretty much bunk here. At this point, the argument would have us keep all married justices out because they have a stake in the definition of marriage, or something. What I expect justices at the level of the Supreme Court to do is separate the opinions they must inevitably have on the matter as a matter of cultural osmosis from the legal arguments at hand. Even Scalia manages to do that as often as not, and he's one of the most activist judges whose opinions I've had the misfortune of reading, right up there with Rehnquist.

I fully agree here, but I did want to make sure that the entire story was being represented and not just a one-sided claim.

[Bauglir]

I appreciate that. Thank you for doing it!

[Bohandas]

One side just saying the other just literally CAN'T even have a chance of winning or even presenting their case at all? Just imagine a corporation paying to pass a law saying nobody could ever sue them because no judge ever had jurisdiction no matter what.

You mean the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

[scrdest]

Presidential Candidate Kook is back! This time he wants to push for nuclear weapons for Polish Army.

This presidential campaign is doubly hilarious - or I'm noticing it more this time - but dear god how much these people fail at acting.

[FearfulJesuit]

Presidential Candidate Kook is back! This time he wants to push for nuclear weapons for Polish Army.

This presidential campaign is doubly hilarious - or I'm noticing it more this time - but dear god how much these people fail at acting.

Perhaps he and Ted Cruz will usher in a brave new era of US-Polish relations.

[TheDarkStar]

Presidential Candidate Kook is back!

Which one?

[Orange Wizard]

One side just saying the other just literally CAN'T even have a chance of winning or even presenting their case at all? Just imagine a corporation paying to pass a law saying nobody could ever sue them because no judge ever had jurisdiction no matter what.

You mean the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement might as well be renamed the AnCap Agreement.

[nenjin]

This definitely qualified for me.