Print

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

[RedKing]

Oh I know, I can't stand Scalia. He's one of the most opinionated, prejudging sons of a motherless goat that's ever worn the robe. But every now and then he makes the right decision, even if sometimes for the wrong reason.

That's why I was kinda stunned to hear that this got slapped down unanimously and that Scalia wrote the opinion, in which it was refuted not on some arcane logic or strict Constitutionalism, but on grounds of common sense and precedent.

[Truean]

Oh I know, I can't stand Scalia. He's one of the most opinionated, prejudging sons of a motherless goat that's ever worn the robe. But every now and then he makes the right decision, even if sometimes for the wrong reason.

That's why I was kinda stunned to hear that this got slapped down unanimously and that Scalia wrote the opinion, in which it was refuted not on some arcane logic or strict Constitutionalism, but on grounds of common sense and precedent.

This makes absolutely perfect sense. Scalia will, of course, do mental gymnastics in his own mind to avoid blame, but maybe the reason he came off scathing is because this is his damn fault. Because clearly the rest of us aren't smart enough to see the brilliance of his money = free speech argument and this is proof of our stupidity/misapplication of law, rather than the natural and probable result of his buffoonery....

It's like Eric Cartman suddenly slamming his latest evil and sometimes genocidal plot in reverse because he suddenly realizes he will not like the consequences. Of course Cartman never sees himself for what he is, the evil bastard opposite Kyle's relative goodness, and Stan's position as the everyman.

[Aqizzar]

Well, if nothing else, at least a solid precedent has been established to uphold the constitutionality of restricting the actions of individual legislators for proscribed reasons.  Sure, one precedent dumped unlimited money into politics, but now there's no confusion over whether legislatures can make their own rules to punish blatant conflict of interest (to the extent that there ever was confusion).

Who knows, with that set up on a national stage, you might even see a stricter interpretation of the idea, like extending "conflict of interest" voting-prohibition pertaining to anyone who has given a candidate campaign contributions.  And maybe chocolate coated $100s will rain from the sky, and we'll never need to worry about that again anyway.

[Strife26]

US or Old Zimbabwe?

[RedKing]

And maybe chocolate coated $100s will rain from the sky, and we'll never need to worry about that again anyway.

Mmmm....Baking Benjamins...


Continuing the feel-good progressive vibe for the day, 4 State Senators in New York (3 D, 1 R) have changed their stance on same-sex marriage, opening the way for a potential bill to be brought up in the state legislature.

[Truean]

And maybe chocolate coated $100s will rain from the sky, and we'll never need to worry about that again anyway.

Mmmm....Baking Benjamins...

Continuing the feel-good progressive vibe for the day, 4 State Senators in New York (3 D, 1 R) have changed their stance on same-sex marriage, opening the way for a potential bill to be brought up in the state legislature.

Nice, I'm a little sick of the second class citizen status bullshit Americans feel so self righteous in imposing. If gay marriage was so damn evil, the snow in Canada would've caught fire long ago.

[RedKing]

Okay back to the rage.

Congressional Oversight Chief Releases Classified Documents, Impacts Ongoing Criminal Cases

Nice job breaking it, dumbass.

Made all the more galling by Rep. Issa (the same guy who had a hard-on for investigating Bill Clinton's hard-on) being the same person who insisted that Congress shouldn't hold hearings on Blackwater's abuses until the State Dept. had concluded its own investigation. DOJ investigation is still ongoing, but now apparently it's imperative that they start holding hearings.

[Vector]

Hello, ETV!  Good to have you here.  As for why I didn't reply to your posts... well, you have to understand that I need to sleep and to go to class once in a while =)

I don't support any particular political party, and I'm not running for office because I'd be very bad at it.  I don't really know what I'll do with these opinions.  Probably start writing letters and supporting campaigns when I have my life more set up and squared away than it currently is.  You know.  When I have a job and an income, rather than just half of a university education.

I'd also say that I'd prefer that one not speak of members of a lower, presumably uneducated class (plebeians) negatively by default in this thread.  We are not patricians.  Or, at the very least, I know I'm not.  This is not a problem solely for the ruling class or an intellectual elite to squabble over amongst themselves, far away from the general populace and their experiences of suffering; this is an issue for everyone.  Most of the people in this thread speak not to an arbitrary other, but to what they, themselves, have experienced.

We are not Prometheus, bringing fire from the gods; we are here to build our own light, and to invite others to keep our counsel.  Please keep that in mind.

[Truean]

We are not Prometheus, bringing fire from the gods; we are here to build our own light, and to invite others to keep our counsel.  Please keep that in mind.

Mind if I sig that? It seems tribute worthy.

[Vector]

We are not Prometheus, bringing fire from the gods; we are here to build our own light, and to invite others to keep our counsel.  Please keep that in mind.

Mind if I sig that?

Go for it.


Oh, and Scriver, you can sig that thing that you wanted to a while ago if you still feel like it.  I realized that I forgot to respond >____>

[Truean]

"With Liberty and Justice for All...."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gaymarriage_california

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceeding," Judge Ware wrote.

If the reverse were true, then any judge who owned a gun couldn't issue a ruling on gun rights or regulation. Humorously enough, the same argument could be made about a judge who didn't own a gun.

That's right bigots, the mere fact that the judge was gay, does not mean he is incapable of issuing a proper legal ruling on an issue effecting gays anymore than a straight judge would be incapable of such a ruling....

P.S. Screw you.

[scriver]

I would have, had I been the siggin type, regardless of your thoughts on the matter.

Well, not totally without regard.

[Glowcat]

"With Liberty and Justice for All...."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gaymarriage_california

That's right bigots, the mere fact that the judge was gay, does not mean he is incapable of issuing a proper legal ruling....

P.S. Screw you.

Hells yeah! At least I can love my state for its judges.

Wait, when did this because the Progressive Celebration thread? There have been quite a few positive updates here.

[Virex]

"With Liberty and Justice for All...."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gaymarriage_california

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceeding," Judge Ware wrote.

Wrong decision. Very very wrong. That ruling is always going to have an air of biass. They should have redone the trail because now the ruling is essentially useless.

[Leafsnail]

Wrong decision. Very very wrong. That ruling is always going to have an air of biass. They should have redone the trail because now the ruling is essentially useless.

Yeah.  They shouldn't allow people who will be affected by it to judge the issue.  So they should ban gay, straight, bisexual, transexual and any other sexualities of judges, since the change of the definition of marriage will clearly affect them.