The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Jimjamesak]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

BTW, a question for the legal eagles around here: What are the chances of an actual hearing on this in the 9th Circuit? Or will they say "we already ruled on this, get out"?

 

[joecct]

BTW, a question for the legal eagles around here: What are the chances of an actual hearing on this in the 9th Circuit? Or will they say "we already ruled on this, get out"?

See my post from 10:47 yesterday.

I don't like it, I think it's wrong, but the courts and legislatures have ruled.

 

[unofan]

BTW, a question for the legal eagles around here: What are the chances of an actual hearing on this in the 9th Circuit? Or will they say "we already ruled on this, get out"?

The 9th circuit is obligated to hear the first appeal in front of a 3 judge panel, though that panel is bound by the prior ruling. They are not obligated to hear it en banc thereafter.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

But Lynah, you are thinking all Supreme Courty, taking into account that actual 14th and 5th Amendments. Numerous federal courts have shown that to be true.

Righties, on the other hand, are thinking about what gives them the willies. Their slippery slope angle with plural marriages is just a bluff. Do you think the righties would sit still for one woman, Hispanic at that, having ten husbands? No. But the political side of that one could be fun. As long as the laws permitted all comers to have multiple partners, there's no reason they couldn't put a limit on the number of partners you could have. Or maybe they could give everyone a point limit and assigning points to non suspect classes, such as hotness. Everybody could be limited to 100 points, and hotties could be worth, say, 40. If a guy (we'll use men because it makes more sense that way) had two hotties and the others weren't keeping up with the cooking, cleaning, baby-raising, and income-earning, he could create some cap space by divorcing one hottie and marrying 4 or 5 grinders. Who's to say marriage can't be both constitutional and fun.

Your guys will oppose plural marriage until the polls tell them to evolve on the issue and change their position, as they have done in the recent past.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Your guys will oppose plural marriage until the polls tell them to evolve on the issue and change their position, as they have done in the recent past.

If you think your guys operate any differently, you have somehow managed to survive all these years on this earth without learning anything about politicians.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If you think your guys operate any differently, you have somehow managed to survive all these years on this earth without learning anything about politicians.

You don't know who my guys are if you think that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You don't know who my guys are if you think that.

And you think you know who my guys are because...?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And you think you know who my guys are because...?

I was never referring to your guys. My comment was to burd. But, if you want to disown pretty much the whole Democratic party's convenient flipping on the issue, that would be an honorable thing for you to do.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And you think you know who my guys are because...?

Because he believes the Supreme Court is a liberal hotbed of free love and weed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I was never referring to your guys. My comment was to burd. But, if you want to disown pretty much the whole Democratic party's convenient flipping on the issue, that would be an honorable thing for you to do.

I repeat, if you think there are politicians of any stripe out there who wouldn't flip-flop on an issue if their key constituency did, you are... well, to be honest that's kind of sweet and I hope I can maintain that level of idealism.

I notice that southern politicians don't run on the sacred duty and the divine order of segregation much anymore. There may or may not be bedrock moral certainties in life, but politics is no place to look for their exemplars.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I repeat, if you think there are politicians of any stripe out there who wouldn't flip-flop on an issue if their key constituency did, you are... well, to be honest that's kind of sweet and I hope I can maintain that level of idealism.

I notice that southern politicians don't run on the sacred duty and the divine order of segregation much anymore. There may or may not be bedrock moral certainties in life, but politics is no place to look for their exemplars.

Ah, the old, everybody supposedly does it, so it's ok for the politicians I like to do it deflection.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ah, the old, everybody supposedly does it, so it's ok for the politicians I like to do it deflection.

?

I didn't follow this at all.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

?

I didn't follow this at all.

I did. Read it again.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

?

I didn't follow this at all.

You said that all politicians flip flop, rather than respond to my comment about the Dems conveniently flipping when the polls turned on gay marriage. I think it's a pretty clear point I'm making, though of course I don't expect you will agree.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You said that all politicians flip flop, rather than respond to my comment about the Dems conveniently flipping when the polls turned on gay marriage. I think it's a pretty clear point I'm making, though of course I don't expect you will agree.

I still don't get what you're saying. That was my response. You're accusing me of ducking when I'm directly engaging you.

I don't think the Dems flipping was "dishonorable" in the sense of say I promised you something and then I didn't do it. It was political, and everything about politics is sketchy. Congressman Jones (R) represents a deep red district in a border state. He is ardently Pro-Life. Suddenly, tons of moderate, college educated Republicans move into his district. Congressman Jones has an "agonizing reconsideration" and becomes Pro-Choice. Congressman Smith (D) represents a majority black district in a northern city. He favors Reparations. The districts are redrawn and half his district is now an upper-middle class white suburb. Congressman Smith "reassesses the situation" and abandons his support for Reparations as "not in the best tradition of American individualism." And so it goes.

It is a mistake to equate the private opinion of a politician with his public stance. Sometimes they agree -- probably because of the synchronization of party and social issues most times they agree. But certainly not always. Obama obviously always favored gay rights, if not actual gay marriage. He's a Harvard law professor. Probably 80% of the Republicans in Congress privately think gay couples should have the right to marry. Look at their backgrounds -- they're mostly wealthy people from established universities; they have staffers who are gay. A few have the fundy wildcard thrown in, but in the vast majority of cases they are walking the Bush Faux Folksy walk and faking their opinion to suit their audience.

You know what happens when Congressman Firebrand Prolife's 15-year old gets knocked up by the captain of the Arlington HS football team? She has a nice, discrete procedure in the Vermont town next to her family's "vacation retreat" and gets on with life. That's how DC has always operated. If you think the guy pounding the podium with moral outrage at your convention is serious -- you're right, serious as a heart attack for your vote, and that's it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It was dishonorable in that they didn't say it was a political move, they said they had a change of heart, were evolving, and all sorts of other smoke screen language. I'd be more ok with it if they came out and admitted that Americans were moving a certain direction and they were changing their political stance based on that. Instead of making it out to be some sincere change of deeply held views in their heart. The timing of when they flipped en mass says it was caused by poll numbers, not a change of heart.

There are people who actually believe in things sincerely. I remember you talking about how your wife respected Tom Coburn (I think that's who it was) because, even though she disagree with him on many issues, he really believed what he said and acted in accordance.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It was dishonorable in that they didn't say it was a political move, they said they had a change of heart, were evolving, and all sorts of other smoke screen language. I'd be more ok with it if they came out and admitted that Americans were moving a certain direction and they were changing their political stance based on that. Instead of making it out to be some sincere change of deeply held views in their heart. The timing of when they flipped en mass says it was caused by poll numbers, not a change of heart.

There are people who actually believe in things sincerely. I remember you talking about how your wife respected Tom Coburn (I think that's who it was) because, even though she disagree with him on many issues, he really believed what he said and acted in accordance.

You mean like when Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romeny (President 2016) said outright that they were for big tax breaks to oil companies instead of relieving school debt?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It was dishonorable in that they didn't say it was a political move, they said they had a change of heart, were evolving, and all sorts of other smoke screen language. I'd be more ok with it if they came out and admitted that Americans were moving a certain direction and they were changing their political stance based on that. Instead of making it out to be some sincere change of deeply held views in their heart. The timing of when they flipped en mass says it was caused by poll numbers, not a change of heart.

There are people who actually believe in things sincerely. I remember you talking about how your wife respected Tom Coburn (I think that's who it was) because, even though she disagree with him on many issues, he really believed what he said and acted in accordance.

I look at it like this. If when the politician kisses your baby you think he likes your baby, then you get what you deserve.

Politics is pandering, period. The solace is that 99% of the time the real feelings of a politician don't mean jack when it comes to job performance. The stated "principles" of politicians are just another way for them to connect with voters. People have principles. Politicians are not people; they are roles in a play.

BTW, I can't prove it but I strongly suspect this comes to their religion, too. A church makes an even better prop than a baby.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You mean like when Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romeny (President 2016) said outright that they were for big tax breaks to oil companies instead of relieving school debt?

I'm not familiar enough with those candidates' histories on those issues to know if they flip-flopped due to poll numbers or not.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Your guys will oppose plural marriage until the polls tell them to evolve on the issue and change their position, as they have done in the recent past.

You say something like that in response to my proposal for a plural marriage system that could be "both constitutional and fun?"

What does a girl have to do?