Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

 

[Wilsongt]

Except, no. Because defeating the "homofacist" movement is violating the constitution, as has been ruled almost 20 times so far.

 

[jamesinclair]

How would Sandra Day O'Connor have ruled?


Also, Obama saved Community, reelection confirmed

 

[benjipwns]

"homofacist"

Looks like we've got a denier guys:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-revolution-of-the-family-the-marxist-roots-of-homosexualism
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The Make-Believe World of Homosexualists.htm

 

[Metaphoreus]

Except, Plan B prevents fertilization from happening, meaning that a "person" will not be "destroyed".

Of course, you can't argue science against religious beliefs

From the government brief:

Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in pill form that works principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova; it may inhibit implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus) by altering the endometrium, but it is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

The government effectively conceded that science was on Hobby Lobby's side, which is as good as a fact in a lawsuit.

 

[Wilsongt]

From the government brief:



The government effectively conceded that science was on Hobby Lobby's side, which is as good as a fact in a lawsuit.

Emergency postcoital contraception
Levonorgestrel
Mechanism and efficacy
There is strong evidence that treatment with emergency contraception acts primarily by preventing or delaying ovulation and by preventing fertilization.22–26 Studies have indicated that emergency contraception does not prevent implantation.27–29 Experiments in monkeys and rats could detect no effect of a high dose of levonorgesterel administered postcoitally once fertilization had occurred.30,31 The evidence indicates that a postfertilization effect does not contribute to the efficacy of emergency contraception.25,30–33 Clinicians, pharmacists, and patients can be reassured that treatment with emergency contraception is not an abortifacient.

Several clinical studies have shown that combined ECPs containing the estrogen ethinyl estradiol and the progestin levonorgestrel can inhibit or delay ovulation.1-4 Although early studies indicated that alterations in the endometrium after treatment with the regimen might impair receptivity to implantation of a fertilized egg, more recent studies have found no such effects on the endometrium.5,6 Additional possible mechanisms include interference with corpus luteum function; thickening of the cervical mucus resulting in trapping of sperm; alterations in the tubal transport of sperm, egg, or embryo; and direct inhibition of fertilization.7-10 No clinical data exist regarding the last three possibilities.

http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Proceedings/EC/MOA

As medical authorities such as the National Institutes of Health,24 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists25 and the US FDA define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy, they are not abortifacients.22

Science is more reliable than the Feds.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Proceedings/EC/MOA

Science is more reliable than the Feds.

Legally, that makes no difference. If one side does not contest the factual assertions of the other, then the assertions of the other may be taken as fact.

Now, for some fun:

On Monday, SCOTUSblog, a website that provides coverage and analysis of the Supreme Court and its rulings, received angry tweets from people who thought the website was an arm of the Supreme Court following the Hobby Lobby ruling.

More examples here.

 

[Akainu]

Just woke up. I guess the supreme court of the us has done something stupid again?

 

[speculawyer]

 

[Aaron]

Thanks for the dissent Ginsberg. Now please, please, please retire.

Why? Obama would replace her with a Goldman Sachs exec.

 

[benjipwns]

Thanks for the dissent Ginsberg. Now please, please, please retire.

Why? Obama would replace her with a Goldman Sachs exec.

Maybe we can distract everybody and slip this one past him and the Senate:

 

[speculawyer]

Why? Obama would replace her with a Goldman Sachs exec.

I'll take an Obama pick over the next president's pick. (Who ever it is.)

 

[Joe Molotov]

I'll take an Obama pick over the next president's pick. (Who ever it is.)

What if the next president was Elizabeth Warren and she picked herself?

 

[AntoneM]

What if the next president was Elizabeth Warren and she picked herself?

Justiception!

 

[Averon]

What kind of SC picks would Hilary make? Anything to suggest Hilary's picks would be all that different from Sotomayor or Kagan?

 

[Tamanon]

What kind of SC picks would Hilary make? Anything to suggest Hilary's picks would be all that different from Sotomayor or Kagan?

Nobody really knows I think. Hillary is such a tough politician to actually get a feel for. I think it also depends on the makeup of the Senate.

 

[Oblivion]

My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.

libruls owned again

 

[speculawyer]

libruls owned again

My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.

WTF? Employer 'subsidized'? It is a fucking job . . . you are working for them. That is not a subsidy.

"consequence free sex"? They sound like a bunch of bitter people that that are mad that other people might be having fun so they want to do whatever they can to stop other people from having fun. What a bunch of sourpusses. And you wonder why the only demographic you can consistently win is old people?

 

[Oblivion]

WTF? Employer 'subsidized'? It is a fucking job . . . you are working for them. That is not a subsidy.

The government forcing our beloved job creators to do anything against their will counts as subsidizing.

"consequence free sex"? They sound like a bunch of bitter people that that are mad that other people might be having fun so they want to do whatever they can to stop other people from having fun.

That's pretty much been the rationale for all Republican policy decisions in the past 30 years.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Re the weed thread in OT

Why can't drug users admit the legalization of drugs like weed will necessitate their regulation, study and limitation in a lot of respects.

Its like anything that dare to say drugs might not be healthy is chased away as evil propaganda. The response is always the studies are biased, insinuating that things like breathing smoke cannont under any circumstance be potentially dangerous. It reminds me of people in the 60s who refused to believe that there could be dangerous effects associated with smoking.

(I'm not disputing the positive effect weed can have that's been documented just saying that it seems there is a very real possibility that it can have downsides that we should know and regulate on. Its not a case against drug reform but for food and drug regulation like we have with every other substance.)

 

[speculawyer]

Re the weed thread in OT

Why can't drug users admit the legalization of drugs like weed will necessitate their regulation, study and limitation in a lot of respects.

Its like anything that dare to say drugs might not be healthy is chased away as evil propaganda. The response is always the studies are biased, insinuating that things like breathing smoke cannont under any circumstance be potentially dangerous. It reminds me of people in the 60s who refused to believe that there could be dangerous effects associated with smoking.

(I'm not disputing the positive effect weed can have that's been documented just saying that it seems there is a very real possibility that it can have downsides that we should know and regulate on. Its not a case against drug reform but for food and drug regulation like we have with every other substance.)

Some people just view things as completely black & white even though almost nothing is completely black & white.


Some people believe the various loopy conspiracy theories about how great weed is but "The Man" just doesn't want you to have it because you can grow it yourself instead of having to buy their pharma pills.

And Hemp is a magic crop that is banned because .. .

Its a conspiracy . . . man.

 

[CharlieDigital]

For a second, I thought I was in the "Pics that make you laugh" thread.

 

[kingkitty]

Why? Obama would replace her with a Goldman Sachs exec.

If Ginsburg holds out till 2016, and Dems lose the White House, welp.

Although, if she retires this year and then the Dems lose the Senate in November...lol...

I dunno if Obama would pick the ideal liberal candidate, but it beats whatever the Republicans would poop out.

 

[RustyNails]

If Ginsburg holds out till 2016, and Dems lose the White House, welp.

Only way dems are losing the white house is if an october surprise news story leaked of an illicit affair between Obama and Hillary, straight from PD's fanfics.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article647051.html

lol. So conservatives have tried to blame the lack of explosion in revenue on Obama's tax hikes, but now some are also blaming it on the fact that spending hasn't been reduced enough. What the hell does cutting spending have to do with the revenue short fall?

Also, the article claims that other states have had lower revenues as well. Though it doesn't specify whether those states enacted tax cuts as well. Does anyone have a resource to see state by state revenues?

 

[Konka]

Nobody really knows I think. Hillary is such a tough politician to actually get a feel for. I think it also depends on the makeup of the Senate.

Hillary should nominate Obama, just for the reaction.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Only way dems are losing the white house is if an october surprise news story leaked of an illicit affair between Obama and Hillary, straight from PD's fanfics.

If Republicans weren't so batshit crazy and stupid, I'd almost want that to happen just for the sheer history books.

 

[Diablos]

I cannot fucking wait til the makeup of this court is finally changed.

If Hillary loses it won't happen until you and I are old men.

 

[Aylinato]

Hillary should nominate Obama, just for the reaction.

That'd be amazing

 

[Third Strike]

If Ginsburg holds out till 2016, and Dems lose the White House, welp.

Although, if she retires this year and then the Dems lose the Senate in November...lol...

I dunno if Obama would pick the ideal liberal candidate, but it beats whatever the Republicans would poop out.

I think Ginsburg waiting until after the 2016 election would be the best plan. Even if the Dems lose the Senate in 2014, I easily see them winning the majority back in 2016.

Though, I wonder if Scalia will wait it out as long as he can. Honestly, I don't see him retiring for another ten years or so (assuming he doesn't die before then).

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-white-house-pies-so-good-youd-think-there-was-crack-in-them/

Well that oughta keep conservatives amused for the next decade or so.

 

[Tamanon]

Scalia will die on the bench, no question.

 

[Averon]

I see no conservative justice willingly retire from the bench. Maybe Kennedy is an outside chance, but I doubt it. Assuming he's living a healthy lifestyle, I can easily is Scalia going another 10-12 years on the bench.

 

[kingkitty]

If Hillaryizzle gets 2 terms, I can see maybe 1 repub giving up the bench due to oldness, which is good enough.

If Michelle Obama wins a Dem term right after Hillary's two terms. Then we'll get a glorious, communist Supreme Court.

But Scalia will still not retire at that point.

He will live forever.

 

[Oblivion]

How did I not see this until today?

“Were we ready for an election when the United States was formed to have everybody in the United States vote? Well, our Founders didn’t think so. They limited the people who could vote in an election. Now you could say that’s horrible, that’s terrible. Well, maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. But it was a decision that was made to make sure that there was some continuity and stability within the government.”

Well, maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t.

maybe it wasn’t.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/santorum-maybe-it-wasnt-bad-that-founders-put-limits-on-who-could-vote/


Really, Rick? Maybe? Really, now?

 

[Diablos]

Scalia is pushing 80. Give him another 5 years.

 

[Tamanon]

I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas passed during a session and nobody noticed until the end of the day, since he doesn't say anything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas passed during a session and nobody noticed until the end of the day, since he doesn't say anything.

Nah he moves around and is always joking with Breyer and reclining back. No joke

 

[RustyNails]

I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas passed during a session and nobody noticed until the end of the day, since he doesn't say anything.

No one would notice if a muppet made to look like him was put on the bench, with Scalia's hand up his ass.

 

[B-Dubs]

No one would notice if a muppet made to look like him was put on the bench, with Scalia's hand up his ass.

Some would say that it has already happened.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas passed during a session and nobody noticed until the end of the day, since he doesn't say anything.

Correction: he doesn't ask questions of the attorneys. He apparently interacts quite a bit with the other justices during oral argument.

 

[Wilsongt]

How did I not see this until today?







http://www.mediaite.com/tv/santorum-maybe-it-wasnt-bad-that-founders-put-limits-on-who-could-vote/


Really, Rick? Maybe? Really, now?

I posted it earlier.

=P Straight, white, Christian males onry.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Correction: he doesn't ask questions of the attorneys. He apparently interacts quite a bit with the other justices during oral argument.

Toobin is in the right. The reason guy is describing mostly the same thing but pretending its serious

This is nonsense. I’ve attended a number of oral arguments in the past two years and I’ve routinely seen Thomas leaning forward, watching the lawyers (and his colleagues), and even conferring quite enthusiastically with both Justice Stephen Breyer (to his right) and Justice Antonin Scalia (to his left). In fact, during the first day of the March 2012 Obamacare oral arguments, which centered on whether an 1867 tax law barred the legal challenge to the health care law from going forward, I watched Thomas and Breyer together poring over a massive book that appeared to be a volume of the U.S. tax code. What were they up to? It’s possible Thomas was suggesting a line of questioning for Breyer to use. After all, as Thomas told an audience at Harvard law school, he sometimes helps generate Breyer’s material. “I’ll say, ‘What about this, Steve,’ and he’ll pop up and ask a question,” Thomas said. “So you can blame some of those [Breyer questions] on me.”

1st bold is a way to say joking

2nd bold doesn't make any sense if he never asks questions and has stated in the past he thinks the Oral arguments are a waste of time. I want to see a transcript of that harvard law school speech because I'm suspecting there was a laugh after that. I'm suspecting the reason guy is taking it out of context.

Thomas is probably the most consistence justice on the court. I can't really point to a case where he's backtracked or had something that doesn't align with his originalism. He'll side with liberals and conservatives if they agree with his doctrine. If any thing he's the least 'partisan' justice. Even in 5-4 cases he often disagrees with the reasoning of other justices and issues a concurrence rather than join the majority opinion.

Edit: low and behold I'm right! the reason guy is talking out his ass. http://youtu.be/heQjKdHu1P4?t=25m34s

I got a gif out of it though

 

[speculawyer]

If Hillaryizzle gets 2 terms, I can see maybe 1 repub giving up the bench due to oldness, which is good enough.

If Michelle Obama wins a Dem term right after Hillary's two terms. Then we'll get a glorious, communist Supreme Court.

But Scalia will still not retire at that point.

He will live forever.

Scalia may spontaneously combust. But don't see him ever quitting.

 

[Oblivion]

I posted it earlier.

boo

 

[rocketknight]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-white-house-pies-so-good-youd-think-there-was-crack-in-them/

Well that oughta keep conservatives amused for the next decade or so.

That might be the most amusing thing in the speech but it's not anywhere near the most important.

The majority of Fortune 500 companies already have nondiscrimination policies to protect their employees because it’s the right thing to do and because many say it helps to retain and attract the best talent. And I agree. So if Congress won’t act, I will. I have directed my staff to prepare an executive order for my signature that prohibits discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. (Applause.)

And I’ve asked my staff to prepare a second executive order so that federal employees –- who are already protected on the basis of sexual orientation –- will now formally be protected from discrimination based on gender identity as well. (Applause.)

It's not Joe Biden levels of great, but it's pretty impressive for a sitting president to actually talk about helping transgender people instead of just quietly slipping their protections in.

 

[Wilsongt]

boo

 

[speculawyer]

As mentioned in the thread on the case.

My summary of the Hobby Lobby decision: Conservative Justices protecting the superstitious beliefs of the top 1%.




For great justice.

 

[rocketknight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY1TJ8JazkQ


Here's someone singing Ginsberg's dissent. It's fun.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Toobin is in the right. The reason guy is describing mostly the same thing but pretending its serious


1st bold is a way to say joking

2nd bold doesn't make any sense if he never asks questions and has stated in the past he thinks the Oral arguments are a waste of time. I want to see a transcript of that harvard law school speech because I'm suspecting there was a laugh after that. I'm suspecting the reason guy is taking it out of context.

Thomas is probably the most consistence justice on the court. I can't really point to a case where he's backtracked or had something that doesn't align with his originalism. He'll side with liberals and conservatives if they agree with his doctrine. If any thing he's the least 'partisan' justice. Even in 5-4 cases he often disagrees with the reasoning of other justices and issues a concurrence rather than join the majority opinion.

Edit: low and behold I'm right! the reason guy is talking out his ass. http://youtu.be/heQjKdHu1P4?t=25m34s

I got a gif out of it though

I was just about to say I found the video. But I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with Root. Also, where do you get that Thomas views oral arguments as a waste of time? Here's something he said in 2009 in commenting on his silence at oral argument:

Not really. I think, I guess I view oral argument a little bit differently. I think it’s an opportunity for the advocates, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks, to make their case, to point out things perhaps that were not covered in the briefs or to emphasize things or to respond to some concerns, that sort of thing. In other words, to flesh out the case a little better, to get into the weeds a little more. I think we’re here, the nine of us, and we can talk to each other any time we want to. I just wouldn’t use that thirty minutes of the advocate’s time to do that, to talk to each other. . . . I think it’s hard to have a conversation when nobody is listening, when you can’t complete sentences or answers – perhaps that’s a southern thing. I don’t know. But I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thoughts. . . . I don’t see how you can learn a whole lot when there are fifty questions in an hour.

Also, I think everyone should take some time and watch Thomas speak. Given the extreme poverty he experienced as a child--not to mention racism as he grew up--his demeanor and optimistic outlook are truly marvelous. He's not a sarcastic ass like Scalia. That Harvard Law video looks like a good video to get a sense of the man, if anyone's interested. Here's another good one.