I am but it is comforting to read this thread.
Anyway as someone in the live chat said, this seems like a criminal justice kind of day.
Maybe next week.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I am but it is comforting to read this thread.
Anyway as someone in the live chat said, this seems like a criminal justice kind of day.
Maybe next week.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The license plate case was liberals + Thomas. What an age to be alive
Coriolanus
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
So that CNBC guy was full of shit then
Macho Madness
Member
I've always said that my dream SCOTUS would be 8 liberals + Scalia, just so that I can giggle at his creative dissents.
I dunno, Walker (the license plate case) is pretty big.
BertramCooper
Banned
Totally disagree with SCOTUS on the license plate stuff.
Morally, sure, I can agree with it. Constitutionally (and I'm not a lawyer, obviously) I think it's wrong.
Morally, sure, I can agree with it. Constitutionally (and I'm not a lawyer, obviously) I think it's wrong.
Macho Madness
Member
You're right, and does set a precedent for all states.
But it's just a license plate.
BertramCooper
Banned
Man, if OvH and KvB were to come out the same day...
Jesus Christ, what an insane news day that would be.
Jesus Christ, what an insane news day that would be.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Really pleased with the license plate decision. I've always thought special license plate qualified as an endorsement by the state.
AnotherNils
Member
Yeah, I hope to god they don't do that because my assumption would be they might they think they could get away with it if it pisses of both sides. (I.e. RIP subsidies, hello gay marriage)
BertramCooper
Banned
With all due respect to the liberal justices, I can't help but wonder if they would have come to the same conclusion had this been a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood against a conservative state government that had denied them a license plate.
Aaron Strife
Banned
To be quite honest, I'd rather reverse those two if it came down to it. Even if the court rules against gay marriage it'll surely be legalized in a few years anyway. If not by another SCOTUS case then by being overturned one by one in the state courts.
Frank the Great
Banned
Well I think it is the correct decision both morally and legally. And I am a lawyer so there!
Seriously though there is no constitutional right to have the State endorse your political view. And in this case there is a whole car where you can put stickers on, there is such a minimal interest in using the government issued license plate to express yourself.
AnotherNils
Member
I don't disagree. Avoiding congressional gridlock and republican fuckery is a bigger win than gay marriage which has a much more limited scope, statewise.
Edit: the source of me pessimism is that Roberts might feel he has the political cover to rule against ACA after the last ruling. Though I forget who else has to flip as well.
BertramCooper
Banned
A few years? I can't see most of these blood-red southern states legalizing SSM anytime soon. A decade away, at the very least.
At least with KvB there's a slight hope of some sort of legislative fix in the short-term. Slight, but not impossible.
It just strikes me as a decision that can be very easily exploited in totally inappropriate ways by thoughtless and ignorant state governments. Stuff like this cuts both ways.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Legislatures won't do it but courts can. The same as it's happened in every other red state.
I can't imagine even a negative SCOTUS ruling would undo any gay marriage legalizations.
I can't imagine even a negative SCOTUS ruling would undo any gay marriage legalizations.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Thanks, Larry. I like how he didn't apologize until his sixth sentence. In a tweet.
I'll disagree. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're forced to say things, and license plates are the government's speech.
Now, I could see someone being allowed to paint a flag of their choice on a plate, but the State shouldn't be forced to sell a plate premade with the flag on it.
Jack Remington
Banned
My heart was beating out of my chest this morning when I refreshed PoliGAF, and... no King ruling? Goddamn it.
Jack Remington
Banned
A ruling against the plaintiffs in King sends a message that we don't fucking make major public policy changes based on grammar trolling.
A ruling for the plaintiffs... well maybe I can get a job in DC as a professional grammar troll.
AnotherNils
Member
Honestly, I'm most interested to see Scalia's reasoning on the subject. He's the one who, if he followed past rulings, should uphold the legislation. Will he commit amazing judicial gymnastics?
AnotherNils
Member
That's certainly popular opinion, but I think there would be some who claim his logically consistent (Metamorforce?). I'm also looking forward to pieces defending his position as 'consistent', as well.
I think Scalia is fairly ideologically consistent, except with certain issues where it's obvious that his personal biases don't match his legal theory (marijuana/drugs, gay marriage).
It's possible to disagree with him and simultaneously think he's not a hack. I have a lot less respect for Thomas.
Yes, it could.
Example: Oklahoma currently has a gay marriage ban that's enjoined due to court order. But if the SCOTUS rules against Obergefell, all Oklahoma would need to do is pass another bill banning gay marriage. That law is not enjoined. And then what precedent could be used to challenge it? The SCOTUS already said states can ban gay marriage.
You're basically stripping marriage rights away from people in ~20 states with an adverse ruling.
It's possible to disagree with him and simultaneously think he's not a hack. I have a lot less respect for Thomas.
Yes, it could.
Example: Oklahoma currently has a gay marriage ban that's enjoined due to court order. But if the SCOTUS rules against Obergefell, all Oklahoma would need to do is pass another bill banning gay marriage. That law is not enjoined. And then what precedent could be used to challenge it? The SCOTUS already said states can ban gay marriage.
You're basically stripping marriage rights away from people in ~20 states with an adverse ruling.
Frank the Great
Banned
I have more respect for Thomas than Scalia actually. Thomas is far crazier but more consistent IMO.
Scalia will shit all over precedent to get to his desired outcome while acting as if he's the only sane person in the room. Thomas goes full crazy and openly rejects precedents without hiding his true intentions. I respect his honesty if nothing else. Scalia is slimy.
Originalism is even dumber than textualism though to be fair.
Scalia will shit all over precedent to get to his desired outcome while acting as if he's the only sane person in the room. Thomas goes full crazy and openly rejects precedents without hiding his true intentions. I respect his honesty if nothing else. Scalia is slimy.
Originalism is even dumber than textualism though to be fair.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
They're influential conservatives and you're on NeoGAF.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Their "contingency plan" is the health care system circa 2011. Skyrocketing rates, etc.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Yeah, I prefer Thomas to Scalia as well. I may disagree with Thomas's constitutional belief structure but he follows it to all its logical conclusions regardless of what they may be. I also respect Thomas for recognizing oral questioning for what it most often is.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Liberals don't like Italians or black people who venture off the olive plantation fields.
This is more or less the correct answer, although I would call them both reactionaries instead (because, you know, NeoGAF).
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Quick article comparing google search metrics between Trump and Jeb. People want to know some random stuff about candidates.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-google-search-119161.html?hp=l4_4
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-google-search-119161.html?hp=l4_4
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/president-2016-the-clash-of-dynasties/
America please dont do the bolded. Canada looks tempting.
Hillary’s task is not easy, because as we’ve seen many times, Bill can say and do things that require major cleanup. Moreover, any new scandal involving Bill reminds voters of the long history of ethical problems that has dogged both Clintons. And she has to live with President Obama’s successes and failures — those already catalogued and those occurring right through Election Day.
What’s the saving grace for Clinton? First, even a lame duck president such as Obama can maneuver in substantive ways to help her. Second, Clinton has less defending to do with her husband’s record than Bush must do for his brother’s two terms.
In retrospect, President Clinton is remembered more for a golden economy than for the sex scandal. It sure didn’t look this way as America said farewell to Bill Clinton in January 2001, yet public perceptions shift over time.
Bush’s challenge is much greater. He carries the burden of his brother’s more recent and very controversial presidency. Voters don’t need to see George W. on the campaign trail to remember Iraq, Katrina, and economic disaster. The previous Bush presidency wasn’t that long ago.
Both Bush 41 and 43 have a legacy of economic struggle, and that reinforces Jeb’s dilemma and gives Hillary a big opening.
So what does Jeb do? Beyond asserting independence (“I’m my own man”he has to draw as many distinctions with his brother as possible. Still, most people know Jeb owes his position to his family name, and Jeb basically endorsed everything George did at the time.
Jeb has to hope his enormous war chest and establishment backing propels him to the nomination, and then maybe voters in the fall of 2016 will want change badly enough that they’ll pick the Republican ticket, whatever their doubts about installing yet another Bush.
In that sense, an election between a Bush and a Clinton might turn out to be more about the current occupant of the White House than either of the dynasties.
America please dont do the bolded. Canada looks tempting.
eBay Huckster
Member
canada looks tempting to me regardless of this decision (to the point that i'm actually starting to budget for a move somewhere between 2017 and 2020)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked