-
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
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't think that actually works that well though. You can move a candidate's position in the primaries, but all it does is force them to waffle on the inconsistency in the general. It's not going to *actually* make Hilary more liberal. Same thing happens in GOP primaries.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I know it's been a few days, but I was finally able to read Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority in Obergefell. Letting Kennedy write this opinion was a mistake; it's nothing but trash.
Kennedy's main problem is that he doesn't seem to care about the legal arguments in these cases. He writes of "fundamental rights," the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause as if he's heard of those things before but doesn't really understand what they are or how they operate. To take one of his more serious errors, he neglects to even mention that a law that restricts a fundamental right or discriminates may still be valid under the Constitution so long as the government has a good enough reason for that law. The problem here isn't merely that he fails to answer that question--he fails to even ask it. He collapses the Court's DPC and EPC jurisprudence into single-step analyses: Is this a fundamental right? or Does this law discriminate? Dictating that it is and does, he skips the second step and ends the discussion. And he doesn't even bother explaining the first step in the EPC analysis (Does this law discriminate). He's content to merely observe that the DPC and the EPC are interrelated, and then concludes (without more) that the EPC has been violated.
It might be easy to think that Kennedy has done more than he has, analytically, because he refers to facts and arguments that are relevant to the appropriate analyses without actually using them in those analyses. As an example, he discusses the history of discrimination against LGBT folks. This would be relevant to show that that group is a "discrete and insular minority," so that laws discriminating against members of the group must be subjected to heightened scrutiny. But Kennedy doesn't even mention the tiers of scrutiny in Equal Protection jurisprudence. It's just a little factoid he throws out there. Likewise, in part IV of his opinion, Kennedy turns one of the states' purported governmental interests (the interest in waiting to see how social changes affect existing institutions) into a call for the Court to "proceed with caution." The states' purported interests would be relevant in determining whether, despite any discrimination in banning same-sex marriage, such bans are nevertheless permitted under the Equal Protection Clause. But, again, Kennedy doesn't address that argument in that context, because he doesn't even address that context. It's just another thing for him to talk about to make it seem like he's doing legal analysis when really he's just cobbling random relevant-sounding tidbits together.
There are other oddities in the majority opinion that suggest Kennedy simply didn't care about what he was writing, and only cared about the end result. For instance, on page 11, Kennedy lists Loving, Zablocki, Turner, and Griswold (among others) as holding (or affirming) that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution. Two paragraphs later, he says that "there are other, more instructive precedents," and cites Loving, Zablocki, Turner, Griswold, and Lawrence v. Texas. Needless to say, Loving, Zablocki, Turner, and Griswold are not "other . . . precedents" relative to Loving, Zablocki, Turner, and Griswold. As another example, on page 7, Kennedy writes that certain historical changes to marriage have "worked deep transformations in its structure, affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential." The citation on which this sentence hangs is "See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000)." "See generally" is legalese for, "It doesn't really say this, but whatevs." That he cites the entirety of three 300-plus-page books for this single statement further undermines the credibility of the citation. (Realistically, I think the citation is more meant to relate to the first half of the sentence, not the second; but he's perfectly happy to let it seem like it supports both halves.) On the same page, he begins a paragraph with the sentence, "These new insights have strengthened . . . the institution of marriage" (a sentence for which he provides no supporting citation); and follows it up with, "Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of [our] Nation[.]" What does the second sentence have to do with the first? Much of the opinion reads like disjointed sentences that Kennedy came up with at some point over the last decade-and-a-half and wanted to be sure to include in his inevitable same-sex marriage opinion; it's a veritable Frankenstein of, to borrow Scalia's jab, fortune-cookie aphorisms.
Contrast Kennedy's opinion with Roberts'. Parts II and III of Roberts' opinion follow the legal arguments being made. Part II addresses the Due Process Clause claims using the familiar analytical techniques from prior cases (rather than, as Kennedy does, retconning the precedents). Part III addresses the Equal Protection Clause claims--albeit unsatisfactorily (Roberts resolves the claims in an aside on page 24).
I could go on (the first of Kennedy's "principles and traditions" is a tautology, for instance), but I think this is enough to show in what low regard I hold Kennedy's opinion. I still think Roberts' was the better-written opinion, even though I think he comes to the wrong conclusion.
Frank the Great
Banned
I don't understand why certain voters must feel "excited" about a candidate before they can vote for them. I'm voting Hillary because her winning means the greatest chance of implementing policies I like and selecting judges I agree with.
Am I excited about her on a personal level? I simply don't care. I don't know her or any of the other candidates, no one does. Best we can do is play the numbers game and Hillary wins hands down.
Am I excited about her on a personal level? I simply don't care. I don't know her or any of the other candidates, no one does. Best we can do is play the numbers game and Hillary wins hands down.
Coriolanus
Banned
I don't understand why largely emotional beings often want to engage stuff on an emotional level.
That's what we call "tactical avoidance" down here, fwiw.
Part of the reason why we have a quick appeal just to make a judge in any instance look at shit he flat-out (pretended he) didn't see.
TheAbsolution
Member
This, I like.
Yep. The lower courts did a much better job of explaining the legal justifications for overturning SSM bans on DP and EP grounds. It seems like Kennedy was trying to write something that would appeal to the masses here.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's bullshit political theater.
John Kerry was a bad candidate (though it was pretty damn close) because of how boring he was and yet he also would have made a great president. But no, you gotta be able to have a beer with them.
I can no longer support a candidate who cannot get networked printing to work.
What are Bernie's positions on peripherals?
(No, seriously, I was like "what is she 70 oh right." Plus she's probably sending those from her phone.)
It's funny that it seems our desire to have a "man of the people" as president has only increased, even as our ability to actually engage with that president in any personal way has dropped.
Imagine Obama's inauguration styled like Jackson's. Throwing beer out onto the lawn to get people out of the White House.
Where are these?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
When I read portions of Kennedy's opinion the first thought I had was "Dude is trying to get himself quoted in the inevitable movie."
As for Bernie, I don't have a personal problem with the dude and I don't think anything he does is going to really affect Hilary's prospects in the general. Its just tiring hearing the same Ron Paul memes from 2008/2012, except replacing Paul with Sanders. My Facebook feed is full of these same memes, and the insane part to me is that more than one of the people spamming these are the same people who spammed Ron Paul memes in 2012.
ErasureAcer
Banned
So Sanders has crossover appeal.
El Rushbo told me the real unemployment rate was 43%!!!
Macho Madness
Member
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or are really that dense.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Participation rate continues to fall...
Wages didn't increase either. All that being said it's good to see job growth is still going.
ErasureAcer
Banned
1354 Republicans for Bernie on Facebook. Republicans for Hillary on Facebook...a few different groups with the top being 215 people.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Trolling confirmed
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Business owners don't want fair compensation for their workers? Surprise!
Coriolanus
Banned
It's amazing how many business owners think of everything but themselves in zero sum terms.
Well, not really amazing, more like saddening.
gutter_trash
Banned
Remember operations Chaos?
Macho Madness
Member
This is going to lead to a SCOTUS case within a few years. I can feel it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
@Nate Cohn: Why Sanders is going to hit a wall if he has not already.
This makes as little sense as that facebook republicans for bernie post.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
All it says is that Sanders has very little support among moderates. That seems vaguely important to me.
I think its more likely people just like maverick candidates.
It may be a bit, but I would not be surprised if one of these cake shop/photography cases winds it's way up somehow/
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
When did being a baker become the most controversial job in America?
adamsappel
Member
Do people not remember Republicans supporting Hillary over Obama? You'd have thought West Virginia was still a Democratic state. This is another reason why Hillary is the better candidate, because there are soundbites of Rush et al saying "Vote for Hillary!"
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Maybe, but the government would have to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation first.
Roberts did that better, too, in the NFIB opinion. He clearly wrote with the lay reader in mind, yet he didn't omit entire steps from his constitutional analysis.
Macho Madness
Member
Jim Webb officially in.
Hopefully we can get him out this week.
Democrats should condemn him for his support of the Confederate flag.
Then perhaps it's time the government did that because this shit will continue in the deep south.
This is another place that Kennedy's opinion is weak. With the chance for explicit legal guidance, it would've been very easy to craft an opinion that gave strong justification to believing that gay people are already covered by the Civil Rights Act. It's a missed opportunity that the opinion does not do so.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I really don't understand his motive/thought process. Surely he realizes him beating Hillary is a long shot, and if he's to beat her he'll need an Obama-type coalition....the type of coalition that would be turned off by his Confederate views.
Likewise if he wants a cabinet position with Hillary later this just ensures ThinkProgress and others will be all up in his ass.
Macho Madness
Member
Welcome to the GOP talking point for the next while:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/cuba-opening-ushers-in-era-of-mas-obama-119652.html?hp=t1_r
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/cuba-opening-ushers-in-era-of-mas-obama-119652.html?hp=t1_r
PhoenixDark
Banned
So...Hillary will be a better president than Obama. Sounds logical to me.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
There's really no basis for doing so. The Civil Rights Act only prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis or race, color, religion, or national origin. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation doesn't fall within any of those categories.
Then it's about time for an amendment to the CRA.
Macho Madness
Member
You don't ask to be tagged, you are tagged.
The mods are l'Cie.
speculawyer
Member
That's right . . . the President did live in California for a while.
????????
Im confused. I want words like you with the above. x( and for the record and OT FFXIII is terrible.
This just popped up on my Facebook feed from someone who I thought was a bit more progressive...
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...ions-for-christians-now-waving-rainbow-flags/
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...ions-for-christians-now-waving-rainbow-flags/
We don't get to choose if and when we are tagged, or with what, we are nothing but peons living our lives until the mods choose us to stand above the masses. Or people get tagged for being utter morons, really it can go either way.
Well, it's actually true. If people want to keep most of these programs, you're not going to vote a Republican into the Presidency and keep them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked