PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaron Strife said:
The license plate case was liberals + Thomas. What an age to be alive
Click to expand...
lol

From the chat:

Lovers of Justice Scalia and/or the confrontation clause should DEFINITELY check out Scalia's concurrence in the judgment in Ohio v. Clark. It is some sharply worded stuff -- accuses Alito of "shoveling dirt" on the grave of the key precedents, and using intentionally confusing "dicta" to try to undermine the clause's protections.
Click to expand...

Haha, Scalia is such a fucking hater.
 
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.
 
BertramCooper said:
Man, if OvH and KvB were to come out the same day...

Jesus Christ, what an insane news day that would be.
Click to expand...
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)
 
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.
 
11 opinions left, at least three decision days remain.. they are incredibly good at building-up drama, damn.

Perhaps not coincidentally, a noticeable number of doctors at my facility are taking a long weekend (Thursday through Monday) next week.
 
The court is going to wait until the very last minute minute before they reveal their decision on King. They did the exact same thing in 2012 with the previous ACA case.
 
AnotherNils said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
BertramCooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aaron Strife said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Aaron Strife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Frank the Great said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Original:
“Americans want to hear more about what worked in Wisconsin and how Walker’s reforms can work across the country,”
Click to expand...

“Americans want to hear more about what worked in Kansas and how Brownback's reforms can work across the country,”
Click to expand...

Too funny.
 
RShwlcg.jpg


Thanks, Larry. I like how he didn't apologize until his sixth sentence. In a tweet.
 
BertramCooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AnotherNils said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack Remington said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Scalia doesn't give a fuck about precedent, he's an ideological hack. The only way he rules in favor of the government is if it would be 8-1 otherwise and he'd look like a total fucking moron if he didn't.
 
Crisco said:
Scalia doesn't give a fuck about precedent, he's an ideological hack.
Click to expand...
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.

Aaron Strife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/president-2016-the-clash-of-dynasties/
Both Bush and Clinton want to distance themselves from two men apiece: For Bush, it’s 41 and 43. In his announcement speech, Jeb Bush said that no one deserves to win the White House “by right of resume, party, seniority, family, or family narrative. It’s nobody’s turn.”

For Clinton, it’s 42 and 44. In an interview with the Des Moines Register earlier this week, Hillary was asked about whether she was running for a third Bill Clinton or Barack Obama term. “I’m running for my first term. I will have my own proposals,” she said.

There’s a grain of truth to both claims, but they are denying the larger reality. Bush is where he is because his brother and father were POTUS; he’s far more Bush than Jeb. And Clinton is there because of Bill and Barack. She is indeed a continuation of both presidencies.

Big breaks from the past by these two candidates just aren’t possible because the public isn’t going to find them credible.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

America please dont do the bolded. Canada looks tempting.
 
i also think 6-3 for Burwell.

literally the only reason my fiance and i havent moved to north carolina yet is because of the uncertainty of this decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
941
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
254K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom