SCOTUS Watch

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:04 pm

Holman wrote:The "Ernie & Burt as couple" meme transcends anything CTW has to say about it. It took on a life of its own many years ago.

If it feels better, you can say they play straight roommates on the show.

I remember seeing it for the first time in a psychology class textbook in college in the early 90s. So I'm over 20 years of not getting it. They're not really straight roommates either. They're puppets living together. Sexuality doesn't enter the equation. If Mr Snuffalugus and Big Bird lived together would it be sexual? What if Grover lived with Mr Hooper? Or the Count lived with Maria?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:09 pm

LordMortis wrote:
I remember seeing it for the first time in a psychology class textbook in college in the early 90s. So I'm over 20 years of not getting it. They're not really straight roommates either. They're puppets living together. Sexuality doesn't enter the equation. If Mr Snuffalugus and Big Bird lived together would it be sexual? What if Grover lived with Mr Hooper? Or the Count lived with Maria?

I guess K/S slash fiction doesn't really do it for you either?

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:17 pm

Something occurred to me on the way into work this morning. For all of the finger pointing at social conservatives and religious people in this country for being against gay rights, there was something very interesting that happened on Wednesday in this country:

Nothing.

Unlike Europe, there were no gatherings of 100K-500K people in the streets shouting down the decision. There were no partial riots. For the most part, this decision had some gripes on Facebook and Twitter but not much else.

If you want to look for your real progress on this issue in this country, look no farther than that.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:39 pm

msduncan wrote:Something occurred to me on the way into work this morning. For all of the finger pointing at social conservatives and religious people in this country for being against gay rights, there was something very interesting that happened on Wednesday in this country:

Nothing.

Unlike Europe, there were no gatherings of 100K-500K people in the streets shouting down the decision. There were no partial riots. For the most part, this decision had some gripes on Facebook and Twitter but not much else.

If you want to look for your real progress on this issue in this country, look no farther than that.

I wonder if that's because Gay Marriage is only legal in the States in which it already was legal. If the Supremes had not punted on Prop 8 by using the lack of standing as the factor, but rather upheld the ruling and over turned all State laws against gay marriage, then I think there might have been more of the type of reaction you contemplate here.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:49 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
msduncan wrote:Something occurred to me on the way into work this morning. For all of the finger pointing at social conservatives and religious people in this country for being against gay rights, there was something very interesting that happened on Wednesday in this country:

Nothing.

Unlike Europe, there were no gatherings of 100K-500K people in the streets shouting down the decision. There were no partial riots. For the most part, this decision had some gripes on Facebook and Twitter but not much else.

If you want to look for your real progress on this issue in this country, look no farther than that.
I wonder if that's because Gay Marriage is only legal in the States in which it already was legal. If the Supremes had not punted on Prop 8 by using the lack of standing as the factor, but rather upheld the ruling and over turned all State laws against gay marriage, then I think there might have been more of the type of reaction you contemplate here.

I'm not so sure. True to my vow (what, 6 months ago or something?) I have engaged fellow Republicans in conversation about this issue and did so a LOT this week.

There were a couple of the very religious ones that outright objected to the idea. The vast majority, however, sorta shrugged their shoulders and said 'hey, whatever they want to do is not my business'. This was probably a 10 to 2 ratio at my workplace, which is a pretty conservative workplace and these specific people are known to me as being Republicans. It's a low sample, far from scientific, casual observation, I know. But I'd say all but a couple didn't really know the specifics of the ruling. They just thought "Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal". The outrage and end of world pronouncements weren't there (save for the couple that notified me that God is about to rain terror on us all).

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:59 pm

Same here. I know of no one who is overly upset about it. Well maybe my MIL I would have to check her FB but I kinda ignore her after going off on her friend about the boyscouts thing. Much more concern about economy, IRS, benghazi, spying/data collection, immigration fiasco, etc.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:19 pm

Good to hear. Some things I like to be wrong about

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:09 pm

The appeals court removed its stay on Judge Walker's decision this afternoon, effective immediately. Gay couples are getting married in California as I type this, including the case's plaintiffs in a ceremony officiated by Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:24 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:The appeals court removed its stay on Judge Walker's decision this afternoon, effective immediately. Gay couples are getting married in California as I type this, including the case's plaintiffs in a ceremony officiated by Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Good for them. I heard they were getting married on the steps of city hall or the capital. Its pretty cool that the AG did the ceremony though.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:28 pm

Rip wrote:Same here. I know of no one who is overly upset about it.

Come to Salt Lake. I've been hearing all week that this decision is the "end of days" and "the family is dead" or some other such nonsense. The drama queens around here are in full force...and the schadenfreude is delicious.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:33 pm

I hear a lot of nonsense coming from the butthurt crowd. One congressman said something like "every child deserves to have a mommy and a daddy." What that has to do with same sex marriage you'll have to explain to me.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:49 am

I knew the moment I heard Clint Eastwood tell a reporter that he didn't give a F$@K who married who that the winds had changed. Let's hope they keep blowing in that direction. It's time to face facts: divorce rates are through the roof. They're probably going to bring those numbers up, if anything.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:28 pm

I hear ya Teggy, but my point was that all I've seen is just some mild griping on Facebook and Twitter. There are no mass demonstrations, rioting, etc that we were seeing in Europe. I'm optimistically seeing this as the times having changed a good deal on this subject.

A large percentage of the people I know are now indifferent on the topic. The remaining minority are very religious types, and the worst they are doing is griping loudly.

Fireball, I think your cause has turned the corner not just in the courts.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:53 pm

So, if Prop 8 was not upheld, wouldn't any state anti-same-sex marriage ban get the same result if appealed?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:59 pm

Prop 8 was refused a hearing based on the fact that the original defendants gave up and another group attempted to take over. Court cases aren't relay races. You can't hand them off to other plaintiffs. Prop 8 was sent back due to lack of standing of the new group, not for any legal interpretation.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:52 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Prop 8 was refused a hearing based on the fact that the original defendants gave up and another group attempted to take over. Court cases aren't relay races. You can't hand them off to other plaintiffs. Prop 8 was sent back due to lack of standing of the new group, not for any legal interpretation.

I noticed today that a couple of groups have filed petitions to block the resumption of marriages in CA. Here's what I don't understand....

On what grounds can I petition the court to deny you a right that has nothing to do with me? I mean, I understand the role of the courts if you are stealing from me, or otherwise directly impacting me...but how can I go to the court to stop two third parties (the State of CA and any particular same-sex couple) from engaging in an action that has nothing to do with me at all?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:01 pm

That's the rub. And since the US District Court already found that there was "no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry", you're going to very hard pressed to come up with a private citizen or group arguing that they have an interest in it that would hold water. In my opinion. But that won't stop them from trying, I'm sure.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:01 pm

I suppose one could argue that if a policy affects or alters a society of which you and your loved ones are a part, you are affected.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:04 pm

That's a wide barn door to open. That would give anyone standing to sue over the implementation of tariffs, trade agreements, etc.

"I'm suing because the invasion of Iraq impacted my price of gas."

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:08 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:That's a wide barn door to open. That would give anyone standing to sue over the implementation of tariffs, trade agreements, etc.

"I'm suing because the invasion of Iraq impacted my price of gas."

With my 'I suppose' I was trying to indicate that I was stretching to find an answer to begin with.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:21 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Prop 8 was refused a hearing based on the fact that the original defendants gave up and another group attempted to take over. Court cases aren't relay races. You can't hand them off to other plaintiffs. Prop 8 was sent back due to lack of standing of the new group, not for any legal interpretation.
I noticed today that a couple of groups have filed petitions to block the resumption of marriages in CA. Here's what I don't understand....

On what grounds can I petition the court to deny you a right that has nothing to do with me? I mean, I understand the role of the courts if you are stealing from me, or otherwise directly impacting me...but how can I go to the court to stop two third parties (the State of CA and any particular same-sex couple) from engaging in an action that has nothing to do with me at all?

It's symbolic. The "values" groups know they'll never win, but they can fund-raise like crazy on it.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:18 pm

On a side note, if Bert and Ernie are gay I don't think they are going to make it. They fight entirely too much.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:50 pm

msduncan wrote:On a side note, if Bert and Ernie are gay I don't think they are going to make it. They fight entirely too much.

And they put the banana in all the wrong places....

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:22 am

"Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage, the Daily News has learned."

http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-10/n ... iage-issue" target="_blank

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:53 am

Defiant wrote:"Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage, the Daily News has learned."

http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-10/n ... iage-issue" target="_blank

Wow. Are they allowed to do that? That seems huge to me.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:24 am

LordMortis wrote:
Defiant wrote:"Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage, the Daily News has learned."

http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-10/n ... iage-issue" target="_blank
Wow. Are they allowed to do that? That seems huge to me.

California did this as well on Prop 8. They chose not to defend it -- they believed it to be unconstitutional. The determination was likely similar in this case.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:26 am

Yeah, as malchior is saying, they deem it unconstitutional. The AG's job (state and federal) is to enforce the law, and the constitution is superior law to statutes, so if a statute is contrary to the constitution, then it is not law, and the AG has no constitutional duty to enforce it (the opposite, in fact).

That gives rise to policy debates (the propriety of refusing to enforce a law before at least one court has reviewed it) and standing debates (if the AGO does not defend the law, who legally can do so).

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:33 am

El Guapo wrote:That gives rise to policy debates (the propriety of refusing to enforce a law before at least one court has reviewed it) and standing debates (if the AGO does not defend the law, who legally can do so).

At least in this case they can point at the DOMA ruling and say...clearly unconstitutional.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:56 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
Rip wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Rip wrote:Why can't we shitcan the Obamaphone program and issue free IDs instead?
The IDs are free. The documents required to produce them are not, and often require long trips to offices during work hours. A working class American who lives hand-to-mouth does not have the resources to take the extensive time off of work required to go to these offices during working hours, and a great many are in positions where they can never take time off work for any reason for fear of losing their jobs.

There's also no such thing as an "Obamaphone." You could call it a "Reaganphone," since the Lifeline telephone program was begun in 1984.

Using lack of financial ability as an excuse for not having an ID is ridiculus.
It is a very real issue for millions of Americans. But to repeat: these people *have* IDs. They just don't have photo IDs that meet the requirements laid out, by design, in the laws in question.

In the South, as I mentioned, it is often compounded by the fact that many black Americans born before the Civil Rights era don't have birth certificates, and hundreds of thousands of other Americans across the country cannot get copies of their birth records because they have been lost to fires, time, water damage or mismanagement.
Well don't you think it is about time we did something about it? I find it hard to fathom we can give pretty much anybody a free phone but getting everyone a photo ID is somehow unpossible.
We don't give "pretty much anyone a free phone." Jesus Christ, stop blathering about unrelated right-wing paranoia memes. I'm sorry Saint Reagan started the Lifeline program.

Getting everyone a country a free ID isn't just issuing folks an ID once. It means issuing a free ID in a timely manner, with an up to date photograph, every time anyone in the country moves, anytime anyone in the country gets married, gets divorced, changes their name, etc. It'll cost a small fortune. If we want photo IDs for voting, which conceptually no one I know opposes, there will be significant costs *at the state level*, not the federal level, to achieve that goal without creative massive obstacles to poor people voting. Or we can do what the Republican legislatures across the country are trying to do, which is pass the requirements without addressing the resulting hardships and just shrugging and saying "it sucks to be you" as old people, poor people, college students and young women are denied their right to vote.

Of course, the most cost-effective, corruption-defeating, and democracy-enabling option would be to throw this discussion to the side and just have every state adopt the Oregon system.

We may not give everyone a phone, but we give a shitload of people phones that shouldn't be getting them.

In a continuing crackdown on the federal government's Lifeline program, sometimes known as "Obama phones," the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has revealed that fraud and abuse in the program exceeded two million subscribers. New rules were established after it became clear that subscribers and providers were taking advantage of the system:

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has worked aggressively to enforce these new rules since their adoption, taking actions worth over $15 million, in addition to today’s $32.6 million in proposed forfeitures. Numerous additional investigations are ongoing. Moreover, over 2 million duplicate subscriptions have been eliminated, and the FCC’s reforms are on track to save the Fund more $2 billion over three years.

The two million is up from a figure of 1.1 million in an FCC press release just a month ago.

The Lifeline program was started in 1985 to allow low income household to have basic and emergency phone service, but has grown dramatically since its inception. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that payments ballooned from $819 million in 2008 to more than $2.2 billion in 2012. The Journal investigation also found that the kind of fraud uncovered by the FCC in its current action was rampant:

A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% [almost 2.5 million] of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fcc ... 66312.html

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:03 pm

A program started in 1985 has fraud after the program has changed over 30 years? OMG! Socialism! We can't call these Reagan phones -- the iPhone wasn't even invented back then! Thanks, Obama!

/sarcarm off
Seriously? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:04 pm

A program started in 1985 has fraud after the program has changed over 30 years? OMG! Socialism! We can't call these Reagan phones -- the iPhone wasn't even invented back then! Thanks, Obama!

/sarcarm off
Seriously? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:32 am

Wow, they doubled down today, amazed you guys aren't in here screaming bloody murder about it.....

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:45 am

Yeah, this was kinda shocking news... well, sad news at least.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:49 am

Rip wrote:Wow, they doubled down today, amazed you guys aren't in here screaming bloody murder about it.....

I wonder what their reasoning is for any limits at all. Or maybe those are next.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:54 am

Having not read the opinion yet this is probably the just the logical continuance of citizen's united. I still think that decision is likely disastrous for the country long-term but I guess time will just have to tell since it'll take a constitutional amendment to fix it and that isn't possible. We just have to live with the fact that we are trapped in a completely dysfunctional mess and this only adds (slightly) more fuel to the engine of chaos. Looking at the really big picture - this is classic decay and corruption taking hold like it does in any large nation. It just seems the life cycle here is way accelerated say compared to the pre-WW2 British for instance.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:04 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:Wow, they doubled down today, amazed you guys aren't in here screaming bloody murder about it.....
I wonder what their reasoning is for any limits at all. Or maybe those are next.

Yeah, I think that's pretty likely - next domino to fall will be the limits on contributing to individual candidates. Short of that, unless I'm missing something it seems like the practical impact of this decision will be relatively limited - all it says (again, may be missing something) is that the overall limits one can make to all federal candidates in a two year election cycle (which was ~ $132,000) are unconstitutional. Donors still cannot contribute more than $2,600 to an individual candidate in any election - that wasn't challenged.

So it seems like wealthy donors now can give a trivial amount to lots of candidates rather than a trivial amount to a few. Doesn't seem like a huge deal in and of itself, except as a prelude to striking down the individual limit in the next decision.

Overall, while I generally favor campaign finance restrictions, there's a pretty straightforward and logical constitutional case against them - by financing political speech you are creating / allowing speech that would not otherwise occur. Therefore restricting political contributions is restricting speech in a meaningful sense.

What infuriates me is when the Court tries to make its decision all pollyana-ish by saying that there's no reason to think that campaign contributions have anything to do with even an appearance of corruption. I wish Roberts would just sack up and say sure obviously it does, but that doesn't remove the protection of the First Amendment.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:19 pm

This is a terrible decision. It undermines American democracy. But when you have a conservative court, you don't have a court that cares much about democracy.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:23 pm

This is a great decision. It bolsters freedom of speech. But when you have liberal people complaining about it, you don't have people who care much about freedom.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:26 pm

What it does is allow the rich to completely shout down and drown out the voices of the poor. Which is exactly what the Republicans want.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:34 pm

What it does is allows people to do what they want with their money (kinda). Many argue that Obama won the last election because of the latino vote. It wasn't the overabundance of money coming from latino voters, it was the relatively poor minority getting out and voting. Their voices weren't drowned out.

And no republican wants the voices of the poor drowned out. This isn't superheroes vs. villains.