The Supreme Court
- Thread starter Muggsy Blue
- Start date
Agreed, Muggsy. America has a long way to go, but so many positive steps are taking place. Meanwhile, our President just delivered a truly moving eulogy in Charleston. A fine voice, he has. He and Bernie Sanders should cut an album together (Sanders had a folk album out in 1987). On that front, here's something interesting: The Democrats not only get permission to use all the good songs in their campaigns, but can also do a little singing. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is probably negotiating for the rights to use "Cat Scratch Fever" or "Wango Tango."
These are remarkable and historic times for America. It'll be interesting to see how this era is taught in high school social studies classes in the future. As it is the middle school students at the school where I work are witnessing history. I hope they're home absorbing it all this summer because everything happening is making our country a better place for them.
These are remarkable and historic times for America. It'll be interesting to see how this era is taught in high school social studies classes in the future. As it is the middle school students at the school where I work are witnessing history. I hope they're home absorbing it all this summer because everything happening is making our country a better place for them.
Last edited:
Did he mention the deceased voting to keep the confederate flag on state property?
This comes as no surprise, but the better question might be "Why have a Constitution", as it is being subverted at every turn. Next on the docket will be the Constitutionality of Newton's First Law which JimSouls claims is a white man's contrivance aimed at keeping blacks in chattel. (I predict a 6-3 ruling declaring it unconstitutional
) I shudder to think what is being taught in his classroom. As far as how all these events will be viewed in the future, that's an easy one: whatever Big Brother wants will be taught from books supplied by the Ministry of Truth. Room 101 here we come.I know Obama promised to change a great nation, but I never believed he'd succeed so easily.
Thanks, Republicans, you've been a big help in protecting our rights and privileges.
Well based on this view inter-racial marriages should also be allowed or disallowed on a state by state basis and the same with segregated facilities etc. Sorry we are one nation not 50 different sovereignty's. This is a civil rights issue and by its very nature a national issue. But for the sake of argument even if the SC ruled it a state issue they would have been required to give the marriages full faith and credit from one state to another should the couple move to another state. If the court did that it would have pretty much had the same effect as yesterday's decision. In the end however they did the right thing.
Tom K
So the United States of America doesn't mean anything? So you want to dismantle all states, boundaries, etc.? One size fits all. Could be a good answer but be careful what you wish for.
At least consensual polygamy is now legal in all 50 states.
Definitely a good point but then there shouldn't be any states or state laws such as driving laws, gun laws, state budgets, etc. After all we one big nation, not 50 individual labs of democracy. You should help pay for California's drought, California should help pay for NJ's public colleges, etc.
Our nation and its president have had a very good week. Why can't everyone just be proud and happy? This rooting against the country and President Obama because of personal political beliefs has grown tiresome. Every American should have their civil rights and be eligible for healthcare coverage. Since my wife and I got our healthcare through Obamacare, we are thrilled by the latter. We're also encouraged to see our country moving in a positive direction. We've still go a long way to go, but there are many more happy Americans today than there were prior to the 2008 election. Would someone care to explain why this might be a bad thing?
I dunno JimSouls how the historians will record this or how it will be recorded in US History II books, probably incorrectly. I just learned that Lincoln was a racist who wanted to send Negroes back to Africa, so Lord knows how those incompetent public schools will teach this historical era.
Maybe because you're a blind shill, and not everyone agrees with you? I'm in the healthcare industry, and can tell you that a victory for "Obamacare" is neither moving the industry, nor the country, forward.
Let's pretend that redefining marriage is a good thing, for a second. If only that were all there was to it. I was listening to NPR, in the car on Sunday morning, and they had some LGBT activist on, and were quoting a famous gay actor, as well. Really scary, subversive stuff, talking about "a long way to go...getting into every school, and home," with the intention of being sure that everyone falls in line with "the new normal."
They said the next step would be transgenders and gender-neutrals, meaning, for instance, removing the gender separation in public restrooms.
I'm sorry, you are what your chromosomes say you are (and yes, there are rare XYY's and XXY's, etc), and clearly these people have some form of mental illness. Regardless of what the law says, or will be further distorted to say, you can't force everyone to shrug and call it normal....or can you? They certainly intend to try.
What Jim calls a nation moving forward is what the other 50% of us see as one going down the shitter, and accelerating since neo-progressivism began.
Donnie, there is nothing wrong with all Americans being able to have health insurance. Does it need tweaking? Yes, but that doesn't mean making people go without. My wife and I would be screwed without it, but to someone like you that is a good thing. Why would you care about other people so long as you have yours?
As for your opinion on same-sex marriage, it is beyond lame. I disagree that homosexuality is "some form of mental illness.," and it's not my (or your) business anyway. If you think the country is "going down the shitter" because more people are now going to be married and happy, I feel sorry for you. Gay people being able to marry doesn't hurt one single person in this country. Not one. The main problem you have with President Obama's successes is that you didn't vote for him. It's all about you and your politics, not what's best for the people of this country. Fortunately everyone's life doesn't revolve around your self-centeredness. If you looked at all those people celebrating the Supreme Court's ruling this weekend and saw a country going down the shitter, then you have major issues. And as conservatives have been so fond of saying in the past, if you don't like it you can leave.
As for your opinion on same-sex marriage, it is beyond lame. I disagree that homosexuality is "some form of mental illness.," and it's not my (or your) business anyway. If you think the country is "going down the shitter" because more people are now going to be married and happy, I feel sorry for you. Gay people being able to marry doesn't hurt one single person in this country. Not one. The main problem you have with President Obama's successes is that you didn't vote for him. It's all about you and your politics, not what's best for the people of this country. Fortunately everyone's life doesn't revolve around your self-centeredness. If you looked at all those people celebrating the Supreme Court's ruling this weekend and saw a country going down the shitter, then you have major issues. And as conservatives have been so fond of saying in the past, if you don't like it you can leave.
Muggsy, as someone who works in a public school in Northeast Tennessee, I wouldn't say they're incompetent. The curriculum they're required to teach is another story. After five years of it, I am looking to move on. A lot of teachers are frustrated by what education has turned into. If I was teaching social studies, I don't think I'd be able to handle it. Too many parents want their kids to go on hating. The Lincoln stuff is comical. He was seen as a divider in his time and was reviled in the South for ending slavery.
Muggsy was being sarcastic.
I never said homosexuals were mentally ill.
I never said people should go uninsured.
Then you tell me that I should leave the country.
What do you do in the middle school? I hope it's sweeping the floors, and not teaching, because you either can't comprehend the written word, or you are such an idealogue that you will twist them. Probably the latter, because given that <2% of people are actually gay, all that celebration you witnessed was that of the promotion of an ideology; most don't have a horse in the race.
How do you know who I voted for? I've voted "D," over the years as much as "R." Can you say the same? Go back and read your post, and see if you have a leg to stand on, accusing anyone of partisan politics. You sound like a brainwashed 10 year-old. Thanks for letting me know what my problem is; yours is clearly half-baked assumptions. Please do NJ a favor and stay in Middle Tennessee.
I never said homosexuals were mentally ill.
I never said people should go uninsured.
Then you tell me that I should leave the country.
What do you do in the middle school? I hope it's sweeping the floors, and not teaching, because you either can't comprehend the written word, or you are such an idealogue that you will twist them. Probably the latter, because given that <2% of people are actually gay, all that celebration you witnessed was that of the promotion of an ideology; most don't have a horse in the race.
How do you know who I voted for? I've voted "D," over the years as much as "R." Can you say the same? Go back and read your post, and see if you have a leg to stand on, accusing anyone of partisan politics. You sound like a brainwashed 10 year-old. Thanks for letting me know what my problem is; yours is clearly half-baked assumptions. Please do NJ a favor and stay in Middle Tennessee.
Last edited:
Health insurance is a responsibility not some government provided and mandated right. What else should the government provide that one can't provide for himself??? The health care insurance mess was caused by government intervention.
Obamacare checks the box of getting more people covered by heath insurance but it's shitty coverage so health care outcomes are no better, maybe worse, all at a HUGE cost.
I agree with you here, I thought the Supreme Court ruling was wrong because of the impact on federalism. This seemed like the quintessential states' rights issue but then 14th Amendment reared its head. So be it.
Based on the majority opinion though, anything that is legal in your home state is now also legal in any other state you may be in. Like concealed carry and marijuana. Gambling too. It's a great day.
Excellent Donnie, you are what your genes say you are for public consumption. If you want to run around pretending you're something you're not on your own time and place, that's your business but in public (ie, restrooms, etc.), if you have a penis, you're a man; if you have a vagina, you're a woman.
Same for race. If you have two black parents, you're black. If you have two white parents, you're white. If you have one black parent and one white parent, you're half black, half white.
I am completely opposed to gender neutral bathrooms if that means urinals have to be replaced by stalls. I cannot support anything that infringes on my right to breeze in and out of public bathrooms to make Number 1. Someone has to stand up for those of us who stand up.
[QUOTE="JIMSOULS, post: 78276, member: 558"
Gay people being able to marry doesn't hurt one single person in this country. Not one..[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to Brendan Eich or the owners of various bakeries. And this is only the
beginning. The homofascists are just getting warmed up.
Gay people being able to marry doesn't hurt one single person in this country. Not one..[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to Brendan Eich or the owners of various bakeries. And this is only the
beginning. The homofascists are just getting warmed up.
Your answer disappoints me. I know you are too smart to believe that Obergfell expressly approves concealed carry, marijuana or gambling and for a guy who values keeping it real, I think this sort of slippery slope argument is beneath you.
The courts did what they were supposed to do. States were approving/barring gay marriage at different speeds. Federal courts were divided on the issue as well. The Supreme Court addressed the issue (as it often does when district courts do not agree) and ruled in favor of marriage equality, at least in part because of the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection is not going to be used for or against gambling. Gun issues are a political third rail and it appears the court is not prepared to wade into this debate in a definitive way, at least not for awhile.
You may be onto something with Marijuana legalization. I believe more states will legalize or at a minimum decriminalize it. At some point, there may be a need to for the SC to step into this debate, although I think the legal reasoning will be more along the lines of interstate commerce.
As much as I respect your strong states rights stance, I think you are fighting a losing battle. That issue is settled. States can do what they want until it conflicts with the Federal government.
s
Maybe Mr. Souls will share information on his good fortune in having Obamacare, information as to deductibles and premiums. When his costs decrease, as the President promised, he can advise us, so we can share his joy.
Maybe Mr. Souls will share information on his good fortune in having Obamacare, information as to deductibles and premiums. When his costs decrease, as the President promised, he can advise us, so we can share his joy.
The emphasis seems to be on your ability to "hear". Four of nine SC justices "hear" good reasons. The majority of the voters on virtually every plebiscite on the topic "hear" good reasons. Heck, even on this board we have had many threads with scores of posts, but we know you do not "hear" the reasons explained here.
So are you saying that you see no difference at all in judging a person's "actions" as opposed to judging a person's genetic makeup?
So should we just scrub the Constitution as no longer of import?
Although 5 of 9 see it as a Civil Rights issue, I agree with the Chief Justice's analysis.
Please read or listen on CSpan to the oral arguments on this case to learn that this is less than accurate on its face.
If you work in a Public school then I am sure you have health care benefits through your employer. If you work in a private school I would be shocked if health insurance were not available through the school and at a price competitive with Obamacare without the deleterious impact on efficacy posed by that abomination.
The Star Ledger had the results of a recent poll asking the following question - Do you think that the Supreme Court is too liberal, too conservative or about right? The results are as follows:
33% Too liberal
29% About right
27% Too conservative
10% Not sure
It seems the court has hit a sweet spot where no one really knows what it is. If you were asked this question, how would you respond?
33% Too liberal
29% About right
27% Too conservative
10% Not sure
It seems the court has hit a sweet spot where no one really knows what it is. If you were asked this question, how would you respond?
Our current Supreme Court breaks down as 5 consevatives vs 4 liberals on most issues, but when push comes to shove on important issues especially those involving civil rights they usually do the right thing. Ideally the Justices should look at each case on the specific merits rather than routinely voting along party lines.
TK
TK
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Chief Justice Roberts said:
Justice J [I]ALITO[/I] said:
Justice C Thomas said:
Justice J [I]SCALIA[/I] said:
You do realize dissenting opinions are not the law don't you? Its like game 7 of the World Series and your team loses 5-4. The game is over. No reason to argue anymore. You lost. Live with it.
Tom K
Tom K
Gee, Tom, is that really what "dissenting" implies??
I post this because it points out in detail how this decision is bad law. And scary precedent. Whether you were a lawyer or not --- I understand you are --- in reading all of the five opinions (four dissenting) it seems obvious that this issue is no more "over" than Dred Scott was (or the many other cited "bad law" precedents were).
Time will tell.
That is true but since the Supreme Court doesn't make law, another Supreme Court could potentially overturn any other Supreme Court decision.
You're not guilty of it often, Tom, but, unfortunately, this is what partisan politics has devolved into. "'We' won, and 'you' lost." "If you don't like it leave."
A dissenting opinion isn't to be squelched, regardless of the outcome. A solid half of the country agrees with Scalia.
