"Shark Week" for the Supremes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

dcnovice -> "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 3:54:17 PM)

Between Prop 8 yesterday and DOMA today, this has been the SCOTUS equivalent of "shark week."

So I'm curious:

Who's been following the arguments?

Any theories about how the justices will rule?

Did you change your profile pic on Facebook?

Did you notice whether friends changed theirs?




Level -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 4:04:00 PM)

DC, I've seen a ton changed on FB, and not just friends from here.

If what I'm hearing is right, the Court is leaning towards saying the DOMA is not constitutional.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 4:16:31 PM)

The woman whose case was heard today. Worth a listen.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-lesbian-just-took-on-the-u-s-supreme-court-over-gay-marriage-and-probably-won?c=ufb1



Moonhead -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:02:22 PM)

The terrible thing is that I was hoping for this:
[img]http://bzfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/shark-week-2012.jpg[/img]
but I got this:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gg6xhmBK3MM/UIEvtkdQGmI/AAAAAAAABig/HcwpOC-08Ns/s1600/PATHETIC_SHARKS_VIZ217.jpg[/img]
Which is a bit less impressive, even with Diana Ross...



TheHeretic -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:03:43 PM)

I've caught the changing headlines, as I surf across Google News, DC, but haven't read any of the stories underneath. Given the nature of the SC, I think the flow of news reports trying to read between the lines of the questions the justices are asking is pointless and stupid. It's journalistic masturbation, no different than what you see when you get a re-direct to LiveJasmin.

Since Kelo, I don't even try to guess how the court is going to rule. I just hope they get it right, with no faith whatsoever that such will be the case.

I have no idea what the Facebook thing is. The one person on my list there who probably would, is blocked again, because I'm sick of having to get past 15 of his shares, between every one of the the family and old friends posts I use the site for.



Level -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:16:41 PM)

http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/same-sex-marriage-facebook-campaign-adopts-red-equal-sign

A show of support for gay marriage.



DesideriScuri -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:21:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/same-sex-marriage-facebook-campaign-adopts-red-equal-sign
A show of support for gay marriage.


You know, I understand the point of the "equal" sign. I understand what it means, too. But, isn't it strange that the symbol being used is two parallel lines. That is, two lines that will never intersect?



tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:28:49 PM)

[:D]



[image]local://upfiles/502828/93C294275F7643A8A07D78E4A2D2FEB7.jpg[/image]



Level -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:30:14 PM)

I'm not sure they're looking at it like that [:D]




Level -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:32:22 PM)

Lol!



TheHeretic -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 6:51:04 PM)

FR

Popped over to Facebook for a peek. I have one friend with it up (and catching crap for it) two with the bacon strips spoof, and another with handguns.

Yeah, my family and old friends are a strange bunch.



muhly22222 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 7:39:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Between Prop 8 yesterday and DOMA today, this has been the SCOTUS equivalent of "shark week."

So I'm curious:

Who's been following the arguments?

Any theories about how the justices will rule?

Did you change your profile pic on Facebook?

Did you notice whether friends changed theirs?




I haven't been following the actual arguments all that closely, but I have read enough to get a general grip on the issues.

I think Prop 8 will, for all intents and purposes, be upheld. The District Court found it to be constitutional, the opponents appealed, and at that point, the state of California decided to stop defending the law. So the 9th Circuit allowed the original (private) proponents of the amendment to step in and defend it going forward. The problem is that those private citizens didn't have standing to argue a legal position in the case. In order to have standing, there must be some sort of injury (or potential injury) to the party. So since the 9th Circuit's decisions was made with the presence of a party with standing, I suspect that their decision will be vacated and the case remanded.

I would also have some expectation that the resolution of the DOMA case will be decided on procedural issues (such as federalism) rather than substantive ones. I heard a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg this past Sunday in which she expressed some hesitation at moving out in front of the American people on the issue (as expressed through the acts of the legislatures). I don't have the exact quote committed to memory, but the gist of it was that part of the reason that abortion is still the issue it is today is that the Court moved the law beyond the point where the American people were willing to go on an issue that there was movement on. She believes Roe was the right decision, just that it happened too early. For that reason, I could see her reaching for procedural grounds on which to resolve the case instead of actively declaring a right for same-sex couples to marry.

The Court is usually one of the last government institutions to come around to a particular view (FDR's New Deal program, anyone?). So I wouldn't be surprised to see these cases end up being little more than a footnote in the history of the gay rights movement. Not that it necessarily should be that way, but that's how I see it playing out. Then again, I'm no expert.

I don't really use Facebook, so I can't answer the last two.



LafayetteLady -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 7:44:54 PM)

That's what that is!



Powergamz1 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 8:03:12 PM)

Not a prediction, and certainly not based on the media's breathless gasping over the questions asked of both sides...

But I too fail to see how a private party citing thinly disguised religious dogma has the standing to be 'in loco governmentis' much less claim harm *for* the people of Cali.

The obvious remedy on any claim about gay marriages, is simply 'don't have one', and the Court is kind of fond of leaving things alone when an alternative remedy exists.

As far as 'the people voted on it' argument, hell the people of Florida voted a constitutional amendment mandating a highspeed rail across the Everglades years ago... how's that 'will of the people' thing working out there?


On the DOMA question, the 14th is pretty explicit and again, I'm wondering what the Court is going to say to create the Frankentein ruling it would take to keep it in place. 'State's rights, except some states are more equal than others? 'Separate but unequal is the new equality'?






tazzygirl -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 8:16:10 PM)

~FR

For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect that cannot be divorced from the practicalities. It is true, of course, that the civil act of marriage is separate from the recognition and blessing of that act by a religious institution. But the fact that there are distinct religious and civil components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect. Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality,54 and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality. As Representative Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated during the Subcommittee markup of H.R. 3396: ‘‘[S]ame-sex marriage, if sanctified by the law, if approved by the law, legitimates a public union, a legal status that most people . . . feel ought to be illegitimate. . . . And in so doing it trivializes the legitimate status of marriage and demeans it by putting a stamp of approval . . . on a union that many people . . . think is immoral.’’ 55

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf



erieangel -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/27/2013 8:55:46 PM)

I haven't had time to read up on any of today's arguments; however, some of yesterday's arguments were quite interesting.

1. Some of them were interesting for their inanity. It was even suggested that traditional marriage (opposite sex marriage, that is) should be viewed as being for the purpose of procreation. Kagen countered that argument by asking if we (the courts) then should refuse to give marriage licenses to couples in which both parties are over 55 then, as there would be very few children born from those marriages. Oddly, the attorney as well as few of the male jurists seemed to understand what she was saying.

2. Kennedy actually spoke, but I don't right now remember what his question had been.

3. Roberts smacked down both sides' opening statements as being non-relevant.

And the list could go on but I'm tired and I have a 10 am training tomorrow. I'm off to bed.




Lucylastic -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 2:43:25 AM)

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor left the lawyer defending California’s Proposition 8 grasping for words Tuesday with a question about whether the state law banning gay marriage amounts to discrimination.

Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
Charles Cooper, the attorney arguing against gay marriage for the state of California, struggled to find a response.

“Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”

“If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one benefit?” Sotomayor then asked.

Cooper answered that marriage needed to be protected because of “responsible procreation” is a “vital” interest to the state and society and because “same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/sonia-sotomayor-gay-marriage_n_2965105.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics



Politesub53 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 3:14:35 AM)

Loved the Supremes, especially with Dianna Ross.

Aint no mountain high enough.......[8D]



tweakabelle -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 3:59:23 AM)

quote:


You know, I understand the point of the "equal" sign. I understand what it means, too. But, isn't it strange that the symbol being used is two parallel lines. That is, two lines that will never intersect?


Has any one else noticed that the two parallel lines are straight? [:D]



FunCouple5280 -> RE: "Shark Week" for the Supremes (3/28/2013 8:56:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has any one else noticed that the two parallel lines are straight? [:D]



I would like to see to 'kinky' lines for everyone a bit odd not just gay[:D]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125