• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
rocketknight said:
But the audio is being released, right? That could stimulate some discussion.
Click to expand...

It could, yeah. But I wouldn't really say that they would be a very good indicator of the actual decision. I remember the Affordable Care Act oral arguments - there was widespread panic because SG Verrilli was thought to have performed pretty weakly. I don't think anyone had predicted at that point that Roberts would have been the deciding vote (it was either Kennedy or bust). Roberts and Kennedy are the votes to watch this time - and honestly I think Kennedy is almost assuredly going to vote in favor striking down DOMA and Prop 8. The question is the scope - if Roberts always votes yes, he can really decide the scope of the decision. But then again, he's going to be on the court for another 20-25 years. This issue will be done with in 15 tops.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
pigeon said:
I feel like this keeps coming up.

Fundamentally, this huge switch right before SCOTUS and after the election means one of two things, I think: either they were lying before the election when they opposed gay marriage, or they're lying now when they claim to support it. In either case, I don't want to encourage them for the simple (if hopelessly naive) fact that I don't like it when politicians lie to me! Frankly, the worst thing about Obama's flip on SSM is the way in which he didn't even try to pretend he wasn't lying beforehand for political reasons.

Now, yes, again, if I thought this made gay marriage more likely to become legal I would at least not complain as much about it, but I think it should be clear at this point that politicians are doing this because they view it as a fait accompli and want to be on the right side before it's too late. If it's a fait accompli, then why should I be high-fiving the people pretending to agree with me on this one issue who generally hate everything I want to accomplish?
Click to expand...

Don't get the wrong idea. I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree entirely.

I guess the thing is, I'm just approaching these things from a utilitarian point of view. There's no doubt that some of this is political opportunism, but the end result to me is more important, and not so much how that gets achieved. It's how I look at Nixon. Does anyone think that he truly cared about the environment and saving the whales and all that shit? Probably not. But he did wind up creating the EPA, and that's the important thing.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
rocketknight said:
But the audio is being released, right? That could stimulate some discussion.
Click to expand...
It will most certainly do that. And I think this additional transparency is ultimately beneficial to our democracy.

I wasn't aiming this at anyone in particular, but I heard someone today who thought there would be a decision tomorrow. I would wager most people do not follow the court closely and may not know about the SC scheduling intricacies.

Link said:
To be fair, SVU isn't South Park. They can't write and produce an episode within a week.
Click to expand...
Still blows my mind to this day when I remember Elian Gonzales raid happening on a Sunday and then watched Janet Reno in an Easter bunny suit raiding a closet on SP on a Wednesday. I felt like a time traveler made the show.

EDIT: Gonzalez raid was April 22, the episode aired April 26 4 days to air and the edited the entire raid to match the Gonzalez incident.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Don't most T.V. shows take a week or two to produce an episode? We're not talking Game of Thrones here.
 
Amibguous Cad

Amibguous Cad

Member
pigeon said:
The prop 8 argument is pretty well-established, I think: GLBT isn't a suspect class, therefore rational basis applies, and the government has an interest in encouraging heterosexual sex to perpetuate the species. Now obviously this position is full of holes, but it is at least some kind of argument.

On the other hand, considering that, it occurs to me that SCOTUS may find GLBT a suspect class as part of the ruling, which would be almost as big news as legalizing marriage. So that'll be interesting to watch.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the court won't touch the argument of whether GLBT is a suspect class, since anything above minimal scrutiny, which they'd probably have to give, would commit them to legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, a sweeping change that I think they would not like to have to do.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Oblivion said:
Don't most T.V. shows take a week or two to produce an episode? We're not talking Game of Thrones here.
Click to expand...

It depends on the show. Something with well defined seasons will do all the filming while the show is on break after the season ends and so everyone will be off while it's on air and at work while the show is off.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Oblivion said:
Don't get the wrong idea. I get what you're saying, and I pretty much agree entirely.

I guess the thing is, I'm just approaching these things from a utilitarian point of view. There's no doubt that some of this is political opportunism, but the end result to me is more important, and not so much how that gets achieved. It's how I look at Nixon. Does anyone think that he truly cared about the environment and saving the whales and all that shit? Probably not. But he did wind up creating the EPA, and that's the important thing.
Click to expand...

From a utilitarian point of view, though, I think people are underestimating the dangers of lauding the converted Republicans here. It wasn't a good idea to let Southern whites run Reconstruction even if they did sign the loyalty oath. After gay marriage there will be another fight -- trans rights, maybe -- and after that another and another. Giving these people credit for their conversion just gives them a safer platform with which to fight us next time. Let us remember that they're wrong now, so that we can better argue that they will be wrong in the future.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
I want to know what keywords Allen West is using to get his ad to pop up in the Bioshock Infinite thread!

AllenWestShock_zpscb1cbd8b.jpg
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
pigeon said:
From a utilitarian point of view, though, I think people are underestimating the dangers of lauding the converted Republicans here. It wasn't a good idea to let Southern whites run Reconstruction even if they did sign the loyalty oath. After gay marriage there will be another fight -- trans rights, maybe -- and after that another and another. Giving these people credit for their conversion just gives them a safer platform with which to fight us next time. Let us remember that they're wrong now, so that we can better argue that they will be wrong in the future.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The single most important thing in advancing the causes of civil rights and social justice is breaking the Republican party. It would be worth some delay on an immediate issue to cement in people's minds how wrong the Republicans are on almost all issues. Sharing credit is to be avoided.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
sc0la said:
"A straight man can only marry a woman, why should a gay man be entitled to more freedom?"
Click to expand...

Close.

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear two cases involving same-sex marriage this week, Justice Antonin Scalia said that he would not allow his votes to be influenced “in any way” by his lifelong fear of gays.

“As Justices of the Supreme Court, we have a sacred duty to check our personal feelings at the door,” he told the Fox News Channel. “In my case, that means putting aside my longstanding and profound fear of homosexuals.”

Justice Scalia added that he was committed “to safeguarding the rights of all Americans—even those I personally find terrifying.”

“I take my role as an impartial arbiter very seriously,” he said. “So when I hear a case, I put all feelings of abhorrence, disgust, and revulsion completely out of my mind.”
The Justice said that when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage he would rely on the Constitution, “which makes no mention of gays whatsoever.”

“Remember, when the framers wrote the Constitution, there were no gays in America,” he said. “They didn’t come here until the nineteen-sixties.”

All in all, he said, advocates of same-sex marriage should rest assured that he will listen to this week’s arguments with an open mind: “I’m going to apply the same robust sense of fairness that I’ve brought to cases involving blacks and women.”
Click to expand...
 
P

Piecake

Member
Marvie_3 said:
Missed this from earlier today, but this is awesome.
Click to expand...

Bachmann holds the distinction of having a higher percentage of statements analyzed by PolitiFact determined to be outright lies—or “Pants on Fire”—than any other politician, according to a survey by The Daily Beast.

“She doesn’t use the most credible sources,” explains one former staffer, detailing Bachmann’s reliance on stories from the conspiracy-peddling WorldNetDaily to shape her worldview, “and she tends to listen to the last person who talks to her.” Bachmann is also a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Click to expand...

Hrmm...
 
B

Black Republican

Member
Red state Dem Senator Mark Begich supports Gay Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...=politics&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=TOPin

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) has said little publicly about his views on marriage equality. Until now.

On Monday night, the senator released a statement to Buzzfeed fully endorsing same-sex marriage:

"I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry and should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple," Begich stated.

"Government should keep out of individuals' personal lives -- if someone wants to marry someone they love, they should be able to. Alaskans are fed up with government intrusion into our private lives, our daily business, and in the way we manage our resources and economy."

Begich's statement comes on the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of marriage for same-sex couples.

Prior to releasing this statement, the moderate Democrat had publicly supported same-sex partner benefits and opposed amending the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, The New York Times reported. Alaskan voters approved a state ban in 1998.
Click to expand...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Aaron Strife said:
He supported it in 2012.

He'll probably win re-election even though he's in a tough state. Alaska is more libertarian than it is Republican and he's been a good senator.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Alaska is pretty libertarian. I think you can grow pot there legally too. They are not a Bible belt GOP state.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Kos got it absolutely right with Karl Rove's flip flop on gay marriage:

Rove responded in a statement, “I was asked if I could see A Republican presidential candidate supporting gay marriage in 2016 and I said I could (eg, Jon Huntsman endorsed civil unions in 2012). I was not asked if I could see THE Republican presidential candidate or the GOP presidential nominee as the ABC website has said this afternoon.”

So Karl Rove wasn't saying that he could imagine the 2016 GOP nominee supporting marriage equality after all. He was saying that a GOP candidate that didn't have a shot in hell of getting the nomination might support it. And he was so scared of his party's bigots that he felt compelled to issue a press release just to make sure nobody got the wrong idea.
Click to expand...
 
T

teiresias

Member
Lordy. This live video feed from outside the supreme court on MSNBC is something. Wherever my people be apparently there must be club music.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Will anyone be live blogging? Lol. I'm at jury duty today (THANKS OBAMA) and can't listen but would like to follow along.
 
O

Owzers

Member
codhand said:
I didn't watch this for a few days, cause I was all like, Jim Carrey...meh, but I have to issue a mea culpa, this video had a few lol moments for me...
Click to expand...

I found a write-up of The Five rant on this.

“He is the most pathetic tool on the face of the earth,” Gutfeld said. “And I hope his career is dead, and he ends up sleeping in a car the way his life began. This video only made me want to go out and only buy a gun. He thinks this is biting satire and going after rural America and a dead man. Let’s talk about Charlton Heston. Charlton Heston was one of the first actors to be behind the civil rights movement and march. What did this jackass Jim Carrey do? He was behind the anti-vaccine panic. There are what, 165,000 people that died from measles last year, according to the World Health Organization.”

“Jim Carrey has killed more people than all the rifles combined,” Gutfeld continued. “He is a dirty, stinking coward. He is a moral coward. He did a video attacking rural America. But he wouldn’t do video about gangs, which kills way more people with handguns — he wouldn’t do that because he is worried about his career. Such a pathetic, sad, little freak. He is a jiberring mess. He is a modern bigot, he is a modern bigot. He is a bottomless pit of insecurity and the desire for acceptance is why he is doing this, because he knows in his heart he is a fraud.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/25/g...ad-little-freak-jiberring-mess/#ixzz2Oet0BCcV
Click to expand...

The guy went insane, but since it's cool to go on insane tirades on Fox, i presume people liked it. What these guys don't understand is gangs aren't attacked because they aren't being led by the NRA who are lying to America when every gun restriction measure, even background checks, are Big Government trying to take away your guns. I presume he had to consort with Hannity on how to babble insults and pretend it's coherent.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
Those Scotusblog updates sound ridiculous. If they're going to dismiss it couldn't they have just not taken it up in the first place? Doesn't that mean they want a ruling on it once and for all? /typicalrocketscientistpostwithnoknowledgeofthesubject
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Rocket Scientist said:
Those Scotusblog updates sound ridiculous. If they're going to dismiss it couldn't they have just not taken it up in the first place? Doesn't that mean they want a ruling on it once and for all? /typicalrocketscientistpostwithnoknowledgeofthesubject
Click to expand...

Only takes four justices to hear a case, but takes five to rule. The Roberts Court has been doing wide-ranging grants on these topics for just this reason. They explicitly granted the question, basically, of whether they should rule on this case at all, in order to give them an escape hatch in the event that they decided they shouldn't have heard it in the first place. You might observe that that's bizarrely political and confusing for a theoretically nonpartisan body, and you'd be right. I get the impression that Roberts is VERY concerned about his legacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
895
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
700
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom