CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread - Page 2

post #51 of 506

Goddammit SCOTUS!  One step back, one step forward.

 

post #52 of 506

To paraphrase-

 

"I felt a great disturbance in Salt Lake City, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something wondrous has happened."

post #53 of 506

Married gays are about to get redistricted! I see Roberts' evil plan for what it is!

post #54 of 506

To steal Pajiba's idea:

 

post #55 of 506

Colbert should be EXTRA amusing tonight.

post #56 of 506

Oh my gods....the slippery slope.....it's starting.....

 

post #57 of 506

Mass Hysteria!

post #58 of 506

I never get tired of watching this, especially today.

 

post #59 of 506
Scalia's dissenting response, and HuffPo's analysis of same, have been predictably hilarious.

"A day after siding with four other conservative justices to overturn a portion of a nearly 50 year old civil rights law that maintained broad bipartisan support, Justice Antonin Scalia lashed out at the Supreme Court for intervening in the gay marriage debate," the article begins.
post #60 of 506
Quote:

Gay-Marriage Foes Going Through Stages of Grief

 

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

 

2. Anger

"My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of 'marriage' in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term)."

—Justice Scalia

 

3. Bargaining

We will now seek the passage of federal legislation to remedy this situation as much as possible given the parameters of the decision.
 —Ralph Reed

 

4. Depression

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words "We the People" are now meaningless.

 

5. Acceptance

Mike O'Brien @mpoindc

Rand Paul: "I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state."

 

edit to add:  Hey Rand Paul, what about all that libertarian freedom that you always are going on about? Shouldn't you be happy with this decision? 


Edited by VTRan - 6/26/13 at 11:10am
post #61 of 506

Scalia gets a point for use of "argle-bargle" in a sentence, which is simply delightful (deducted several thousand points for everything else).

post #62 of 506
Shortly before lunch time, an immigration judge in NYC halted deportation proceedings for a Colombian man married to a male American citizen, citing the Supreme Court's decision. Prior to today, the court was prepared to split up this marriage, because DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing it.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel: Implementation of benefits to gay military spouses is to begin immediately.

Joan McCarter at DailyKos thanks John Boehner for his $3 million dollar legal defense of DOMA, without which the Supreme Court might never have been able to rule on the law.

_
Edited by Reasor - 6/26/13 at 11:23am
post #63 of 506
Quote:

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

post #64 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

 

God, that's so perfect.

post #65 of 506

It's the rest of the dais laughing along that seals it.

post #66 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Quote:

Gay-Marriage Foes Going Through Stages of Grief

 

1. Denial

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,”

-Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

 

2. Anger

"My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of 'marriage' in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term)."

—Justice Scalia

 

3. Bargaining

We will now seek the passage of federal legislation to remedy this situation as much as possible given the parameters of the decision.
 —Ralph Reed

 

4. Depression

Bryan Fischer @BryanJFischer

With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words "We the People" are now meaningless.

 

5. Acceptance

Mike O'Brien @mpoindc

Rand Paul: "I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state."

 

edit to add:  Hey Rand Paul, what about all that libertarian freedom that you always are going on about? Shouldn't you be happy with this decision? 

 

 

ZGW4ZiK.gif

post #67 of 506
OMIGOD.





Omigod, you guys.





You guys.





Brangelina can end their protest strike and get married now.





You guys. OMIGOD.
post #68 of 506

 I'm happy that DOMA was struck down, but it still doesn't make up for the Voting Acts bullshit.  I guess Rand Paul doesn't believe in big government, except when he knows when it should be used. Nobody has the right to tell to consenting adults what they can do; that goes double for ass hats that go on Alex Jones's show.

post #69 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Oh my gods....the slippery slope.....it's starting.....

 


Most adorable slippery slope ever!

post #70 of 506
post #71 of 506

Do these rulings mean that if a gay couple marries in a state where it's legal, then move to one where it's not, the "moved to" state has to legally recognize their marriage?

 

EDIT:  As I look around, the answer is "apparently not" though most likely federal benefits would still apply.

 

So...it's ultimately a baby-step given that 38 states still don't recognize gay marriage.  Though at least it pretty much gets DOMA out of the way in the future.

post #72 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

OMIGOD.





Omigod, you guys.





You guys.





Brangelina can end their protest strike and get married now.





You guys. OMIGOD.

 

post #73 of 506

pffft....Brangelina's thunder is stolen.

 

Quote:

In the rush of excitement after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, actress Kristen Bell jumped onto Twitter to propose to her fiancé, Dax Shepard, who is also the dad of her 3-month-old baby girl, Lincoln.

 

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/marriage-proposals-doma-taking-tweets-183700886.html

post #74 of 506

Dax Shepard?  Now I want to get rid of straight marriage.

post #75 of 506

Well, that didn't take long

 

In a thoroughly unsurprising, but extremely quick move, the Texas AG pounces on the 'holy shit! we get to discriminate against minorities legally again!' wagon.

post #76 of 506

Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.

 

post #77 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.



Hahaha! That's great! I wish I could find the Old clip from the Daily Show showing Santorums freak out on the senate saying allowing gay marriage will lead to man on turtle sex. So funny. This was before the GOP was filled to the brim with loons so Stewarts reaction was amazing. This was 2004 I think that's when I first heard of Santorum and thought he committed professional and political seppuku. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
post #78 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Paul Ryan helps to make Santorum's fears a reality.

 


The fish can do better.

post #79 of 506
post #80 of 506

Just discovered this; this seemed the proper thread.

 

post #81 of 506

Hey, guess what those conservative SCOTUS douchebags are doing now...

 

 
Quote:

 

Against the protests of liberals on the bench, conservative justices signaled Tuesday during oral arguments for McCutcheon v. FEC that the Supreme Court may further unwind campaign finance restrictions by eliminating federal limits on how much individuals may donate to political candidates and committees.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, who led the charge for conservatives, disputed the idea that giving large amounts to candidates or parties reflects "corruption," instead likening it to "gratitude."

 

"I mean, if gratitude is corruption, don't those independent expenditures [by PACs] evoke gratitude?" he said. "It's not as if we're prohibiting big money from being in politics. Big money can be in political -- you just can't give to political parties."

 

Scalia was referring to the 2010 case, Citizens United v. FEC, which gave rise to super PACs by invalidating limits on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, labor unions and associations.

 

The case justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday was brought in 2012 by Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who argued that the Federal Election Campaign Act's biennial limit on individual contributions violated their First Amendment rights. It has the potential to further dismantle the campaign spending limits the justices scaled back with the Citizens United decision.

 

The irony of conservatives referring to Citizens United wasn't lost on Kagan. "If this court is having second thoughts," she said, "we could change that part of the law!" Laughs ensued in the courtroom.

 

Based on the justices' questioning during the hour-long oral arguments, it's plausible that conservatives could muster five votes to unwind some of the restrictions at stake.

 

<cont.>

 

On top of the Citizen's United decision, the decision here could fuck any future US electoral process and pretty much guarantee that the US is 'Brundled' into a full blown Plutocracy.

post #82 of 506

This situation is so terrible that I don't even want to read the news to find out how they end up ruling.  I think the future of this country might rest in Justice Kennedy's hands right now.

 

"Who elected these morons" is right.  SCOTUS has WAY too much power for unelected lifetime appointments. 

post #83 of 506

To the sounds of billions of dollars spent on political advertising to influence all electoral races--from Presidential to school board--begins the end of the Republic.  Seriously.

post #84 of 506

Yeah, remember when the President mentioned in his SOTU that SCOTUS' Citizens United ruling would open the door to foreign interests manipulating U.S. elections?  And remember when Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed "not true"?  Yeah, good times.

 

The Cable Feds: Mexican Tycoon Exploited Super PACs to Influence U.S. Elections

post #85 of 506

yt, that man has a lot of money, so clearly that makes him better than us and I obviously want someone who is better than me deciding things. My modest, freelance, don't-know-how-I'm-going-to-pay-the-bills-for-4-months-a-year, slowly dissolving middle class mind just should not be left to help affect decisions that could affect all of us, GAWD!

 

:: runs to room, slams door, listens to the Cure ::

post #86 of 506

This could get really ugly...

 

Supreme Court Weighing Obamacare Birth Control Coverage
 

Quote:

Two years after the entire law survived the justices' review by a single vote, the court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a religion-based challenge from family-owned companies that object to covering certain contraceptives in their health plans as part of the law's preventive care requirement.

 

Health plans must offer a range of services at no extra charge, including all forms of birth control for women that have been approved by federal regulators.

Some of the nearly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives object to paying for all forms of birth control. But the companies involved in the high court case are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.

 

The largest company among them, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and the Green family that owns it, say their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

 

 

Would jewish or muslim owned businesses be able to discriminate against people that eat pork?

 

If I owned a business and thought that psychology and psychiatrists were 'evil', could I deny any sort of mental health insurance coverage for my employees?

post #87 of 506
It's a potential minefield. What other laws would for-profit businesses be able to claim exemption from? Can the owners of a nuclear power plant get a waiver for environmental and workplace safety laws if they claim to belong to a doomsday cult?
post #88 of 506

So I've been reading this extrapolation here and there on the internets over the last few days...

 

-The people that own Hobby Lobby don't want to have to pay for birth control because they feel that it is a form of abortion.

 

- Apparently Hobby Lobby sells a good number of items that are made in China 

 

-No doubt taxes from these 'Made in China' items are collected by the Chinese government.

 

-Now according to wiki:

      -Abortion in China is legal and is a government service available on request for women

      -...in 2008, there were an estimated 13 million abortions performed, and approximately 10 million abortion pills sold

 

Therefore, using Hobby Lobby 'logic', they are guilty of being complicit in the abortion deaths of millions upon millions of Chinese children.

 

 

So, when are they going to stop selling products that are 'made in China'?

post #89 of 506

Not to mention Hobby Lobby covered contraceptives until That One got ACA through.

post #90 of 506

Yep. Which just underlines the reason Hillary shouldn't run in 2016.

post #91 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDI F. Kelly View Post
 

Yep. Which just underlines the reason Hillary shouldn't run in 2016.


????

post #92 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 


????


Sorry, I should've quoted Jacob's previous post. 

 

Hillary shouldn't run because the GOP will treat her in much the same way they've treated Obama -- not as an elected leader, but as an Other to be blocked, insulted, mischaracterized, and beaten down at every opportunity.   They hate him, and they will hate her too if she were to become president.  It has far less to do with his positions or initiatives or priorities and everything to do with what they perceive as an interloper presuming to take part in "their" government. 

 

Nor am I making any comment on if HIllary would be a good president -- that's immaterial to the GOP.  If we want any movement in Congress, the Democrats would be wise to run a white guy.  He may be a Democrat, the GOP will say, but at least he's not black or a woman...especially that woman.

 

Disgusting but true.

post #93 of 506
Of course you must realize that the Republicans will treat any Dem candidate as an "other"
post #94 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDI F. Kelly View Post


Sorry, I should've quoted Jacob's previous post. 

Hillary shouldn't run because the GOP will treat her in much the same way they've treated Obama -- not as an elected leader, but as an Other to be blocked, insulted, mischaracterized, and beaten down at every opportunity.   They hate him, and they will hate her too if she were to become president.  It has far less to do with his positions or initiatives or priorities and everything to do with what they perceive as an interloper presuming to take part in "their" government. 

Nor am I making any comment on if HIllary would be a good president -- that's immaterial to the GOP.  If we want any movement in Congress, the Democrats would be wise to run a white guy.  He may be a Democrat, the GOP will say, but at least he's not black or a woman...especially that woman.

Disgusting but true.

You're not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's presidency, are you? It doesn't matter who beats the Republicans. It's having lost an election that drives them, and their voter base, to fits of rage.
post #95 of 506

Not that this should be a surprise to anyone....

 

Quote:

Hobby Lobby’s secret agenda: How it’s quietly funding a vast right-wing movement

Exclusive: How entities related to the company are quietly pumping tens of millions into a mélange of fringe causes

 

I hope I live long enough to see the day where churches end up being taxed like any other businesses (coughscamcough)....

post #96 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


You're not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's presidency, are you? It doesn't matter who beats the Republicans. It's having lost an election that drives them, and their voter base, to fits of rage.


Oh yes, I remember.  I'm 36.  I also teach government and politics.  I also know that while many Republicans hated Bill Clinton, they still got shit done.  Now we have this:

 

 

This, even in the Senate, which is traditionally less partisan than the House.  This shows the enormous lack of consensus -- and that gap is, I believe, demonstrative of how the GOP have an intolerance for Obama that previous administrations haven't had to deal with.   They'll treat Hillary the same way.

post #97 of 506

And historically speaking, the best way to overcome intolerance is to back off entirely and give the intolerant everything they ask for.  Am I following correctly?

post #98 of 506

Fourth attempt, deleted. That graphic keeps lobbing me "conservatives achieving asexual reproduction" jokes, but I just can't get the bat on the ball in any way that makes sense. It's all so meta.

post #99 of 506
Me-me-me!!!-osis.

I tried . . .
post #100 of 506

When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare's contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.

 

Quote:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

 

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread