Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The State-sanctioned contract now typically called "marriage" should be changed to be called domestic partership or whatever. Regardless of M-F, F-F, M-M, whomever. And anyone who wants to enter into such a contractual relationship - barring legitimate state interests like protecting minors, etc. - should have this right.

But that violates the equal protection of single people and polygamists if you give those in 2 person domestic partnerships more benefits or greater protection under the law. Unless there is some legitimate reason to give those in 2 person domestic partnerships more benefits or greater protection under the law, it is unconstitutional.

What are the legitimate state interests in 2 person domestic partnership that warrant this unequal treatment of single persons and polygamists?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Actually, there is Supreme Court case law on the purported reasons.

When the Supreme Court supplies a post hoc rationalization, it is still a post hoc rationalization.

Check the Supreme Court cases from the late 1800's upholding the ban on polygamy.

That's not what I wanted a cite for, but those do sound like fun reading. Those old decisions are tricky, what with the arguments of both sounds being recounted at length.

My point is that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father all else being equal.

My point was, cite please. My other point was, all else is never equal, so this point is about as relevant as a libertarian convention.

But if you can have both a good mother and a good father, that is the best environment to raise a child in. Children a best raised by both a good mother and a good father.

Repetition is not citation.

That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. That is a government mandated arranged marriage. I am not talking about arranged marriages.

I thought you were talking about polygamy, which is often arranged marriage. I would have just made some polygamy jokes, but I'm all out.

Providing legal recognition of marriage isn't legislating morality. Banning sodomy is legislating morality and I am glad that is no longer constitutional to do in the US.

Repetition is not legal argument, either.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay. Further evidence for my "business people are corrupting the language" thesis. Never gotten someone so worked up to go triple net on me, though.

I've actually got a quadruple net on one occassion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Of course, he also said he didn't think it was fair that taxpaying families should suffer for the overspending in Sacramento by state legislators, which calls into question his complete understanding of what, exactly, a bond measure is.

Isn't it one of those things where you sell bonds and someone buys them, so you have all this money to spend and you never have to pay it back, because it's just like a credit card, and who ever pays those back?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because the pool of potential judges is heavily skewed toward college graduates and against 78 IQ Rush Limbaugh listeners?

So, strict constructionists are, by definition, stupider than others?

Reading Ty's profferred article, I see two main propositions:

1. He's rabidly anti-abortion; and

2. He's very much a strict constructionist. His arguments in the Kimmel line of cases (which really makes up most of the non-abortion-grounded rejection of him as a judge) simply hold that you cannot find, in the Constitution, support for the right to sue a state for many causes for which people would like to sue a state. I don't see anything outrageous in those arguments. The social effect of finding that right serves the interests and aims of many people who would seem to be rejecting Pryor, not on his legal acumen, but his willingness to stay with strict construction even when creativity in interpretation would serve their aims better. Frankly, Roe should show us how we unite the nation when we "find" new rights.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've actually got a quadruple net on one occassion.

And, remarkably, the officed of the OED did not implode.

I might be able to undetstand a net/net, if if were comparing, e.g., net bottom lines. It would be redundant, because to compare, e.g., gross bottom line to net bottom line would make no sense. But it would still be redundant.

But I guess I'm just not one of those smart, rich ibankers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You can defend segregation on the basis of S. Ct. cases from that era as well.

You have misunderstood me. I neither agree not disagree with their reasoning. I was simply addressing Ty's claim that there is no purported reason. There is a purported reason. I never addressed whether it is a good reason or not.

I am the one against the mindless breeding that goes on in this society, remember? I am highly unlikely to find the Supreme Court's reasoning on this issue valid. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was is there a purported reason behind government sanctioned marriage. There is a purported reason, the operative word being purported.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, strict constructionists are, by definition, stupider than others?

Reading Ty's profferred article, I see two main propositions:

1. He's rabidly anti-abortion; and

2. He's very much a strict constructionist. His arguments in the Kimmel line of cases (which really makes up most of the non-abortion-grounded rejection of him as a judge) simply hold that you cannot find, in the Constitution, support for the right to sue a state for many causes for which people would like to sue a state. I don't see anything outrageous in those arguments. The social effect of finding that right serves the interests and aims of many people who would seem to be rejecting Pryor, not on his legal acumen, but his willingness to stay with strict construction even when creativity in interpretation would serve their aims better. Frankly, Roe should show us how we unite the nation when we "find" new rights.

I'm not sure what you read, since I linked to several blog entries relating to different cases in which Pryor has been involved, most of which had nothing to do with abortion, and a speech. There was a case involving governmental immunity from suit, but it involved a municipality, not a state, and Heldman talked about it as an example of Pryor taking positions far from the mainstream. There was no article. And I really don't understand where you get the idea that he's a strict constructionist from. If you read those entries, you'll see that Heldman thinks he's an opportunist, not (jurisprudentially) principled. E.g., an advocate of states' rights, but the only AG to file a pro-Bush brief in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Whatever else you may think of that case, we can agree that the Supreme Court did not defer to the Florida Supreme Court.

edited to fix grammar

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm not sure what you read, since I linked to several blog entries relating to different cases that Pryor's been involved in, most of which had nothing to do with abortion, and a speech.

Jeez. Without even reading further, I have to jump in and say, the first thing you linked to, about how Pryor is horrible to women.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Whatever else you may think of that case, we can agree that the Supreme Court did not defer to the Florida Supreme Court.

He found no constitutional basis to usurp with federal power in the Kimmel-type cases. He found constitutional authority in the gore case. I don't think you can point to disparate outcomes in dissimilar cases and cry inconsistency.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
The issue was is there a purported reason behind government sanctioned marriage. There is a purported reason, the operative word being purported.

Yes, but you represented those cases to state that there is a reason and that procreation is the only reason. There are plenty of other ones, either hypothetical or real, that would apply to homosexual marriage as well, not all of which are exclusively financial (such as, medical decision delagee).

And I've yet to see you explain why the logic supporting eliminating gender restrictions on marriage also supports numerical limitations. Equal protection treats suspect classes differently than non-suspect lines, such as between 1, 2, 3, 4, and any other number.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Jeez. Without even reading further, I have to jump in and say, the first thing you linked to, about how Pryor is horrible to women.

Um, what? The first link, to his blog's main address, has a post near the top about abortion. The second concerns "legally and culturally divisive" things Pryor has said in briefs. Still have no idea what you are talking about.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Um, what? The first link, to his blog's main address, has a post near the top about abortion. The second concerns "legally and culturally divisive" things Pryor has said in briefs. Still have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe my post, which was a feeling lucky google that was answering bilmore's question as to how one could say Pryor was bad based on his record, assuming his record was limited to case filings and briefs as AG, which, clearly, it is not.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Maybe my post, which was a feeling lucky google that was answering bilmore's question as to how one could say Pryor was bad based on his record, assuming his record was limited to case filings and briefs as AG, which, clearly, it is not.

All you damn heathen liberals look the same. You can't expect the civilized Rs to be able to keep you straight, even if you do label yourselves. Bilmore seems to be referring to your link, not Ty's.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Um, what? The first link, to his blog's main address, has a post near the top about abortion. The second concerns "legally and culturally divisive" things Pryor has said in briefs. Still have no idea what you are talking about.

Damn, I'm sorry. It was Burger's link.

You both have green in your avatars.

You all look the same to me.