Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can Ashcroft/Bush issue one of them Gephardt x'cutive orders to block this expiration?

You mean, one of them orders that suspends the constitution? Yeah, I guess, he's done it before.

Alternatively, he can win, and pick up 6 senate seats, and that's that.

The question I have is whether he can be immediately replaced or if he actually can serve until the end of the next session and cannot be replaced.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The question I have is whether he can be immediately replaced or if he actually can serve until the end of the next session and cannot be replaced.

All of my (maybe thin) readings indicate that he's in until the "end" of the next session.

(If Dems win seats big, can they vote to adjourn the session after one hour, and then start a "new" session right away, and kick him to the curb?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
All of my (maybe thin) readings indicate that he's in until the "end" of the next session.

(If Dems win seats big, can they vote to adjourn the session after one hour, and then start a "new" session right away, and kick him to the curb?)

No the Republicans would filibuster. The only Judicial appointments going forward will be recess appointments.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Gender is an intermediate scrutiny class whereas religion is a strict scrutiny class. Polygamy is a religious practice to those who engage in it. So bringing up the suspect classes argument only strengthens the case for allowing polygamy.

If this were true, the authorities could not arrest Native Americans for using peyote as part of religious ceremonies because it would be discrimination against their religion. (An even stronger case than yours, since the peyote is used in ceremonies, while no one can think a man is obliged to have several wives -- the math doesn't work.) The Supreme Court has held otherwise. And if you think about it for half a second, it will occur to you that marriage statutes refer explicitly to gender, but do not refer explicitly to religion -- only to something that may be an indicia of religion.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

I have said just the opposite - that eliminating gender restrictions supports not having numerical limitations.

Yes, many times, but you've yet to support it. I know you don't buy the equal protection argument I described. But let's say that argument is right, as at least the Mass SJC has acknowledge. How does that argument then also support the elimination of numerical barriers on the participation ina single marriage?

[Not Me]

I predict that Nadar will either bow out before the election when the polls show him having little support or he will stay in and make a fool of himself.

What happened in 2000 to the Dems is just like what happened in 1988 to the Reps when Perot ran. If Perot had not run, Bush would have won a second term. It won't happen again for awhile to either party.

I do agree with Nadar on the negatives of the 2 party system.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

at the Radisson.

What is the Radisson?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Dude, I'm Rule 11.

I may have to hold hearings to get to the bottom of this.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
. It won't happen again for awhile to either party.

Well, that's kind of a stunning claim, given that the last three elections, and now this one, were influenced considerably by a significant third-party choice. Given teh direction both parties have taken over the last decade +, it seems more, not less, likely that third-party candidates will make regular appearances on the general election ballots.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
What is the Radisson?

See Post #1959.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
See Post #1959.

Although really a Marriott hotel would be more appropriate.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, many times, but you've yet to support it. I know you don't buy the equal protection argument I described. But let's say that argument is right, as at least the Mass SJC has acknowledge. How does that argument then also support the elimination of numerical barriers on the participation ina single marriage?

I have supported it many times. You just don't address my reasons and then say I never gave you any reasons when I did.

Just take the Mass Supreme Court opinion and substitute polygamy for gay marriage and polygamist for homosexual and read it. There is no legitimate state interest in stopping polygamy if it is a consensual union between adults.

The arguments against polygamy are that young teenagers are forced into it. But if it is a consensual union between adults, that argument fails. The solution to stopping old men from marrying young teenagers is to raise the age of consent and enforce it.

But banning polygamy doesn't stop old men from marrying young teenagers and an old man in a monogamous relationship can try to force a young woman into a monogamous marriage the same as a polygamist can. Banning polygamy isn't the solution to preventing women from being forced into a union with a man. That can be done whether or not polygamy is legal as it is done in Utah. The solution there is to enforce laws that prevent someone being forced into a union and held against their will.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I have supported it many times. You just don't address my reasons and then say I never gave you any reasons when I did.

Just take the Mass Supreme Court opinion and substitute polygamy for gay marriage and polygamist for homosexual and read it. There is no legitimate state interest in stopping polygamy if it is a consensual union between adults.

Consider BRC's post. The government could rationally conclude that it does not make good public policy to have 100 women to 5 men, and 95 bachelors, as opposed to having 100 married couples. This decision could be made for reasons that have nothing to do with anyone's religious views, just as peyote can be outlawed for reasons that have nothing to do with anyone's religious views.

Because marriage status do not expressly discriminate on the basis of religion, strict scrutiny does not apply. Imagining government justifications that would pass rational-basis review is laughably easy here. If you don't believe me, try to find cases where legislation fails rational-basis review.

The arguments against polygamy are that young teenagers are forced into it. But if it is a consensual union between adults, that argument fails. The solution to stopping old men from marrying young teenagers is to raise the age of consent and enforce it.

As a question of rational-basis review, what you say is irrelevant. If the legislature decides that polygamy should be outlawed because, empirically, young teenagers are likely to be forced into, that will be enough. Under rational-basis review, the state is not obliged to find a better-tailored solution to a problem.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


Just take the Mass Supreme Court opinion and substitute polygamy for gay marriage and polygamist for homosexual and read it. There is no legitimate state interest in stopping polygamy if it is a consensual union between adults.

You mean here:

"In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State.
See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002) ("Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties
but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise");"

Or here
"As both Perez and
Loving make clear, the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of
one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and
welfare. See Perez v. Sharp, supra at 717 ("the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage
with the person of one's choice").


Or here:

And central to personal freedom and security is the
assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. "Absolute equality before the
law is a fundamental principle of our own Constitution." Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 618, 619
(1912). The liberty interest in choosing whether and whom to marry would be hollow if the
Commonwealth could, without sufficient justification, foreclose an individual from freely choosing the
person with whom to share an exclusive commitment in the unique institution of civil marriage.

Sure, the justifications/rationales for marriage apply to polygamy, but the equality basis for the decision doesn't. And you haven't supplied that logical link, either.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Although really a Marriott hotel would be more appropriate.

I thought Hilton was the home of the whores