No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

May God forgive me, but I've been reading Obergefell on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. Am I reading this right, and is Scalia essentially arguing that not even a rational basis standard should apply, and judges should just defer the shit to the legislature?

Jack Balkin said it well:

The arguments of the dissenters in Obergefell for judicial restraint and respect for democratic deliberation would sound a lot more convincing if they hadn't all joined the opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. Shelby County is truly made up out of whole cloth, and it strikes down key parts of an important civil rights statute passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress. Indeed, at oral argument in Shelby County Justice Scalia suggested that the very fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed by such overwhelming margins is a reason that the courts needed to strike it down. Talk about five lawyers undermining democracy and imposing their ideological convictions on the rest of the country. . .

You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jack Balkin said it well:



You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.

Glad you're here for my latest constitutional conundrum:

If corporations are people, and people have a fundamental right to marry, can Ted Cruz marry Exxon Mobil, and, if so, is it a gay marriage? And since Exxon and Mobil already got married, is it polygamous, too?

This may need Venn Diagrams.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jack Balkin said it well:



You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.

wrong board.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Naxos

There used to be a little bar/cafe on the hill run by a nice woman from Dusseldorf that served organic German beer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

There used to be a little bar/cafe on the hill run by a nice woman from Dusseldorf that served organic German beer.

We stayed at the Orkos/Mikri Vigla end of Plaka, but I was good with drinking Mythos. The food was really, really good -- not the most interesting cuisine, but terrific ingredients.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

May God forgive me, but I've been reading Obergefell on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. Am I reading this right, and is Scalia essentially arguing that not even a rational basis standard should apply, and judges should just defer the shit to the legislature?

His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had. California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?

My favorite person of the weekend was the Buttplug/Dildo/ISIS flag Londoner. The reporting was like Les Nessman in real life.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had.

What do you have against emojis?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

What do you have against emojis?

Jeez Burger, they're clearly an assault on my religious liberties. A threat to freedom and democracy! Anyone can see that.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3398

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3399

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3400

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3401

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Jeez Burger, they're clearly an assault on my religious liberties. A threat to freedom and democracy! Anyone can see that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?

There are plenty of parts of California that are every bit as Western as anywhere else, but I would bet that Scalia just said that as a personal shot against Kennedy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Soccer experts question - Based on some whistles in the WC it appears that a player can be offsides even if they do not receive the ball until after the ball has hit the goalkeeper or the goalpost. Is that correct? And why is that the rule?

Put aside the debate on offsides, if another player takes a shot on goal and it happens to go to an offside player only on the rebound, it doesn't seem particularly consistent with the purpose of the rule to keep applying it to them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had. California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?

My favorite person of the weekend was the Buttplug/Dildo/ISIS flag Londoner. The reporting was like Les Nessman in real life.

Someone needs to do an emoji version of Scalia's dissent. It would probably make more sense.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There are plenty of parts of California that are every bit as Western as anywhere else, but I would bet that Scalia just said that as a personal shot against Kennedy.

Since the whole premise is based on the majority not being "real 'mercins", it wouldn't really work if the author of the opinion were realler and more 'mercin than Scalia, would it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Soccer experts question - Based on some whistles in the WC it appears that a player can be offsides even if they do not receive the ball until after the ball has hit the goalkeeper or the goalpost. Is that correct? And why is that the rule?

Put aside the debate on offsides, if another player takes a shot on goal and it happens to go to an offside player only on the rebound, it doesn't seem particularly consistent with the purpose of the rule to keep applying it to them.

The question is whether a player is in an offside position when the ball is played (passed or shot). So if someone takes a shot and a rebound falls to a player who was in an offside position, she is just as offside as she would have been if the ball had been passed to her. The reason is the same, really.

This is from FIFA's Laws of the Game (Law 11):

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

What I don't understand, conceptually, is why there is no offsides on a throw-in.