Politics As Usual

[Replaced_Texan]

One of our quaint Texas sayings can be attributed to former state Senator Carl Parker, "If you took all of the fools out of the legislature, it wouldn't be a representative body anymore."

HR 3313 got out of the House Judiciary Committee 21-13.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What a moron.

You need to pluralize. 22 co-sponsors.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Congress is about to rip out jurisdiction of most federal courts based on the chance that they might come to a decision that they might dislike... Change the Rules of the Playground if you must, or the players on the playground if you can, but ripping away arguable constitutional claims and controversies from the view of the federal courts is no more than just pissing in the judicial sandbox.

Son, the liberal judges wanted a culture war, so they're going to get one. Maybe next time the liberal judges will think twice before fucking around with core cultural norms.

[Hank Chinaski]

1) They left "natural born" out before "man" and "woman" which leaves the door open for trannies. (in DOMA)

2) The act (DOMA) is really just definational (nasty- but it doesn't do anything) but its defining for purposes of interpreting federal acts, etc.
How can they take federal J. away? And, maybe this was Atticus' point, but what does that get them? Mega insurance says to Mass. approved couple "We ain't paying- you ain't spouses." Mega somehow gets the case out of state court- its better off than it would be in Mass. St. court.

Or is this just to say, "in Sippy we don't need pay no notice to how the 9th circuit, or SCt says we gotta treat our homos- we got our own laws."

3) Wouldn't the nut cases rather homosexuals be in committed relationships, rather than the bathhouse images they probably carry around in their brains. Atticus, any Religious righties bring this thought up?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3) Wouldn't the nut cases rather homosexuals be in committed relationships, rather than the bathhouse images they probably carry around in theri brains. Atticus, any Religious righties bring this thought up?

I'm sure they've thought of it, but you're missing an element. My statistics professor in college once published a paper showing that the bath house culture prevalent in some parts of the gay community lead to much more rapid spread of HIV infection among the gay community than in the hetro community.* God sent AIDS to be the scourge of the gay community, to rid us all of this terrible sin plaguing our fair land. Everything possible must be done to discourage behavior that might slow down its blessed work.



*There was a lot of math that I can't remember, but it basically boiled down to if you have a few members of the community that have significantly higher numbers of risk contacts, the impact on transmission rate is disproportionate. So even if the average number of partners is lower in the gay community (and he had some study that suggested this was true), if a small group is off the charts in terms of partners, transmission rates will skyrocket.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
One of our quaint Texas sayings can be attributed to former state Senator Carl Parker, "If you took all of the fools out of the legislature, it wouldn't be a representative body anymore."

HR 3313 got out of the House Judiciary Committee 21-13.

So now I've finally read this bill, all I can say is this is D-U-M dumb.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So now I've finally read this bill, all I can say is this is D-U-M dumb.

Not that this has much chance of becoming law, but you just know it will backfire when the issue arises in some state court, which holds that the statute is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court is without recourse.

And it's not too hard to imagine: someone sues in state court to have a gay marriage recognized. State defends on ground of DOMA. State S. Ct. says DOMA unconstitutionally supercedes full faith and credit. What do you do? WHAT do YOU do?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/ (article on Barack Obama, the Democrats "New Star")

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/...&articleid=711
Spree: article on potential of "built in flight" bombs.

I think this shit hapens ONCE, then the profiling concerns go away, or get much stronger, dependant on what your individual "concerns" are.

edit: I apparently linked to the last page. I've fixed. Start agian burger

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Spree: article on potential of "built in flight" bombs.

an atlernative spree: article whose principal source is Ann Coulter.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Son, the liberal judges wanted a culture war, so they're going to get one. Maybe next time the liberal judges will think twice before fucking around with core cultural norms.

Son, when you get this message in some pre-dawn hour later this evening, I'd appreciate it if you'd read the other observations people have made on the topic.

Pat Buchanan is a wonderful orator, I know, but you keep stealing his best material and you'll probably get a C&D in the mail.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Son, when you get this message in some pre-dawn hour later this evening, I'd appreciate it if you'd read the other observations people have made on the topic.

Pat Buchanan is a wonderful orator, I know, but you keep stealing his best material and you'll probably get a C&D in the mail.

W.....a.............t....................e........................................r

skeks is a leftie. he was being sarcastic

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And it's not too hard to imagine: someone sues in state court to have a gay marriage recognized. State defends on ground of DOMA. State S. Ct. says DOMA unconstitutionally supercedes full faith and credit. What do you do? WHAT do YOU do?

While a state court might not ordinarily want to incur the bitchslapping that would follow if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, once Congress sends the parents away the kids are free to play.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/ (article on Barack Obama, the Democrats "New Star")

I predict that Obama will succeed in broadening his base beyond Cass Sunstein.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And my point is that tactics exist on both sides. E.g., the DEMs don't want certain judges, so they block a full vote.

My point with abortion was that the DEMs were unsuccessful in legislating it in certain states. So they took it to the courts and, low and behold, the court decided this right was fundemental. It's the same thing as what you are accusing the GOP of doing - gaming the system to get the desired outcome.*

*I am not suggesting that there are not certain rights that the court should find, especially those where majority is tormenting the minority.

Ah. OK, I understand your point now. Thanks.

Re: blocking judicial nominations, yes. It's unsavory, and as I recall, both sides have done it over the last dozen years without particular remorse or regret. Reading (say) Hatch's comments then and now is both amusing and depressing.

As for the rest of it, I don't agree with your point, though.

It's not the same thing -- with abortion, proponents did take it to the Court, where they would either win, or lose. That's the way courts are supposed to work, and as a matter of process, I don't think it's gaming anything.

Today's GOP, by stripping away Fed Jur., wants to keep proponents from going to court AT ALL, and that strikes me as, you know, different.

I sense a riposte of something along the lines of "a-HA! But the liberals packed the courts with liberal, sissified judges! THAT's how they gamed it!" Well, not so much, no. See my prior post re: the realities of the new cliche of "judicial activism." Its sell-by date was circa 1969.

Gattigap