Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Scalia flew to go duck hunting as Cheney's guest. That doesn't look good.

If the two were involved in a financial deal together, then I would say, yeah, that doesn't look good. But duck hunting? That is retarded to imply that Scalia will be somehow influenced in his judiciial decisions because they went duck hunting together.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) It's still a family-type show: football and viagra ads for the adults, and beer and MTV singers for the kids. But really, you have to shut off the scatological ads as well to be safe. And turn of Friends. And any other prime time show.

That's what I meant by, the tone overall was what bugged me. The JJtit was just the cap on the whole thing, but didn't make it any better or worse. And, do I let my kids watch Friends, or some prime time shows? No. Sports has always been a sort of safe harbor, but no more.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"It is not just a trip with a litigant. It's a trip at the expense of the litigant. This is an easy case for stepping aside."[/list]

Did Cheny reimburse the federal government for the cost of flying Scalia out there on Air Force II?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is retarded to imply that Scalia will be somehow influenced in his judiciial decisions because they went duck hunting together.

Retarded? Not Litigating, I see.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm as atheistic as they come, and the entire tone of the show bothered me. They've taken what used to be a family-type event, the Superbowl, and transformed it into something I have to be mindful of when thinking about what the kids can watch on TV. "I'll have you naked by the end of this song", while entirely appropriate and fun for adult entertainment, is sort of out of place when your 8-year-old daughter, who wants to watch the game and the show, looks at you and asks "why?" I think the bulk of the disapproval stems, not so much from some religious morality play, but from anger that fairly racy pop culture is taking over iconic family territory.

So when your 8 year old asks you about the Viagra and Levitra commercials, what do you say?

Edited to add: Scroll, then post. And point out that the sexy beer commercials have been going on for years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

• "In my view, this further ratchets it up. If the vice president is the source of generosity, it means Scalia is accepting a gift of some value from a litigant in a case before him," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers.
  
  "It is not just a trip with a litigant. It's a trip at the expense of the litigant. This is an easy case for stepping aside."

Cheney owns Haliburton, not the entire US Gov't; its not "at his expense." That's like saying Scalia shouldn't be on any case with Bush in it, because bush pays for the big marble building where scalia's office is.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Last month the story was that they went duck hunting together. The LA Times is now reporting that Scalia flew there for free as Cheney's guest on Air Force Two.

[

Okay. I had always assumed that Cheney and Halliburton were hosting Scalia's less-than-a-first-year-salary-earning ass. But since the accomodations were even more plush, now I'm outraged.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And point out that the sexy beer commercials have been going on for years.

Agree - but they never actually got down to the "and you can screw these sexy girls for HOURS with our new pill!" Granted, the tone has been changing over the years, but this Superbowl was a fairly drastic change, and unexpected at that. It might seem moralistic, but it's getting hard to find entertainment suitable for adults and kids that doesn't focus primarily on sex. The SB (and sports in general) was always sort of a safe haven in that regard. I'm not trying to hide sex from the kids - but at the same time, I don't want them to think it is the only subject worthy of thought.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Retarded? Not Litigating, I see.

Not true. I agree that there are some judges who are biased toward one side and not all are fair minded people. But it is unreasonable to think that trivial things like a duck hunting trip are going to influence a supreme court justice. If those two had never done anything together in the past and all of a sudden when the adminstration has a case before the supreme court Cheney starts trying pal around with Scalia, that would be different. My understanding is that this is an old friendship.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
But duck hunting? That is retarded to imply that Scalia will be somehow influenced in his judiciial decisions because they went duck hunting together.

Good argument for the Sunday talk shows. Remember to say it loudly and defiantly, though, preferably with a sneer and with the chest thrust outward. Without that, I don't know if Russert will be able to keep a straight face.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
and unexpected at that.

I think the unexpected nature of it was a large part of the problem.

I have friends who had a big party and the adults were out barbequing and sitting by the pool (this is south florida I am talking about) during the half time show but some of the kids stayed inside to watch it. I guess you could say that the parents should have watched it with them to make sure it was suitable given the bands that were in the show, but JFC, you can't even turn your head away from the TV to go outside to BBQ some fucking hot dogs nowadays without dragging your kid with you lest you risk that they watch someone's tit pop out on broadcast TV. This wasn't cable; it was broadcast TV for crying out loud. No one expected those two pigs to turn the superbowl half time show into a fiegned non-consensual striptease.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's really what I was getting at. While the original plaintiffs were perhaps limited to the facts, the holding was much broader, and suggested that the legislature could act in a way other than repealing, or amending, whatever statute says that a marriage means one man/one woman.

This is going to create an absolutely wild situation for two years, because I have no doubt a number of gays will get married, and then the possibility will be cut off by state const. amendment in 2006 (or whenever). But I doubt teh state could nullify those marriages, could it? Sort of a group annulment. Is that impairing the obligation of contracts?

I will be shocked if there is an amendment to undo this decision. Basically, polling runs 2:1 in favor of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and there are very few strong opponents of it. There are people with broader national ambitions, like the Governor, who will do his best to make some noise to oppose it, and a few very powerful legislators with long-held fidelity to the Catholic Church who will also go through the motions. But this court case was really their request to be taken off the hook, and we are going to start hearing many of them saying they're opposed to it, shrugging, and moving on.

Gay marriage is now a done deal.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Basically, polling runs 2:1 in favor of gay marriage in Massachusetts,

Cite please.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Agree - but they never actually got down to the "and you can screw these sexy girls for HOURS with our new pill!" Granted, the tone has been changing over the years, but this Superbowl was a fairly drastic change, and unexpected at that. It might seem moralistic, but it's getting hard to find entertainment suitable for adults and kids that doesn't focus primarily on sex. The SB (and sports in general) was always sort of a safe haven in that regard. I'm not trying to hide sex from the kids - but at the same time, I don't want them to think it is the only subject worthy of thought.

Bilmore and I agree on this.

Now, what's your man Bush going to do about it? Isn't this a time when you'd like Tipper in there?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cite please.

Globe ran a poll about a week after the first decision.

But you can sense it around here. When the decision is talked about, very few people say anything negative and when they do, most people just smile and humor them.