|
Eric Cantonese posted:God, do we really have to go through all of this again? Donald Trump 20-Until-Either-You-Or-He-Dies
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:The hostility is what helped Trump, gave him free airtime, and massively boosted his credibility to run. I was talking about 2020, unless you thought there was a question about whether he'd run for re-election. The media was not hostile to him at all in 2016, treated him as a joke, was too friendly and eager to find positives and gloss over negatives, bent over backwards to be fair, and hypercriticized Hillary as if it was just a given she was going to win and was already president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:
Congress can only pass laws according to the authority enumerated in the Constitution. All laws passed are simply expansions on this text. If the SCOTUS rules that Obergfell was wrong, then Congress and the federal government would have to come up with a new argument for their authority to do it. Using the same logic as Obergfell would just overturn the law. Full Faith and Credit, on the other hand, has not really been tested towards either same-sex or mixed-race marriages. That is likely why they're enumerating it in this law. It creates another hurdle for fundies who want to overturn Obergfell just to punish gay people. It makes it rather pointless to do so, because states that ban gay or mixed-race marriage then can't really ban them, because here's a document from California that congress says you have to honor, solemnized by an ordained Dudeist Priest of the Church of the Latter Day Dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It makes it rather pointless to do so, because states that ban gay or mixed-race marriage then can't really ban them, because here's a document from California that congress says you have to honor, solemnized by an ordained Dudeist Priest of the Church of the Latter Day Dude. Do you think anti-gay laws get passed because of logic? That people will see the logical fruitlessness of legislating against lgbtq people and therefore abandon it? Also yes they can really ban them it literally says that. "Well you can just go to another state" no that's a cope to deal with, discrimination. Separate but equal bullshit. The state can still say it sees your marriage as invalid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Do you think anti-gay laws get passed because of logic? That people will see the logical fruitlessness of legislating against lgbtq people and therefore abandon it? That’s explicitly not how it works. The whole point of section 3 is to require the red states to honor marriages granted in blue states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Do you think anti-gay laws get passed because of logic? That people will see the logical fruitlessness of legislating against lgbtq people and therefore abandon it? They can't actually say that if the Full Faith and Credit clause applies. It explicitly will once this law is passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Do you think the media are going to be as helpful to him this time around? How much real resistance will others in the GOP put up? The media loved the attention they got from talking about him. The GOP will hate him again in the beginning, but if he progresses and does well, they will fall in line and will be all-in. Trump has a group of voters the GOP wants to pull the lever for them, and if it’ll get them back into power, they’ll back him. Like I said, it’s going to be a miserable two years hearing about him on all networks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:48
|
|
|
Quorum posted:It's apparent that you're assuming I think a lot of poo poo I don't think and I don't know why. I am a gay man in a Southern state who got married this year explicitly because I am very worried about what this Supreme Court will do; I'd ask you to assume some good faith here. You seem to be arguing against legislation that would legalize same sex marriage across the nation. My questions were based on that. I'd ask you to do the same. Quorum posted:The main problem here would be that such a law would be so far outside of the accepted bounds of federal authority that it would be instantly struck down by even a neutral Supreme Court, let alone this incredibly activist one. That's the main reason why this bill is written as it is: it's designed to be as bulletproof as possible. I think this is the source of our disagreement. I do not believe this is true. Congress has passed laws banning discriminatory practices based on race, gender, national origin, etc. Those have not been struck down because they were overextensions of federal authority. You're making a claim that a neutral Supreme Court would overturn a law that banned discrimination in granting marriage licenses based on the gender of the applicants, but how is that different from existing civil rights legislation? Quorum posted:That's the main reason why this bill is written as it is: it's designed to be as bulletproof as possible. I disagree with this as well. I think it's designed to pick up 10 Republican votes, and as a result it has language allowing states to ban same sex marriage since "leave it to the states" is a common Republican argument. It's designed to give cover. Quorum posted:I might be wrong here, but I think you might be assuming that this law would somehow create the situation where same sex couples might need to get married over the Internet? You are wrong here. I am still saying this: DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm saying it's inadequate. This bill would not protect people against the the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell. It would provide partial, and in my opinion inadequate, protection. I see no reason that Congress could not pass a law banning discrimination in marriage licenses based on the gender of the applicants, just like they have previously banned employment discrimination based on other factors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Congress can only pass laws according to the authority enumerated in the Constitution. All laws passed are simply expansions on this text. If the SCOTUS rules that Obergfell was wrong, then Congress and the federal government would have to come up with a new argument for their authority to do it. Using the same logic as Obergfell would just overturn the law. Why couldn't Congress use the same justification used for the Civil Rights act (if Wikipedia is to be trusted): interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Why couldn't Congress use the same justification used for the Civil Rights act (if Wikipedia is to be trusted): interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment? Overturning Obergfell would, by default, overturn any law based purely on the 14th Amendment. Obergfell is already based on the 14th Amendment. Overturning it would be the SCOTUS saying the 14th doesn't apply to marriage or gay people for some reason. I have no idea how they would base it on Article I Section 8. Xombie fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I was talking about 2020, unless you thought there was a question about whether he'd run for re-election. The media was not hostile to him at all in 2016, treated him as a joke, was too friendly and eager to find positives and gloss over negatives, bent over backwards to be fair, and hypercriticized Hillary as if it was just a given she was going to win and was already president. Oof I'm dumb, I misread that as 2016! You are right. I do wonder if they'll give him more the 2016 treatment now that he's not in power though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
He's really going all in on grabbing the popular positions on hot issues...Trump posted:
* Be interesting to see how this one goes over. I feel like people like the convenience of easier voting with more options, but are just annoyed that elections drag out. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Donald Trump 20-Until-Either-You-Or-He-Dies  and we're just living in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:It's may the ants consume us all
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Overturning Obergfell would, by default, overturn any law based purely on the 14th Amendment. Obergfell is already based on the 14th Amendment. Overturning it would be the SCOTUS saying the 14th doesn't apply to marriage or gay people for some reason. That would be a reason to make both arguments, so if that portion did get overturned then the full faith and credit portion would remain. It would also raise the bar, because it wouldn't be the current Supreme Court overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled, it would be overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled *and* what Congress said. And frankly, they should do it because it is right, it is covered by the 14th Amendment, and that should be enshrined in law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That would be a reason to make both arguments, so if that portion did get overturned then the full faith and credit portion would remain. But how is that any different than what they're doing? That's my point: that a 14th amendment-based law is redundant to Obergfell, and so it can't survive overturning Obergfell anyway. quote:It would also raise the bar, because it wouldn't be the current Supreme Court overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled, it would be overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled *and* what Congress said. It doesn't raise the bar, though. Because if it's not protected by the constitution, Congress has no power to protect it. Congress is limited by the Constitution, and any power they aren't granted by it is given to the states. Giving new powers to Congress is accomplished via Amendments. Xombie fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
The fact that Fox News and CNN both cut out halfway through the speech isn't a great sign for Donnie keeping the spotlight on every word he speaks like in 2015-16. He's old news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Great news https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1592583767088312320
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It doesn't raise the bar, though. Because if it's not protected by the constitution, Congress has no power to protect it. Congress is limited by the Constitution, and any power they aren't granted by it is given to the states. I believe a right to same sex marriage falls under the 14th amendment, and Congress should say so. Like I said in my earlier post I think Congress saying so raises the bar because it wouldn't be the current Supreme Court overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled, it would be overturning what a previous Supreme Court ruled *and* what Congress said. Do you believe there is a right to same sex marriage under the 14th amendment? If so, what harm is there in Congress also saying so?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I believe a right to same sex marriage falls under the 14th amendment, and Congress should say so. Yes but you haven't said how that raises the bar to overturn it. In fact someone could just challenge such a law in order to overturn Obergfell, and SCOTUS could state that Obergfell is being overturned in their decision. quote:Do you believe there is a right to same sex marriage under the 14th amendment? If so, what harm is there in Congress also saying so? I didn't say there's harm. I said that it doesn't accomplish anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
This is the  subforum, please avoid shitposting, image macros, etc. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think this is the source of our disagreement. I do not believe this is true. Congress has passed laws banning discriminatory practices based on race, gender, national origin, etc. Those have not been struck down because they were overextensions of federal authority. You're making a claim that a neutral Supreme Court would overturn a law that banned discrimination in granting marriage licenses based on the gender of the applicants, but how is that different from existing civil rights legislation? Those laws are typically rooted in some explicit grant of federal authority. For example, they draw on the Commerce Clause to prohibit discriminatory conduct public accommodations such as hotels or in employment, or they are binding only on recipients of Federal money, or something along those lines. The 14th Amendment does have an enforcement clause which they could use here (for example, here's a bill from AOC which probably rests on more or less the same Constitutional footing), but that's sort of the problem: if SCOTUS finds that same sex marriages aren't protected by the Equal Protection Clause, then any law Congress passed to protect same sex marriage by enforcing the Equal Protection Clause would fall as well. I think it would still be worth doing anyway, for no other reason than to make clear that the Court is absolutely beyond the pale, but it would be largely a messaging exercise in this scenario. quote:This bill would not protect people against the the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell. It would provide partial, and in my opinion inadequate, protection. I see no reason that Congress could not pass a law banning discrimination in marriage licenses based on the gender of the applicants, just like they have previously banned employment discrimination based on other factors. That's the problem: we can't fully protect people from that, because the right wing has an activist majority on the Court-- the same Court that is in charge of interpreting the Constitution-- willing to overturn precedent in the name of enshrining Christian theocracy across the country. In a lot of ways, that means more than controlling Congress does, until Congress can muster the votes to pack the Court or strip it of jurisdiction. As to whether it's possible we would see a more aggressive bill if ten Republicans weren't needed: maybe! It would probably look like the one I linked from AOC above. Even if we had that, though, it would provide no more shield than Obergefell, and you'd still want to pass something like the RFMA as a stopgap in case that failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I think it would still be worth doing anyway, for no other reason than to make clear that the Court is absolutely beyond the pale, but it would be largely a messaging exercise in this scenario. Yes, exactly. I also think there's value in raising the bar, and I think it's the right thing to do. I see doing less than that as tacitly agreeing that the 14th Amendment isn't applicable. Quorum posted:That's the problem: we can't fully protect people from that, because the right wing has an activist majority on the Court-- the same Court that is in charge of interpreting the Constitution-- willing to overturn precedent in the name of enshrining Christian theocracy across the country. No law can protect anyone from a court that's going to do whatever it wants. I that case it's all moot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Do you think the media are going to be as helpful to him this time around? How much real resistance will others in the GOP put up? Hell yeah they will. Facebook says they don't give poo poo what he posts there they won't tell anyone his lies are actually lies. https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592654819202064384?s=20&t=ZSf9IfZRvfOYJsHw5CVv6A Granted he is still banned, but I bet they let that up at the start of 2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Why couldn't Congress use the same justification used for the Civil Rights act (if Wikipedia is to be trusted): interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment? Obergefell ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to gay people, and that banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause. That was the entire basis for the impact that ruling had: it said the 14th Amendment applied here. Overturning Obergefell would be ruling that the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay people and that same-sex marriage bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the 14th can't be used as basis for a "what if Obergefell gets overruled" law, because any gay-marriage protection law that relies primarily on the 14th would be effectively invalidated as soon as Obergefell was overturned. DeadlyMuffin posted:I believe a right to same sex marriage falls under the 14th amendment, and Congress should say so. If the Supreme Court says that the 14th doesn't cover gay marriage, then Congress' stance on the matter doesn't really matter. Unlike quibbling about the meaning of laws, where Congress can just pass a new law to clarify, quibbling about the meaning of the Constitution is something where the Supreme Court tends to reign supreme. That's not to say it's unstoppable, of course. If the Supreme Court leans too heavily on bullshit constitutional arguments to push Congress around, it increases the typically-remote risk of a pissed-off Congress deciding to pack the court or something like that. So passing a law to protect same-sex marriage even in the current political environment is a signal to the Court that the legislature feels strongly about the issue. At the very least, more strongly than Roe, which they weren't able to pass a bill to reestablish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Obergefell ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to gay people, and that banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause. That was the entire basis for the impact that ruling had: it said the 14th Amendment applied here. Most of this is repeating things that other people have said, and I have addressed. I feel like I'm just repeating myself for different people. But the bolded part is my point: this law does *less* than Obergefell did. If Congress was trying to show they feel strongly about it, this does not do a good job of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Ivanka’s out https://twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1592729141211983873?s=46&t=vxsh5vEe9u5qWy0g22x_6w
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:08
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Most of this is repeating things that other people have said, and I have addressed. I feel like I'm just repeating myself for different people. The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn’t the Supreme Court. You’re demanding something legally and factually meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Bugsy posted:Hell yeah they will. After the midterms, I felt content that Trump would either be written off by the GOP and/or a spark to cause more GOP infighting. Listening to his speech on CNN and listening to CNN's reaction was like having a flashback to an abusive ex. I remembered why people were attracted to him. I remembered when news media treated him like just another candidate that happened to be good for ratings. The man is a walking talking angry Facebook post and we all know how easily those circulate and burrow into people's brains. At least CNN brought up Jan 6, Charlottesville, and his COVID response. It was like a PTSD flashback to 2018, when I was doomscrolling threads like these to make sense of the madness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn’t the Supreme Court. You’re demanding something legally and factually meaningless. If Obergefell was correctly decided, and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment covers the right to same sex marriage, why couldn't Congress have passed a law to that effect? "The 14th Amendment" posted:Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
So what is likely to happen with student debt forgiveness? Will the lawsuits work their way through the courts and get thrown out? Or is there a good chance that student debt forgiveness will be ruled illegal? Will the students who were forgiven have to then pay it back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If Obergefell was correctly decided, and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment covers the right to same sex marriage, why couldn't Congress have passed a law to that effect? If Obergefell was correctly decided, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. If Obergefell is overturned, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. Take a minute and ask yourself: why do you believe this thing you’re demanding isn’t in the bill? Why has it not been in any version of the bill?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Good thing the DOJ waited until after the midterms to indict him. (Yes I know it makes no legal difference whatsoever)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If Obergefell was correctly decided, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. If Obergefell is overturned, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. Take a minute and ask yourself: why do you believe this thing you’re demanding isn’t in the bill? Why has it not been in any version of the bill? Asked and answered here: DeadlyMuffin posted:I believe a right to same sex marriage falls under the 14th amendment, and Congress should say so. Can you answer my question now? If Obergefell was correctly decided, and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment covers the right to same sex marriage, why couldn't Congress have passed a law to that effect? You said the law couldn’t do what Obergefell did. Doesn’t that mean you think it was incorrectly decided? Congress has the power to enforce the 14th amendment through legislation. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
small butter posted:So what is likely to happen with student debt forgiveness? Will the lawsuits work their way through the courts and get thrown out? Or is there a good chance that student debt forgiveness will be ruled illegal? Will the students who were forgiven have to then pay it back? 1) Nobody knows. The case likely won't be resolved for a month or two. 2) If anybody actually had their loans forgiven, then they can't be compelled to pay them back. But, no loans have been forgiven yet because there was a injunction put on them a little over a week after the application went live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Asked and answered here: Because it’s already done by Obergefell , which is what controls the scope of application. You are demanding something without effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If Obergefell was correctly decided, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. If Obergefell is overturned, the provision you’re demanding is meaningless. Take a minute and ask yourself: why do you believe this thing you’re demanding isn’t in the bill? Why has it not been in any version of the bill? A lot of things aren't in the bill because they need 10 Republicans to support it and their support was conditional on those limitations. Regardless, if the Supreme Court really wanted to ban gay marriage, then they could. This legislation likely won't have any impact on a determined court majority. Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution and it wouldn't be that hard to disavow it. A constitutional amendment is really the only thing that will permanently secure it. I don't think they are going to be overturning Obergefell because it was pretty broad and it is difficult to even have standing to challenge the concept anymore. It's also really faded as a culture war issue and has 75+% support, so the political logic for beating the gay marriage drum doesn't exist anymore. That's why they moved on to anti-trans stuff because it is a culture war issue that they have the majority on. They will probably move on to a new group if trans rights ever get 75+% support and the cycle will continue. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A lot of things aren't in the bill because they need 10 Republicans to support it and their support was conditional on those limitations. I am aware; direct your re-explanation to the person repeatedly ignoring explanations of how separation of powers works to demand a meaningless statutory provision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because it’s already done by Obergefell , which is what controls the scope of application. You are demanding something without effect. You are not answering the question. Again (third time). You said this: Discendo Vox posted:The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn’t the Supreme Court. I pointed out that 1. Obergefell ruled the 14th amendment covers a right to same sex marriage 2. Congress is empowered to enforce the 14th amendment through legislation Why doesn’t that mean, if Obergefell was correctly decided, that Congress could have passed a law saying same sex marriages must be allowed nationwide? So the law could do precisely what Obergefell did. I'm presuming good faith. You're making it difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
marshmonkey posted:Ivanka’s out Not surprising. She wasn’t a complete sycophant like her brothers and the MAGA crowd spent a decent chunk of time blaming her for Trump’s constant gently caress ups and attacking her. She deserved it of course, she helped foster the chud base but she has enough brains to not want to ride that again
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 06:14
|
|
