USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

«‹›173 »

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

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.

Enforcing the 14th Amendment through legislation is not at all the same as determining what the 14th Amendment does and does not cover. Legally speaking, your argument doesn't make much sense.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 06:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 21:05

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

Clarste posted:

Enforcing the 14th Amendment through legislation is not at all the same as determining what the 14th Amendment does and does not cover. Legally speaking, your argument doesn't make much sense.

Can you explain how? I would think that part of enforcing the 14th amendment involves interpreting what it covers. If you can't weigh in on what it covers, how can you enforce due process?

You seem to be arguing that Congress can't act until the Supreme Court rules on what is and isn't constitutional, but that seems to be contradicted by the text of the amendment.

But I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Can you explain what this means, legally speaking?

My understanding of the process is that Congress legislates based on the powers described in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court practices judicial review and rules on the constitutionality of the laws. You're arguing the other way around, that Congress can't have an opinion on what their powers are until the Supreme Court says it's okay.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 06:35

FLIPADELPHIA: Apr 27, 2007; Heavy Shit; Grimey Drawer

Legalist arguments are kind of moot these days anyway given that the endpoint of our judicial questions is now openly "what these 5-6 politicians in robes personally believe". Bush v Gore was kind of the end of the illusion that court rulings need to be "legally defensible" or even internally consistent. The Court and its justices will do what they want, going as far as they think they can without giving sufficient cause for the other branches to finally ignore them, which they can "legally" do at any time given that the idea of judicial review is itself made up and not even in the Constitution.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 06:40

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Can you explain how? I would think that part of enforcing the 14th amendment involves interpreting what it covers. If you can't weigh in on what it covers, how can you enforce due process?

You seem to be arguing that Congress can't act until the Supreme Court rules on what is and isn't constitutional, but that seems to be contradicted by the text of the amendment.

But I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Can you explain what this means, legally speaking?

I am in fact a lawyer, but an inactive one so this is all just vague memories from law school at this point.

Congress can pass any law it wants (in that there is nothing stopping them from doing so), but the Supreme Court will strike it down after-the-fact if it finds that the law is unconstitutional. In this case, the argument they'd probably use would be that Congress is not authorized to pass laws on anything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. This is why most federal laws are grounded in the idea of interstate commerce or whatever. Where the 14th Amendment comes in is that Obergefell used it as a backdoor to wiggle in the idea of protection for gay marriage rights. This idea did not, legally speaking, exist prior to Obergefell. So if Congress passed a law, that law would be subject to the exact same analysis as Obergefell. So ultimately, it all comes down to the whim of the Supreme Court anyway: if Congress doesn't pass a law and they overturn Obergefell, then there is no Constitutional right to marriage. If Congress does pass a law and they overturn Obergefell, then Congress has no authority to pass such a law and they will strike it down. So what Congress says on the issue doesn't really matter unless they can manage a constitutional amendment, which they absolutely cannot.

Clarste fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Nov 16, 2022

# ? Nov 16, 2022 07:13

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Fritz the Horse posted:

This is the subforum, please avoid shitposting, image macros, etc. Thanks.

Aww, but I came in here breathlessly to post this hot take about how 2016 sucked and was terrible.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 16, 2022 07:25

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

Clarste posted:

I am in fact a lawyer, but an inactive one so this is all just vague memories from law school at this point.

Congress can pass any law it wants (in that there is nothing stopping them from doing so), but the Supreme Court will strike it down after-the-fact if it finds that the law is unconstitutional. In this case, the argument they'd probably use would be that Congress is not authorized to pass laws on anything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. This is why most federal laws are grounded in the idea of interstate commerce or whatever. Where the 14th Amendment comes in is that Obergefell used it as a backdoor to wiggle in the idea of protection for gay marriage rights. This idea did not, legally speaking, exist prior to Obergefell. So if Congress passed a law, that law would be subject to the exact same analysis as Obergefell. So ultimately, it all comes down to the whim of the Supreme Court anyway: if Congress doesn't pass a law and they overturn Obergefell, then there is no Constitutional right to marriage. If Congress does pass a law and they overturn Obergefell, then Congress has no authority to pass such a law and they will strike it down. So what Congress says on the issue doesn't really matter unless they can manage a constitutional amendment, which they absolutely cannot.

None of this contradicts my point though. Congress in 2015 could have passed a law legalizing same sex marriage everywhere in the country using a 14th amendment justification, and the Supreme Court would almost certainly have upheld it (given that they ruled that way in reality).

That's my objection to this:

Discendo Vox posted:

The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn’t the Supreme Court.

They absolutely could have, and it would have wiggled through as you say.

With a less friendly court that's no longer the case, and I understand that overturning Obergefell would presumably overturn that portion of the law as well. But I still think there is value in Congress making that argument, in addition to the full faith and credit argument. I don't see a downside to it, at worst it's redundant. At best, it gives some additional barrier to overturning Obergefell, even if it's a minor one, and it sends the message that the people passing it actually think same sex marriages should be allowed everywhere. That's worth something.

And I know it wasn't you saying it but the "just get married online" thing is a poke in the eye and I'm still pissed about people saying separate but equal is okay. That's what got me tilted in the first place.

DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Nov 16, 2022

# ? Nov 16, 2022 07:37

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Asked and answered here:

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.

Congress' opinion on whether Obergefell was correctly decided doesn't matter (unless they get mad enough to pack the court over it). The Supreme Court gets to decide what the 14th Amendment does and doesn't cover. They're the final, ultimate authorities on what the Constitution says, and no one else's opinion has any actual force. If the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell, then the only way for Congress to meaningfully express their opinion that Obergefell was right is to amend the Constitution to clarify the matter.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Can you explain how? I would think that part of enforcing the 14th amendment involves interpreting what it covers. If you can't weigh in on what it covers, how can you enforce due process?

You seem to be arguing that Congress can't act until the Supreme Court rules on what is and isn't constitutional, but that seems to be contradicted by the text of the amendment.

But I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Can you explain what this means, legally speaking?

My understanding of the process is that Congress legislates based on the powers described in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court practices judicial review and rules on the constitutionality of the laws. You're arguing the other way around, that Congress can't have an opinion on what their powers are until the Supreme Court says it's okay.

It's impossible for legal language to clearly and unambiguously cover every possible situation, and it's frequently the case that people disagree over what the text of the law means. In the case of such disputes, the Supreme Court is supposed to listen to the arguments and analyze the laws to decide what the law actually means.

"Congress has the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation" is there because legally speaking, there's a big gap between "X is illegal" and "X is punishable by Y under law, subject to conditions Z and ZZ". Because the Constitution is difficult to amend, you don't want to get too deep into the details and specifics in a Constitutional amendment, and so that line delegates the power to work out the specific details to Congress. However, that's not a grant of unlimited power - Congress can only enforce by appropriate legislation based on the scope of the amendment. And of course, the Supreme Court gets to decide what the scope of the amendment actually is.

This isn't new to the 14th Amendment, either. It's long had a rocky and turbulent relationship with the Supreme Courts. The Privileges and Immunities clause was rendered essentially meaningless by a Supreme Court ruling just a few years after the amendment was passed. And Plessy v Ferguson was a 14th Amendment case too; the Court's ruling that segregation wasn't an Equal Protection Clause violation remained in effect for more than half a century before being overturned by Brown v Board.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

They absolutely could have, and it would have wiggled through as you say.

No. Congress does not have authority over constitutional interpretation. It offers no protection of any kind. Separation of powers exists, and in this context it favors the court.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

With a less friendly court that's no longer the case, and I understand that overturning Obergefell would presumably overturn that portion of the law as well.
But I still think there is value in Congress making that argument, in addition to the full faith and credit argument. I don't see a downside to it, at worst it's redundant.

So you know you are demanding something meaningless, and are continuing to demand it.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

At best, it gives some additional barrier to overturning Obergefell, even if it's a minor one,

It does not. Congress passing a law is no obstacle to the Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

and it sends the message that the people passing it actually think same sex marriages should be allowed everywhere.

That message is sent by passing an actual law that has any force or value to audiences not insisting on ignoring the separation of powers. Again, if this would have had any effect, or even any �message�, there would have been no reason for the Democrats not to include it in the first version of the bill from 2009.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

That's worth something.

It is not. It is literally not worth anything, and makes sense only by insisting on ignoring how the government works. By this standard of the value of a �message,� Congress must pass legislation declaring that cancer is banned and coal no longer produces emissions.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

And I know it wasn't you saying it but the "just get married online" thing is a poke in the eye and I'm still pissed about people saying separate but equal is okay. That's what got me tilted in the first place.

You got tilted at several different people explaining the basics of separation of powers and how the law actually accomplishes the scope of the defense it can accomplish. No one here thinks overturning Obergefell is �okay�. Hell, you were already told no one thinks it�s okay.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:13

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

Discendo Vox posted:

So you know you are demanding something meaningless, and are continuing to demand it.

I wonder, in any of the classes you teach, do you pause to consider how one messages to people? I believe this may be your topic of choice, in fact.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:31

Kenlon: Jun 27, 2003; Digitus Impudicus

Discendo Vox posted:

The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn�t the Supreme Court. You�re demanding something legally and factually meaningless.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

They absolutely could have, and it would have wiggled through as you say.

Right here is the thing that you are missing. Congress passes laws at the federal level. The Supreme Court rules on whether laws - at the federal or state level - pass muster with the US Constitution.

Let's say that Congress did pass a law in 2015 that said that gay marriage was legal. That law would then go into effect, because presumption of constitutionality says that unless something is ruled unconstitutional, it's considered valid. Of course, the first thing that conservatives would do is challenge the law in court, claiming it to be unconstitutional.
The court case would, inevitably, wind it's way through the layers of the Federal court system, eventually arriving at the Supreme Court, where it would be ruled either constitutional, or not. That process, in fact, is exactly what happened, only with state laws banning gay marriage (and adoption of children by gay couples) as the starting point.

Whether or not Congress, or any other legislative body, passes a law has nothing to do with whether or not it will be found constitutional. That's up to the Court. This current court has proven, in Dobbs, to be completely willing to overturn precedent on very flimsy pretexts if it gets the right-wing outcome through.

Therefore, a version of this law that bases it's reasoning on the same interpretation of the 14th amendment as Obergfell would be less than useless. It is being written, specifically, to provide a backstop for Obergfell in case the Court overturns it, forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages from states that don't ban it. This is independent of the 14th amendment - it's a backup parachute in case the main one fails.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:34

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

No. Congress does not have authority over constitutional interpretation. It offers no protection of any kind. Separation of powers exists, and in this context it favors the court.

Why on earth would a court that made the ruling overturn a law saying the same thing?

Discendo Vox posted:

So you know you are demanding something meaningless, and are continuing to demand it.

I explained why repeatedly.

Discendo Vox posted:

It is literally not worth anything, and makes sense only by insisting on ignoring how the government works. By this standard of the value of a “message,” Congress must pass legislation declaring that cancer is banned and coal no longer produces emissions.

It is, at worst, redundant with Obergefell. That doesn't make it factually false, like your examples here.

Discendo Vox posted:

It does not. Congress passing a law is no obstacle to the Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional.

You think there would be no effect in public perception? You'd make a lousy politician.

Do you think it would make a difference to the people affected by it? It would obviously make a difference to me, and believe Quorum agreed with me on that point.

You steadfastly refused to answer a question I asked you, three times, because you know I am right.

Discendo Vox posted:

The law cannot do what Obergefell did. Congress isn’t the Supreme Court.

Congress in 2015 could have absolutely passed a law legalizing same sex marriage, and arguing that the court that made the Obergefell ruling would have overturned a law saying the same thing is nonsense.

You made a silly statement, and then ran away when I kept pointing it out. You've now jumped back in to try and save face. The right thing to say here is "yeah, you're right", and I'd have dropped it in an instant. Seriously.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Nov 16, 2022

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:34

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

Kenlon posted:

Let's say that Congress did pass a law in 2015 that said that gay marriage was legal. That law would then go into effect, because presumption of constitutionality says that unless something is ruled unconstitutional, it's considered valid. Of course, the first thing that conservatives would do is challenge the law in court, claiming it to be unconstitutional.
The court case would, inevitably, wind it's way through the layers of the Federal court system, eventually arriving at the Supreme Court, where it would be ruled either constitutional, or not. That process, in fact, is exactly what happened, only with state laws banning gay marriage (and adoption of children by gay couples) as the starting point.

I agree with every part of this. If Congress has passed a law in 2015, I think it is very reasonable to assume that the court that made the Obergefell would have upheld it as constitutional.

That's why I disagree with this comment:

Discendo Vox posted:

The law cannot do what Obergefell did.

I think Congress in 2015 could've done exactly what Obergefell did, which is legalize same sex marriage nationwide. They had the court to back them.

Kenlon posted:

Therefore, a version of this law that bases it's reasoning on the same interpretation of the 14th amendment as Obergfell would be less than useless. It is being written, specifically, to provide a backstop for Obergfell in case the Court overturns it, forcing states that ban gay marriage to recognize marriages from states that don't ban it. This is independent of the 14th amendment - it's a backup parachute in case the main one fails.

If the law made both the 14th amendment argument *and* the full faith and credit argument would it be worse than useless? That's what I'm advocating.

As I understand it making both arguments wouldn't hurt, since the full faith and credit argument would still stand even if the 14th amendment argument was invalidated.

Or is that incorrect and it's all or nothing?

I fully admit I'm splitting a hair here, but this is the hair splitting forum.

DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Nov 16, 2022

# ? Nov 16, 2022 08:40

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

DeadlyMuffin posted:

You think there would be no effect in public perception? You'd make a lousy politician.

The overwhelming majority of people won't even notice, let alone care. Few people will read the bill or have it read to them, and in any circumstances where this bill actually matters, people won't pay any attention to clauses that won't take effect because they were overturned by the Supreme Court.

The aftermath of Dobbs has provided a fair bit of evidence that for the most part, people don't really pay any attention to these messaging bills/clauses that don't do anything. Even in D&D or C-SPAM where people are relatively politically engaged, we had plenty of people complaining that Dems wouldn't put Roe codification to a vote, only to be pointed to the fact that the Dems did actually do that and they just didn't notice. Even among the political media, absolutely no one gave a poo poo about a vote that was a foregone conclusion with no chance of passing

DeadlyMuffin posted:

If the law made both the 14th amendment argument *and* the full faith and credit argument would it be worse than useless? That's what I'm advocating.

Possibly! If they're relying on flipping GOP votes to pass this, then packing in worthless extra clauses for the sake of messaging could very well make it more difficult to pass.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 09:13

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

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?

We believe that it was correctly decided on 14th amendment grounds.

What we are preparing for is the Supreme Court ruling unjustly against it on 14th amendment grounds.

Thus we cannot pass a law on 14th amendment grounds or it will be invalidated with Obergfell by the court.

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Nov 16, 2022

# ? Nov 16, 2022 09:15

Kenlon: Jun 27, 2003; Digitus Impudicus

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I think Congress in 2015 could've done exactly what Obergefell did, which is legalize same sex marriage nationwide. They had the court to back them.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding. Obergfell didn't legalize gay marriage. What it did is strike down state laws banning gay marriage, requiring states to treat both gay and straight couples identically. The legislative and judicial branches do different things, and while they both impact the laws, they do it in very different ways.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 10:10

Sir Lemming: Jan 27, 2009; It's a piece of JUNK!

So are the Republicans still gonna do primary debates? And if they do, will anybody air them? I know that was a big part of what gave Trump oxygen last time.

(Obviously that also depends on whether he actually gets any primary challengers and who they are, I suppose.)

# ? Nov 16, 2022 11:15

Republicans: Oct 14, 2003; - More money for us

- Fuck you

Dr. VooDoo posted:

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

She also isn't dependent on Donald for her livelihood. Eric and Jr. are.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 12:11

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Republicans posted:

She also isn't dependent on Donald for her livelihood. Eric and Jr. are.

Her husband was paid $2 billion for political access and favors due to their famial connections. How is that not dependent?

# ? Nov 16, 2022 12:31

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Discendo Vox posted:

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.

No what I'm saying is, there's real harm in your state passing a law that says your marriage is not valid and can't be performed there, even if this law forces them to legally acknowledge your online marriage from California that is separate but equal.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 12:32

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Charlz Guybon posted:

Her husband was paid $2 billion for political access and favors due to their famial connections. How is that not dependent?

Because that already happened and doesn't need to happen again

# ? Nov 16, 2022 12:41

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

I have a feeling all the secrets related to reproductive rights are going to get leaked over the next couple of years.

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1592640415374901249

# ? Nov 16, 2022 13:51

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

volts5000 posted:

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.

I will never forget this graphic and how much I hate everyone involved in putting it on television:

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:04

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Charlz Guybon posted:

I have a feeling all the secrets related to reproductive rights are going to get leaked over the next couple of years.

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1592640415374901249

Not a huge surprise; Brian Kemp had already said in a private fundraiser that this will be on the table at some point. These people are not going to stop if they keep getting their way.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:12

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

Bel Shazar posted:

Because that already happened and doesn't need to happen again

until he buys 612 Wharf Avenue, his new money pit.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:13

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1592825818723790848?t=iWoB3Una_j8iJf09RUj93w&s=19

What did Chuck mean by this

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:20

WebDO: Sep 25, 2009

CuddleCryptid posted:

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1592825818723790848?t=iWoB3Una_j8iJf09RUj93w&s=19

What did Chuck mean by this

He's still pretending Republicans are human beings with emotions towards other human beings other than hatred I guess, which is a hearty lol and possible a lmao

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:28

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

McConnell has an interracial marriage too. Maybe some of the other senators too. That�s something?

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:39

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

CuddleCryptid posted:

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1592825818723790848?t=iWoB3Una_j8iJf09RUj93w&s=19

What did Chuck mean by this

One of his daughters is a lesbian in a same-sex marriage.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:39

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

Liz Cheney nominally supports same-sex marriage protection and has voted for it recently, though the Respect For Marriage Act was doomed to fail.

She isn't going to be a senator in the new session but there you go.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 14:49

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Main Paineframe posted:

One of his daughters is a lesbian in a same-sex marriage.

drat, you made my crude joke over a slip up into a genuine statement of family love.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 15:23

Xombie: May 22, 2004; Soul Thrashing
Black Sorcery

CuddleCryptid posted:

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1592825818723790848?t=iWoB3Una_j8iJf09RUj93w&s=19

What did Chuck mean by this

The ten GOP senators probably have family members who are gay which is the only reason they care about it. I still think that that the only reason they didn't pass this before midterms is because they didn't want to appear moderate. Portman announced months ago that he was supporting this, but he's retiring. He flipped on gay marriage when his son came out of the closet.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:06

Ethiser: Dec 31, 2011

Cranappleberry posted:

Liz Cheney nominally supports same-sex marriage protection and has voted for it recently, though the Respect For Marriage Act was doomed to fail.

She isn't going to be a senator in the new session but there you go.

Liz Cheney is not a Senator, she is in the House, so what she would vote for doesn�t matter.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:08

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Xombie posted:

The ten GOP senators probably have family members who are gay which is the only reason they care about it.

That's the way it always goes, once the issue reaches out and touches you outside of work you can no longer pretend it's not important

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:24

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

CuddleCryptid posted:

drat, you made my crude joke over a slip up into a genuine statement of family love.

We can't rule out Chuck deciding to get gay married himself if this passes

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:26

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Failed Imagineer posted:

We can't rule out Chuck deciding to get gay married himself if this passes

I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry...

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:27

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

Ethiser posted:

Liz Cheney is not a Senator, she is in the House, so what she would vote for doesn�t matter.

my bad, she voted and it helped pass the house then died in the senate

I was thinking of her Senate campaign when she came out against marriage equality, causing a rift with her sister. She later became pro-marriage equality.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:39

TyrantWD: Nov 6, 2010; Ignore my doomerism, I don't think better things are possible

Dr. VooDoo posted:

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

She also probably thought that she was going to go in, do some vague women's empowerment stuff, and get out without being tarnished that much, which would then let her rejoin celebrity society. Instead all she has for company now are some parts of the MAGA base who don't blame her, and the Saudis.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 16:43

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Cranappleberry posted:

my bad, she voted and it helped pass the house then died in the senate

I was thinking of her Senate campaign when she came out against marriage equality, causing a rift with her sister. She later became pro-marriage equality.

It hasn't died in the senate. It's what the senate plans to vote on.

Xombie posted:

I still think that that the only reason they didn't pass this before midterms is because they didn't want to appear moderate.

According to the reporting I heard on CNN yesterday, this is precisely the case. Schumer put Sinema and Duckworth on the job of getting 10 republicans. They got the 10 they need, but some of them said they'd only be a yes if the vote happened after the midterms.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 17:54

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Rick Scott's coup attempt to become Senate GOP leader is over in less than 24 hours. :rip:

He tried to get a vote going to delay the vote - it failed.

In the final vote, it was McConnell: 37 and Scott: 10.

Scott flew too close to the sun and, as punishment for his hubris, Steve Daines is now the new NRSC chair.

Republican caucus are not releasing the specific vote totals, but Lindsey Graham is the only Senator to publicly say he voted for Scott.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 20:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 21:05

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The collective moms of America were right. You really will go deaf from the rock music and those darn walkmans.

Roughly 1/8th of the global population is at risk of hearing loss due to live music and headphone use that exceeds the safe limit of 85 decibels.

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1592899293785968641

quote:

More than 1 billion young people could be at risk of facing hearing loss, a new study shows.

"It is estimated that 0.67�1.35 billion adolescents and young adults worldwide could be at risk of hearing loss from exposure to unsafe listening practices," according to the study, which was published in BMJ Journal on Tuesday.

Recommended noise limits are no more than 85 decibels throughout a 40-hour week. Young people from ages 12 to 35 using devices such as MP3 players and cellphones, actively listened to content at 105 decibels, while the average noise level at entertainment venues was 104 to 112 decibels.

"Damage from unsafe listening can compound over the life course, and noise exposure earlier in life may make individuals more vulnerable to age-related hearing loss," researchers said.

The scientists analyzed 33 studies from 2000 to 2021, but those studies have not been able to conclude whether the hearing loss was permanent or temporary.

"Temporary threshold shifts and hidden hearing loss likely serve as predictors for irreversible permanent hearing loss and may present as difficulties hearing in challenging listening environments, such as in background noise," the researchers said.

A person's risk of hearing loss depends on how loud, how long and how often they are exposed to certain noises. A sign that you may have engaged in unsafe listening practices is tinnitus, or ringing in the ears.

Impacts of hearing loss

Hearing loss in children can lead to poorer academic performance and reduced motivation and concentration, researchers said.

For adults, hearing loss could be linked to a decline in the state of one's mental health, lower income, depression, cognitive impairment and even heart problems, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How to prevent hearing loss

- Noise exposure through electronic devices and venues are "a modifiable risk factor for hearing loss," researchers said, and there are a few things you can do to protect your ears.

- Take a break from the exposure if possible

- Use ear protections, such as foam ear plugs, in loud environments
- Put distance between yourself and the source of the noise, such as loud speakers at an event
- Keep your devices at a safe volume. Some cellphones have features that will alert you when your content is too loud.

# ? Nov 16, 2022 20:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Autumn: Well Actually, This IS somethingpedantic.com

«‹›173 »