|
Gay marriage has been suspended in Utah as the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Is it possible this could lead to a ruling making gay marriage legal in all 50 states?
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Coaches aren't measured on Joe Leftfielders ability to .300 after hitting .290 or whatever or Dave Receivers ability to catch 80 balls rather than 90 balls. Even if they were, that is completely different as athletes are motivated and in effective support systems where the coach may have an effect that isn't completely overridden by other effects, like poverty, or being 9 years old, or not being motivated to take a test. Moreover, Coaches spend hours and hours a day with an athlete, over a time of years. Teachers get a kid for 40 minutes, for nine months, once in their life. Of the examples you mentioned though, that is probably the closest analogy to teachers. Yes, they are. Sabermetricians measure a manager's ability by looking at the way his players improve, and whether the team performs in a way that's greater than the sum of its parts. Measuring improvement is much better than measuring raw performance, because sometimes you coach the Yankees (teach in a rich neighbourhood) and sometimes you coach the Blue Jays (teach in a poor neighbourhood). However, although this is the best way to measure merit, you're absolutely right that students are not athletes and merit-based pay is a bad idea. That article Main Paineframe explains that the best solution is to do some actual managing and figure it out on a more individual level, not trying to set a standard to compare all teachers in the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:What are the current odds that it gets hosed? The prediction market is giving it a 30% chance that they limit subsidies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
This makes me very happy, yet very sad that no-one I know will find this as funny as I do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
In a 5-4 decision, Kennedy siding with the liberal justices, the decision in the housing act case is that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. This is a big deal, but how widely does this set a precedent?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Obamacare wins, 6-3!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
If Obergefell v. Hodges makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states, it'll be annoying for future history students, because it's so much harder to remember than Loving v. Virginia. But otherwise it'll be awesome, and the Republican tears will be so glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If Scalia is this upset about King, I can't even imagine what we're getting Monday. It may just be Scalia taking a steaming crap live on the bench. He's got to top himself somehow, right? He's written "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent" in the past, maybe we're going to see him write "I angrily dissent, you motherfuckers" on Obergefell.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:When does the mandatory gay marriage decision get announced? Maybe tomorrow, or as late as the 30th. I saw a source saying they had added the 30th as a decision day, though normally the 29th would be the last day to release rulings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
One of the cases still to be decided, Johnson v. United States, really is a question of whether words have meanings. I don't see how someone could possibly argue that owning a sawed-off shotgun is itself a violent crime, but here we are. Any expectations on how that one might go?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
First decision is Obergefell.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
 MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGE
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Scalia wrote the 8-1 majority opinion on Johnson v. United States. Owning an illegal weapon is not a violent crime. Consistent with the principles of his dissent on the ACA case yesterday.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Poor Roberts, he never learns. His dissent has a lot of "send it to Congress" in it. Also, he says that the principles allowing same-sex marriage would also allow polygamy, does that mean we're about to see a bunch of circuit courts legalizing that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Scalia's dissent is the angriest thing I've ever read that came from a professional. He doesn't end it with "I respectfully dissent" or even "I dissent", he rants about how this decision just makes the states want to ignore the Supreme Court. I love it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I don't understand this part of Thomas's dissent.quote:The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away. Gay people who can't get married are like slaves, and Japanese internees, but the government can't bestow dignity so they don't need gay marriage rights. What is he trying to say by this analogy?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:I'm still hung up on the part about a Harvard-Law-educated Catholic from New Jersey freaking out in his dissent that the Court does not feature enough representation from Evangelical middle-Americans No Evangelicals! No Protestants! Too many Jews
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Obama has been learning how to play the game. Can Congress stop him for eleven months?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Also Republicans would be wise to remember that it is very conceivable that Hillary takes the White House and Democrats take the Senate leading to a much more liberal appointment than Obama is likely to try and get past through the current Senate. Justice Kshama Sawant has a nice ring to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well fortunately Obama is not loving his interns. The intern-loving isn't what sank the Democrats, it was nominating one Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. for the presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
You're all being way too optimistic and short-sighted. If nothing changes then the Republicans can't win, sure. But if there's a terrorist attack or recession in the next eight months we're looking at President Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
I hope that Garland understands that him getting appointed during the lame duck period would be terrible and shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:If I was Merrick garland, a good and not terribly ideological judge, I would probably rather not forego a seat on the Supreme Court just because that would be good for people who don't actually see the world or law the way I do. gently caress him. When he croaks in ten years, the world will be glad President Clinton appointed a 50-year-old justice instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Even if that's optimistic, I don't think 63 is old enough to say that his age is a bad reason for the pick. I'd be more worried about what he'd do on the bench if actually confirmed. I'm fine with him if he gets confirmed between now and November, but if the Dems win the election, the Repubs will be rushing to confirm Garland because he is their best-case scenario. If we reach that situation, I don't want to give the Republicans the best supreme court justice they could possibly get at that time just to preserve one man's feelings. I hope that Obama explained the deal to Garland before going ahead with the nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:You've been talking about how the Democrats are weak for letting the Republicans walk all over them and that it just encourages their intransigence. Wouldn't pulling the nominee and having Hillary pick a new one give a massive amount of credence to the Republican's calling for "let the people decide"? establishing a precedent for later administrations? Huh, that's a drat good point. I rescind my position about rescinding Garland's nomination, confirm the old dude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
There's also the problem that courts are loath to impose positive rights, and saying the government must spend more money on public defenders is different from saying the government can't freeze particular assets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
ulmont posted:To add insult to injury, the Court tars Louisiana and Oregon with the charge of racism for permitting nonunanimous verdicts—even though this Court found such verdicts to be constitutional and even though there are entirely legitimate arguments for allowing them. Oh dear, how could anyone accuse 19th-century lawmakers in Louisiana and Oregon of racism? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
What will be the practical effects of the Oklahoma ruling? Will it impact other states as well? Seems like a big deal but all I know about the Supreme Court and Native rights is the Nullification Crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Shouldn't the title be updated to one day?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Yeah, I'm 100% for codifying abortion rights in federal law, but the fact is any SCOTUS that would make the leaked decision could strike federal abortion rights down with far less violation of precedent. Still gotta do it, if just to prove outright that the court must be fixed. I feel like this is already sufficient proof that the Supreme Court has become nakedly political. I wonder if the dissent will be calling out how much this hurts the credibility of SCOTUS as a supposedly apolitical institution.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the three branches to stop each other from oppressing the property rights of rich landowners. They never expected that renters, Black people, and women would get the vote and demand to have their rights recognized as well. The Republicans are doing their stated goal of protecting rich people's rights, while the Democrats are failing to protect the rights of any other group. You can make the argument that the Democrats shouldn't use procedural tricks to protect human rights, because the Republicans will then retaliate when they win power. This argument ignores the fact that Republicans are already using all the procedural tricks they can to protect their power. Democratic politicians won't use extraordinary means to appoint liberal justices because they care more about fundraising by looking like the good guys than they care about actual human rights.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:At least requiring an election to intervene between Congress voting to up their own pay and it actually going into effect makes sense. It makes sense, but they haven't abolished Congressional insider trading which is a much bigger problem. All the other amendments since 1933 have been tweaks to voting or the office of the President.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Another fun, if out there, track to take is the 3rd Amendment. The government cannot, in fact, force you to quarter someone in your home. What is your argument that they should be able to do so with your womb, which is much more evidently yours than your home? The 3rd only applies to soldiers. To resolve this problem, we need fetal conscription.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2022 10:09
|
|
|
This talk of moving people into strategic districts presupposes that voting is your most important political tool, which it clearly isn't. Your vote is worth maybe $100 to a political party. Thanks to this Supreme Court, there's no limit to the amount of money the rich can spend influencing politicians.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
moths posted:It's an ego thing. Overturning would be the worst thing long-term for Republicans, but they can't just ... not do it. Why do you think that winning a huge victory and giving their voters what they want would be bad for Republicans? Elections are won by making your base happy.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
I hope the Democrats whose feckless incompetence caused this are happy with themselves. Who am I kidding, they're ecstatic. They're going to raise so much loving funds from this and they aren't going to do jack poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:Had some unsettling thoughts on how states are going to start to justify banning contraception after SCOTUS overturns that one too. They're not outlawing IVF, even though IVF involves creating multiple fertilized zygotes and discarding any others. There's no need whatsoever for logic, it's about controlling women not protecting babies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
It's important to document the undemocratic, oligarchic behaviour of the Roberts court. This year's rulings have made it explicit that SCOTUS is now a political body that makes decisions based on Republican policy, not precedent or intelligent legal analysis. Assuming good faith from the justices, or the politicians who appoint them, is fatally flawed. Any discussion of SCOTUS should acknowledge this reality, and it's an important question to consider what comes next. It's possible that the current situation will continue for some time, as Congress cedes more of its power to a non-elected body. The intended checks and balances don't work when Republicans in Congress care more about Republican power than they care about the power of the legislative branch. We can discuss the legal reasoning contained in these rulings as if they are legitimate thoughts from a Supreme Court functioning as intended, rather than the dictates of a tyrannical body that contradicts the will of the people, but to what end? As the Supreme Court is behaving in an extraordinary way, any discussion of it must be prepared for extraordinary discussion of what could happen if there were a serious push back against the court's power. As such, I'm making the following point in good faith: Those are some dogshit probes and Cinci Zoo Sniper should be ashamed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:It's against the laws of physics for an institution to decide to reduce its own power. It's like expecting an apple to reattach itself to the tree. The Republicans in Congress are willing to let the legislature become completely dysfunctional, because they don't want a working government anyway, and they know that the Supreme Court lets them wield power regardless of what the voters think. (Democrats don't want a functional government either, but they care about the status quo.) If a scenario ever happens where somehow SCOTUS has a long-lasting liberal majority, but Congress is controlled by Republicans, watch how quickly it becomes important for the legislative branch to have power and the judicial branch to have none.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
I remember Michael Moore writing that Gore and Bush agreed with each other more often than not. Politics felt like lower stakes during the End of History, when America was destined to cruise into the prosperous future.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 05:48
|
|