QUILTBAG-The fate of fabulous folks in foreign fields.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > QUILTBAG-The fate of fabulous folks in foreign fields.

«‹›2 »

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Yadoppsi posted:

I just wanted to repost this quote from Mr. Horrible, because these anti-queer laws are not coming from nowhere; edited for pertinacity.

The connection to Alliance Defending Freedom is much better supported than last week's determination that it must be Matt Staver and Liberty Counsel who were responsible.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:48

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

DoJ sent an interesting letter to North Carolina:
HB2 violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Employment discrimination) and you've got 'till Monday to fix it.
Also, the universities are in violation of Title IX of the Education amendments of 1972.
Also, Dept of Public Safety is in violation of Title VII, too.

# ¿ May 4, 2016 22:44

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

It is a Supremacy Clause issue in that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that binds the states (and businesses with more than 15 employees) through the Commerce clause. (enforced by federal marshals with a court order)
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 seeks to influence the states through the Appropriations clause. (enforced by withholding of funds)
The DoJ effort is not being pursued as a 14th Amendment issue.

There are some circuit court cases (though none in the 4th Circuit, where NC is) and some Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rulings that have held that bathroom preference discrimination against transgendered people is gender discrimination. None of these are controlling on NC. The question is, does NC have the time, money and desire for negative spotlight to work the cases through district court, the 4th Circuit, and the Supreme Court?

Tatum Girlparts posted:

So on Monday a federal judge is gonna respond with "Yes, we literally can"

No, on the Title VII side, DoJ will have to file a lawsuit which will require hearings, rulings and appeals.
On the Title IX side, the Dept. of Education has an administrative process which can end up with compliance or either withholding funds or having DoJ file a lawsuit to withhold funds.

joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 6, 2016

# ¿ May 6, 2016 18:08

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

CommieGIR posted:

The best part:

quote:
North Carolina's suit said that Title VII, which the Department of Justice said House Bill No. 2 violates, doesn't recognize transgender status as a protected class. "If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress," the suit said.

That's 100% true, and shows that 1)strict construction and 2)living constitution/laws arguments know no ideology. (though it's usually right+strict construction and left+living constitution)
1) When congressmen added 'gender' to the civil rights act of 1964 as a poison pill, intending that the inclusion of women would scuttle the whole thing, did they intend to include transgendered people as well?
Of course not. If congress didn't intend gender identity to be part of the civil rights act, congress has to amend the civil right act to include it.
2) Congress' inclusion of 'gender' as something that shouldn't be a basis for discrimination is sound, fair and honorable. In the last 50 years, we have come to /are coming to a broader and more inclusive understanding of 'gender' and believe that those same principles that prohibit discrimination based upon biological sex apply equally to discrimination based upon subjective gender. Therefore gender identity is covered by the civil rights act. This is DoJ's current position, as noted by:

Sharkie posted:

The Justice Department, of course, doesn't agree with this interpretation.http://documents.buzzfeed.com/Title%20VII%20Memo.pdf

CommieGIR posted:

What better way to get that done than to sue in Federal Court over a law that is Constitutionally dead in the water, while you cry about being given a week to rectify a law that you took less than a day to pass as a bill and signed into law the same day in a special session.

Maybe running out of steam as a matter of historical fact, but the Constitutional question is definitely still out there.

CommieGIR posted:

Seriously, someone in the DoJ is laughing their rear end off right now, and I'm willing to bet that he made this lawsuit under advise of the Liberty Council, because it reeks of 'Kim David part deux' because nobody but Liberty Council would be so loving stupid to think this would fly.

NC's lawsuit isn't screechy enough for Liberty Council and flies in a legal sense. On the other hand, it's still too screechy for my tastes in legal writing, and their arguments aren't very good. 1: All sorts of courts have said trans isn't covered by Title VII (in the 1980s) 2: Differences in male/female GROOMING STANDARDS aren't discrimination, so we can discriminate here 3: Need to balance "bodily privacy" interests of non-trans with trans people's gender identity (by denying bodily privacy of trans people)

Mr. Nice! posted:

Today is the deadline the feds gave them to pass something that says the law will not be enacted or enforced. I wonder if they'll pull the trigger and yank the money.

That trigger has a really long pull.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 17:37

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

comes along bort posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3cf6_story.html

McCrory filed an amicus brief in that case.

That was a Title IX case, prosecuted by the Department of Education.
What this means is that there's no 4th Circuit binding precedent with regard to Title VII.
However, the issues presented in the Title IX case are going to be analyzed in the same way as a Title VII case, so the former case is a good indicator of which way at least that panel of the 4th will go.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 20:45

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Lawrence Gilchrist posted:

Is there any way to push back against the Lively route of going to places like Uganda and passing bathroom bills?

You might need to recalibrate. He was getting an execute homosexuals bill passed. (the passed version was life in prison, not death, and the whole law was later overturned)

Lively is being sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act for his part in persecution of LGBLTI people in Uganda.
http://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/sexual-minorities-uganda-v-scott-lively

joat mon fucked around with this message at 15:56 on May 17, 2016

# ¿ May 17, 2016 15:52

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

CommieGIR posted:

And the courts have rejected the defenses' attempts to dismiss twice. This is going to be a very bad case for Lively.

Lively lost his "even looking at SMUG's accusations in the best possible light for them, they've got nothing" motion. The (small 'c') conservative thing to do was to let the case proceed and make sure a better record for the inevitable appeal gets developed, which is what the judge did.
Lively then lost his "buuuut I really reeeeeeally didn't like the judge's ruuuuling!" motion. (As he should have)

The case will be very bad for Lively in the sense that the trial will reveal him to be a nasty bit of work.

(Liberty Counsel is defending Lively, by the way)

# ¿ May 17, 2016 17:27

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

You could be a Universalist and think of all the people he would be 'stuck' sharing heaven with.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 01:40

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Hollismason posted:

I know this got lost in the shuffle but has anyone seen any news on the young woman who was in the anti gay camp?

Latest update from the GoFundMe (3 days ago) was that she'd been released.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 21:51

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

fishmech posted:

It actually does mean we should do away with screening we know is garbage, such as "if you're a man who's ever had sex with a man, you can never donate". Like, multiple countries have switched to things like only 6 month deferrals and have seen no increased rate of HIV or other nasty things in the blood that gets used for transfusion.

The FDA already switched to a 12 month deferral.

OwlFancier posted:

For the howevermanyth time, donating blood is not a right. The restriction is based on a statistical fact about HIV rates which I would much rather wasn't true, but my preference on the matter won't change whether it is or not, though with luck medical advances may, one day.

There is a difference between my demanding a right to which other people are entitled, where the right exists to better the circumstances of the right holder, on the basis that there is no even remotely academic reason why I should not have that right. And my saying that I should have the right to do something which is intended for the benefit of others, because I wish it to be for my benefit, while likely having little impact either way for the intended beneficiary.

Demanding the right to donate blood misunderstands the point of blood donation. It is not for the benefit of the donor. It seems absolutely incorrect to me to demand the right to do it on the basis that it's discriminatory not to let you do it. With just about every other commonly discussed issue it makes perfect sense. We should be able to marry, to adopt, to work and to speak and to do every other thing, the purpose of which is to enrich ourselves, those rights exist to promote the wellbeing of people and our people have as much right to be well as any other. But LGBT people have no more of a right to give blood than cis, hetero people do. Giving blood should be 100% contingent on the utility of that donation.

So again, yes the rules should be changed if there is a demonstrable medical benefit to do so, which I can understand in some cases. But absolutely not because of a perceived right to participate in blood donation, which absolutely nobody on earth should have. The entire concept just doesn't fit into the framework of civil rights.

There is not a 100% match between the medical concerns and their solutions. There never is, but in this case, that mismatch affects a traditionally stigmatized and discriminated against group. This is why folks who lived or visited England or Germany in the 80s (who have an indefinite deferral, even though there have been all of 4 cases of CJD in the USW, ever, and none from blood transfusions) aren't talking about lying and giving blood as an act of personal politics. E.g.,

EXAKT Science posted:

Again, the ban, which has no reasonable medical basis at this point, contributes directly to the stigma of gay men being seen as diseased or unclean. This isn't about how blood donation is or isn't a right, it's about getting rid of a discriminatory stigma.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 18:14

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

It's almost as if people are more than their sexual or gender identification and can have a wide range of beliefs about a wide range of subjects.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2016 05:25

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

metalloid posted:

If I hadn't read this in the guardian I would've sworn it was the onion. Still might be from the kenyan counterpart, because I don't believe it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/kenya-upholds-use-of-anal-exam-to-determine-sexual-orientation

I wonder where they could have gotten that idea?

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 05:49

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

FBI hasn't been able to corroborate any of the Mateen was gay reports.
Curiouser and curiouser.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 02:28

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

MaxxBot posted:

So much Christian persecution

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...b6b1_story.html

U.S. District Judge strikes down Mississippi�s �religious freedom� law

Here's the (60 page) opinion

e: not a whole lot of bon mots, but the judge dropped a lot of footnotes along the lines of, "And here's where folks like you said pretty much exactly the same thing in support of racial segregation."

A nice gentle poke at Unitarians:

quote:

Every group has its iconoclasts. The larger the group, the more likely it will have someone who believes the sun revolves around the Earth, a doctor who thinks smoking unproblematic, or a Unitarian opposed to same-sex religious marriage.

Scriptural hypocrisy:

quote:

It is not within our tradition to respect one clerk�s religious objection to issuing a same-sex marriage license, but refuse another clerk�s religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a formerly-divorced person. The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 (�Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.�) versus Leviticus 21:14 (�A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take.�).⁴⁵

45. We do not single out religious beliefs in this way. No state law explicitly allows persons to decline to serve a payday lender based on a religious belief that payday lending violates Deuteronomy 23:19. No state law explicitly allows recusals because of a belief that wearing �a garment mingled of linen and wool[]� is forbidden. Leviticus 19:19. If a marriage license was withheld for �foolish talking� or �jesting,� see Ephesians 5:4, we would undoubtedly have many fewer marriages.

joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 1, 2016

# ¿ Jul 1, 2016 18:11

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

OwlFancier posted:

What is "animus" in this case? I'm not familiar with the term as applied to laws.

It originated in US Department of Agriculture v. Moreno in 1973, where Congress made it so 'hippies' and 'hippie communes' couldn't get food stamps.
The Supreme Court struck down the law, explaining that,

quote:

For if the constitutional conception of "equal protection of the laws" means anything, it must, at the very least, mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

The concept of animus has expanded somewhat since then, but that's basically it.
Here's 47 pages on animus if you want the long answer.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 16:12

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

OwlFancier posted:

So... presumably you also have to have a better reason for granting a right or freedom than "becuase freedom good"?

Or does it only work for banning stuff?

Setting aside animus for a moment, most laws only need to have a 'rational basis' to be constitutional. This is an extremely low bar. (as it should be, most of the time) 'Freedom good' is a rational basis. In the case of Mississippi's 'religious freedom' law, the "freedom good' argument couldn't be enough because that freedom impacted other constitutional rights, which took it out of a rational basis analysis. In essence, 'freedom good' that applied only to certain sects and/or beliefs and also stripped constitutionally recognized rights from others didn't cut it.

OwlFancier posted:

Ah so presumably yes only for restricting rights/freedoms rather than granting them.

No, restricting vs granting rights is more six of one/half dozen of another thing. MS's law granted rights to some, which restricted the rights of others.

Animus analysis wasn't necessary to strike down the Mississippi law, but MS's continued whinging to the 5th Circuit about losing was enough for the 5th to say basically, "Look. You lose and you're going to keep losing. Even if everything went your way and we just ignored the established Constitutional rights of everyone impacted by the law except for your little coterie of religious bigots, you'd still lose because the statute and your briefs are dripping with animus."

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 17:51

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

CommieGIR posted:

North Carolina filed its brief defending HB2 today:

Here it is:
http://files.eqcf.org/cases/116-cv-00425-149/
The brief itself is 'only' 72 of the 518 pages.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 23:28

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

CommieGIR posted:

Oh, I know it being North Carolina and all, but pretty sure this is in direct defiance of the SCOTUS ruling, I'm shocked the Federal Judge even ruled for the defense.

The broader legal issue is more akin to the RU-486 pharmacist opt-out laws, rather than Obergefell.
The specific issue in this case was whether the couples, whose efforts to marry were not hampered, had legal standing to challenge the magistrate opt-out law.
(Note that the judge involved in this case was also the judge who decided Synod v. Cooper, which ruled NC's gay marriage ban unconstitutional)

# ¿ Sep 21, 2016 20:01

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Pocky In My Pocket posted:

Roy moore is gettling a slap on the wrist

So instead of merely punishing Moore as harshly as possible under the law, the Court of the Judiciary should have acted illegally to score points with mouth-foaming zealots who wouldn't recognize the rule of law if it walked up to them and gave them marriage equality?
And the Horseshoe award goes to...

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 17:52

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

MaxxBot posted:

This is the SCOTUS version of Fishmeching, like deliberately misinterpreting some writing just because they left out some information and therefor you have an opportunity to quibble over some dumb technicality.

It's SCOTEX, in this case. "Quibbling" over "dumb" "technicalities" is a lot of the practice of law. As such, what's going on in TX is a legitimate, established technique used by everyone, no matter where they fall on the authoritarian/libertarian or right/left axes of the political compass.

This gets noticed more when it's an issue that people are passionate about.

(anti) Death penalty work involves a lot of not only quibbling over technicalities, but quibbling over technicalities that were decisively decided decades ago in the hope that maybe sometime in the future a court might decide differently. A lot of government answer briefs are polite ways to say, "WTF? You lost this issue in 19-frikkin-79, no court anywhere since then has ever ruled even slightly in your favor, and the court you're in front of now ruled against you on the same exact issue 5 months ago, for the 23rd time." You do it because you've got to, to give your client their best chance.

What these anti-rights advocates in Texas are trying to do is to limit Obergefell strictly to the facts of the case. To do so, they have asserted that the broader Constitutional (Equal Protection) implications of the case do not logically follow. (Or just called for them to be ignored, because whargarble) I don't think Obergefell gives the anti rights nuts the latitude to limit it to its facts, but I'm not a SCOTEX judge. (but they already decided not to hear the case once before)

A different set of anti-rights advocates are trying (and generally succeeding) to limit Heller and McDonald to their facts by the same techniques. The constitutional issues are less implication here, but there's more whargarble to make up for it. Granted, there was a little more 'laboratories of democracy' latitude in these decisions, but not as much as the anti rights nuts are running with. (But I'm not a SCOTUS judge)

It's frustrating, but it means the system is working - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2016 22:48

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Hollismason posted:

Kind of wonder if the Supreme Court will over reach on that one just a teensy bit and possibly open the door for persons who are transgender being a protected class possibly.

If the Supremes rule for the kid they will necessarily be making gender identification a protected class, but only where Title IX applies.
It would be overreaching to come out and rule that gender identification is a protected class under the Civil rights act. (However, I'll bet the inevitable application of this ruling to the CRA will be mentioned in dicta by the majority and bemoaned by the dissent)

# ¿ Oct 29, 2016 00:53

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

They can only do so because congress created the protected class of "sex."

# ¿ Oct 29, 2016 01:21

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Obergefell and Lawrence aren't getting overturned. Toxx me. The right isn't penumbral, or sliding in application, or (arguably) opposed by an (arguably) equalish right, like abortion, so there aren't any edges to nibble away at, either.
State RFRAs won't keep anyone from getting marriage licenses or from getting married, though frustrating delays due to bureaucratic gently caress-gently caress games could certainly happen.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 21:00

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Hollismason posted:

Within 2 year of now we will have a Federal Religious Freedom bill.

Sounds like time for some faabulous new churches/ religions!

E: Don't forget, the evil, conservative judges (Renquist, Scalia, Thomas) (plus RBG, Stevens and Kennedy) of the supreme court already struck down the federal rfra (the part that applied it to the states) and the federal government has had a rfra for over 20 years.

Agnosticnixie posted:

He's already strongly hinted that he's going to let Pence be a bull in the china shop of lgbtq rights

Cite?

joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 10, 2016

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 21:08

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Hollismason posted:

Uh why is Judge William Pryor's name being bandied about for SC nominee, anyone hear anything on this

Because he's the scariest on the list of 21 names being bandied about.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2016 18:26

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Kylra posted:

Texas has filed a North Carolina style bathroom bill for 2017. The Women's Privacy Act. I don't think this had been mentioned yet.

Closeish:
The lieutenant governor of Texas would like a member of the legislature to write, sponsor and introduce an anti-trans person bill for next year's legislative session. The LtGov would like to be called the Women's Privacy Act.
This may well happen, but it hasn't yet, and happily is getting lots of pushback.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2016 20:34

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Aleph Null posted:

So States' Rights > Cities' Rights > Federal Rights?
That seems a bit off.

No, Federal constitutional rights > state constitutional rights (unless the state grants greater rights) > city ordinances.

In the Texas example, the state of Texas is basically saying, "Cities, we got this, we'll handle these regulations at the state level." Texas still has to honor federal constitutional rights (and applicable federal statutes) and state constitutional rights and state statutes.

Instant Sunrise posted:

yeah that's how it's meant to work, but let's be real, what the right wants is for States Rights We Like > Everything Else

Playing favorites with state's rights transcends the political spectrum.

joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Nov 17, 2016

# ¿ Nov 17, 2016 22:27

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

The 14th makes the Bill of Rights and other federal constitutional protections applicable to the states.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 15:05

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Geokinesis posted:

Not US but I'm hearing something about FADA being likely to be passed with republican control of all your governing bodies?

In the states? It's been tried a couple of times I can recall. Last year a Georgia bill got vetoed and a Mississippi bill was enacted but enjoined before it came into effect. (Barber v. Bryant). Any bills that get passed would meet a similar fate to the MS bill.

On the federal side? Probably not, there isn't enough momentum or critical mass to push something this unnecessarily divisive through. I could be wrong. A federal version would also have very limited applicability, a'la the federal RFRA. Even in the unlikely event it passes, it's unlikely to pass constitutional muster. (See below)

Here's the opinion in Barber v. Bryant. It's a good read, and maybe assuage some concerns about the viability of other FADAs.

quote:

(This is just the intro)
The United States Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the constitutional principles at stake. Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a state �may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another.� Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). �When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government�s ostensible object is to take sides.� McCreary Cnty., Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005) (citation omitted). Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meanwhile, a state may not deprive lesbian and gay citizens of �the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings.� Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 630 (1996).
HB 1523 grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three �sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions� reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons. Miss. Laws 2016, HB 1523 � 2 (eff. July 1, 2016). That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.
The Establishment Clause is violated because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected � the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells �nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.� Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-10 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523�s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.
�It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort.� Romer, 517 U.S. at 633.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 21:38

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Yardbomb posted:

Also "hypersexualized" is a bit far and pretty wrong feeling when a lot of other stuff is still struggling to get past all their lady characters wearing boobplate or having inexplicable boob window armor. Meanwhile this is the gay shootlady.

I thought the hypersexualized post was from the Lottery of Babylon cache.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2016 18:52

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Mr. Nice! posted:

They don't have to do anything to dismantle them. The guidance documents that extend those protections will just be nullified in the Pence administration.

Was it in this thread that somebody was crowing about how courts are now required to give deference to executive agency interpretations of the law?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2017 18:05

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

No.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2017 02:36

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Debate & Discussion � QUILTBAG - "It's pronounced 'Circular Firing Squad,' you phoneto-opressor!"

# ¿ Jan 19, 2017 00:16

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Tias posted:

how the hell can you be locked away half your life for embarassing the military?

You can't, and she wasn't. The military even acquitted her of some charges.

Agnosticnixie posted:

Very easily

Both Manning and Dreyfus were in the military. Both were accused of secrets-ish / espionage-ish crimes. Both cases became causes c�l�bres. That's about as far as the commonality goes.

Liquid Communism posted:

Don't forget that the prosecution was still pushing all the way into the trial for a conviction on 'aiding the enemy' which carries a possible death sentence, despite her willingness to enter a guilty plea. Oh, and outright made up "wantonly causing to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy" as a new offense to charge her with.

Aiding the enemy didn't carry a possible death sentence for Manning. She actually did plead guilty to some lesser charges. (a kinda big difference if you're trying to couple her case to Dreyfus') While the military is allowed to make up new permutations of crime so long as they fall under the umbrella of being prejudicial to good order and discipline and bring discredit on the armed forces, it's almost always bullcrap when they do it, and Manning's case wasn't any different in that regard.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2017 16:28

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Never mind, unnecessarily personal.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2017 21:46

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

OwlFancier posted:

I dunno, gun toting isolationism might make a pretty effective beard.

Are "armed paranoiac" and "pepperpot" our only choices?

E: pepperpot: a middle aged woman whose life revolves around 1) being worried, and 2) being offended.

joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 20, 2017

# ¿ Jan 20, 2017 21:15

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Tias posted:

the willingness and skill to protect yourself is much more important than any tool.

This. A nice side effect will be that one will realize that guns are neither a panacea nor the boogeyman.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 17:55

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Wow.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2017 17:43

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

The leak of the draft of the "religious freedom" EO is out.

It's Mississippi all over again.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2017 03:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:48

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

Hey, a person in the trans discussion thread was wondering if the title IX case before the Supreme Court currently is affected by this, or if they could independently still decide to rule that trans people are protected by title IX?

The legal question (how much weight does an executive agency's interpretation of the law have) would not be affected, and the Supreme Court could not independently dictate that trans people are protected by Title IX.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2017 23:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > QUILTBAG-The fate of fabulous folks in foreign fields.

«‹›2 »