The One Year Thread 2015: The Forum Awakens

[Zoom Rabbit]

I had a dream last night that a bunch of us were together in person. I am starting to forget all the details now... but there was food, booze, guitars, drugs, bad women, classic muscle cars, a train, guns, helicopters, a bus, and a rambling thousand-page Zen manifesto.

 

That was us, Led Zeppelin and the cast of 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High.' We all got together in Dreamland and had a summer Equinox party. Jimmy Page brought mushrooms, and Sean Penn punched him in the nose. It was classic.

 

In the 'real' world, I changed the spaceshuttle landing in my signature. This one is a night landing at Edwards where I put it into a dead spin then wrestle it under control just in time to put it down on the runway. Loads of fun.

[K_Kinnison]

My work is in the same boat it was last year. 90 minutes of overtime everyday, and last wednesday were were told we need to work an additional 12 hours over 2 weeks. Too bad I had made plans to see my dad last weekend. All they are getting out of me is a 11 hour day Mon-Thursday. and i planned to work this friday, but i might be too tired from working 50 hours to come in for another 10.. on my day off

 

The irony is that at the end of the previous year we need to schedule our days and weeks off. so far I have only gotten 1 week I wanted off in the 4 years I have worked there. yet they can make us work on our day off with less then 48 hours notice.

 

Several of us at work are just not going to show up. why should we work harder because our building manager cannot get enough people hired and trained to meet the demand?

 

The Distribution center in Port Charles virginia had 20 people walk out. Might be happening at the other centers soon

[Rogue15]

had a good 3 mile run today...gonna do 2 miles tomorrow gotta go to a lameo work meeting in the afternoon...on my day off.

[Zoom Rabbit]

[Rogue15]

another good run this morning.

 

looking at used cars at credit car places....since my credit is unsatisfactory for the stealerships.

 

hoping i can get something by next week. sick of being confined.

[Rogue15]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33287136?ocid=socialflow_facebook

 

interesting considering i visited that mosque during my deployment to Kuwait.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

Been pretty amusing watching conservatives have a public temper tantrum over the SCotUS's ruling today.

 

Related: I'm in the same political party as these idiots. ;_;

[Rogue15]

yeah...i'm pro-constitution but party-wise i lean toward the conservative side on most issues.

[Keyan Farlander]

Been pretty amusing watching conservatives have a public temper tantrum over the SCotUS's ruling today.

 

Related: I'm in the same political party as these idiots. ;_;

 

They should have a temper tantrum. The absurdity of the result aside, this was as blatant a case of judicial activism as there has ever been. I suggest reading the full text of the court's opinion and all four dissenting opinions, taking the time to read up on the previous cases cited. It is extremely illuminating.

[K_Kinnison]

Ever since California passed it's Prop 8 in 2008 (which was overturned in 2013) i knew it was only a matter of time before same sex marriage was legal in United states. I was going to give it another year, but it seems Scotus just wanted to end the issue. And the ACA ruling would have been a disaster for everyone if it did not turn out the way it did.

 

I would like to add that I think many people who consider themselves "republicans" are more similar to Goldwater, then the current republicans we have now. So much has changed the current GOP have to rewrite history so Ronald Reagan fits into their idea of a true republican. I know a good friend of my Dad who is a Republican (also a History Professor at UW-Madison) who ran for Senate (lost to Tammy Baldwin) and we have had some great discussions and even can agree on many issues.

 

Got a new Cell phone. LG was doing an offer if you bought their new phone (The G4) you got a battery, battery charger, and car charger for free.

[K_Kinnison]

blatant a case of judicial activism

 

Sour grapes. It would have been Judicial activism if they ruled the other way. The issues brought before them had to be ruled via personal or popular opinion because there was very little in the constitution that specifically covered it.

 

There are many issues that are sensitive, which need to be handled with a certain amount of care that many laws don’t allow. Judicial activism allows a judge to use his personal judgement in situations where the law fails.

 

Judges have sworn to bring justice to the country, this does not change with judicial activism. It allows them to do what they see fit, within reasonable limits of course. This is a good thing because it shows the instilled trust that is placed in the judicial system and it’s judgments.

[edlib]

As a resident of the Commonwealth, I have to ask the rest of the nation "Geez... What took y'all so long?"

 

After all... we've been living with gay marriage and universal health care for like a decade now. (Both enacted, by-the-way, when the last guy the red-staters put forth to be prez was here as gov'nor. Hmm...)

 

In other news from the ancient past:

 

15 years ago today, I turned 30.

 

That seemed like such an impossible-to-achieve age back then. I couldn't visualize myself ever getting any older that that. How little I knew...

[Rogue15]

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

 

 

talking to some chick off the pof dating site. wishing i had a ****ing car right now. couple weeks i guess i should have a large enough down payment.

 

I still enjoy going to work...hope it stays that way.

[edlib]

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

Yes, but only if you are French-kissing another dude the whole time you are doing it.

[Zoom Rabbit]

Happy birthday, Ed. 45 is the new 38, don'tcha know?

 

I'm in favor of gay marriage, if only because that point of view promotes FREEDOM. Too little of that going on these days.

 

Politically speaking, I consider myself a liberal redneck...or a conservative hippy, depending on your own point of view. I consign both political parties to the ash bin of history, and vote regardless of party affiliation so that no one of them is benefited by my voting record.

[Keyan Farlander]

Happy birthday, ed!

 

Sour grapes. It would have been Judicial activism if they ruled the other way. The issues brought before them had to be ruled via personal or popular opinion because there was very little in the constitution that specifically covered it.

 

The purpose of the courts is not to determine what the law should be, it's to determine what the law is.

 

There are many issues that are sensitive, which need to be handled with a certain amount of care that many laws don’t allow. Judicial activism allows a judge to use his personal judgement in situations where the law fails.

 

Judges have sworn to bring justice to the country, this does not change with judicial activism. It allows them to do what they see fit, within reasonable limits of course. This is a good thing because it shows the instilled trust that is placed in the judicial system and it’s judgments.

 

A judge needs to use his personal judgment to decide what the meaning of a law is and how it applies to specific cases. But not what it should be or even whether it is a good or wise law. That places too much power in the hands of too few people. Unelected people in many cases. When it comes to questions of what the law should be, it must be handled legislatively. This separation of powers is critical to the functioning of our government.

 

What five judges did here was decide how they wanted it to come out and then come up with a Constitutional justification for it that cannot actually be justified. The only thing they could really come up with was the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but this isn't justified at all in the court's opinion. On the other hand, the four dissenting opinions give a very thorough treatment of the meaning and purpose of this clause (in particular, that of the word "liberty" in it), and review what happened the last time the Supreme Court starting justifying its overruling of state laws using this clause. It wasn't good.

 

Even if leftists are happy about the outcome, they should not be happy at all about how it was achieved, because this can work against their agenda instead of for it just as easily. But whether the outcome is good or bad, it shouldn't work this way at all.

[K_Kinnison]

so keyan your for abolishing the judicial branch when it's rulings does not coincide with your personal opinion?

 

I didn't agree with Citizens United ruling, but according to the opinions written it was the right choice to make, and to change in requires the legislative branch to start making an amendment and getting it ratified. I dislike the ruling, but i am not going to start name calling and blaming conservatives for the ruling.

 

Same thing happens with the two most recent rulings, if you don't like it, talk to your members of congress to start working, doing their elected job, and create an amendment to "fix" it. Let the states and popular vote decide the issue once and for all and be done with it... until an amendment is ratified to counter that amendment.

 

There is a reason why we have 3 branches of government, and that is to keep everyone else in check and not allow one branch to become too powerful.

 

Sadly a lot of the residents of the GOP Clown car who are running for the nomination for president think the constitution should be something ignored when the minority disagrees with it, which IMHO makes them ineligible to be president

[Cmdr. Cracken]

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

 

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

It can be argued that the Constitution does protects the liberty of all citizens of the United States, and since marriage is a legal institution within the boarders of the United States, no law can be passed prohibiting the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

 

I believe this was the same arguement that the SCotUS used in abolishing inter-racial marriage bans that were enacted, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In fact, many of the decision penned by Justice Thomas yesterday was the same basic argument:

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. - Chief Justice Earl Warren

 

So... really, the SCotUS was acting on previous precedent set in 1967.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

What I find more disturbing is that Justice Scalia basically threw the judicial equivalent of a child's temper tantrum in his dissent. Rather start contrast to even Chief Justice Robert's dissent which was well put together and respectful.

[Wildstar]

Bowled in a no-tap fundraiser today, purely for fun. If anything else, it was a chance to bowl with bowlers I don't normally bowl with.

[Keyan Farlander]

so keyan your for abolishing the judicial branch when it's rulings does not coincide with your personal opinion?

 

I didn't agree with Citizens United ruling, but according to the opinions written it was the right choice to make, and to change in requires the legislative branch to start making an amendment and getting it ratified. I dislike the ruling, but i am not going to start name calling and blaming conservatives for the ruling.

 

No, certainly not. The problem is that this is not what the judicial branch is supposed to do. In the Citizens United case, the court had to decide whether a law was in violation of the First Amendment, as intended by its authors and ratifiers. The question did not have an obvious answer, and having a group of nine experts in law rule on the matter is exactly what the purpose of the court is. They were not ruling on the wisdom of the clear meaning of a law.

 

This case is different. The justification for this ruling was found in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment - that states shall not deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process and that all citizens have equal protection under the law. It is beyond dispute that the writers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment would not have thought gay marriage was a right, or indeed anything but a logical absurdity.

 

But the legal problem is even deeper than that. Obviously no one is being deprived of life or property here, so the question centers on liberty. Liberty here does not mean, and never has meant, a right to some government benefit. It is a right to freedom from government interference. And in this context it is a very specific kind of interference - imprisonment. This is well documented in the dissenting opinions. But even worse, this is acknowledged in the court's opinion itself! "This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become."

 

It is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to evolve the understanding of freedom or anything else. That is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

 

Same thing happens with the two most recent rulings, if you don't like it, talk to your members of congress to start working, doing their elected job, and create an amendment to "fix" it. Let the states and popular vote decide the issue once and for all and be done with it... until an amendment is ratified to counter that amendment.

 

There is a reason why we have 3 branches of government, and that is to keep everyone else in check and not allow one branch to become too powerful.

 

But that is exactly what happened. The legislative process worked as it was supposed to, but activist judges, first in lower courts and finally in the Supreme Court, overturned these legitimate legislative acts. The check of the Judicial branch on the Legislative is to be able to rule a law unconstitutional, NOT simply to overrule a law as a superior legislative body, based on good moral principles or not.

[Keyan Farlander]

It can be argued that the Constitution does protects the liberty of all citizens of the United States, and since marriage is a legal institution within the boarders of the United States, no law can be passed prohibiting the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

 

I believe this was the same arguement that the SCotUS used in abolishing inter-racial marriage bans that were enacted, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In fact, many of the decision penned by Justice Thomas yesterday was the same basic argument:

 

So... really, the SCotUS was acting on previous precedent set in 1967.

 

This is different, though. In this case, the Lovings were convicted of a crime, this law in effect making the criminality of the act depend on the race of the actor. Arguably a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

 

But the criminality of an act can depend on the sex of the actor in general. For example, it is a crime for men not to register with Selective Service. If they do not, they may be fined and imprisoned. Not so for women.

 

Making distinctions based on sex is understandable, because men and women are ontologically distinct. Men of different races are not.

 

Furthermore, no one denied that men and women of different races could marry, i.e. that it was a metaphysical possibility. The traditional understanding of marriage, consistent in human cultures throughout history, contains nothing that would call that into question. Even if, in some places and times, it were illegal as a matter of pragmatism or even prohibited out of racism, it was still a logical possibility. But that was never true for two people of the same sex. A court ruling that judges the former has the traditional and consistent understanding of marriage to appeal to, but the latter is blazing entirely new metaphysical ground.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

This is different, though. In this case, the Lovings were convicted of a crime, this law in effect making the criminality of the act depend on the race of the actor. Arguably a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

 

But the criminality of an act can depend on the sex of the actor in general. For example, it is a crime for men not to register with Selective Service. If they do not, they may be fined and imprisoned. Not so for women.

 

Making distinctions based on sex is understandable, because men and women are ontologically distinct. Men of different races are not.

 

The Same-Sex marriage bans that flew up across the South are essentially the same thing. It forbid the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sec couples, much like the bans did for inter-racial couples. However, in this new era, not one same-sex couple actually received a marriage license and did the same thing as the Lovings. Had they done that, the case would have been decided just as Lovings V. Virginia, and probably with much clearer use of precedent set by that case.

 

Regardless of the SCotUS's rulings, I have always felt that banning the legal (not religious, but legal) marriage of two peoples of the same-sex simply insane. Two reasons.

 

1) Money. Weddings, even when performed by an officer of the State, appointed to legally marry two individuals, ends up being an expensive, and large affair. Even small gatherings help smaller businesses, catering, tailoring, hotel/tourism. Why on Earth would any state wish to drive perfectly good tax dollars away from their state is beyond me.

 

2) Who gives a flying ****? Yes, I understand for those of us who follow the faiths believe that God frowns upon us doing such things. But in the implied Separation of Church and State that governed the United States and other Western Democracies, can the government, a government of people, not God, still maintain that separation and claim of that when a policy is set in placed that has it's basis in religion? If the United States had an official state religion sponsored by the government, then the policy would be legal. Move to a different country.

 

But it isn't. At the end of the day, the laws which govern the United States and protects the rights of it's citizens must be void of religious leanings and be written and decided by what is right by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles in which the country was founded; that all Men (And Women) are created equal, and have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness.

 

Whether the Church agrees with the policies of the State should not enter into any legal proceedings.

 

And yes, I agree, should the Church wish not to conduct such ceremonies, that is the decision of the Church exercising it's Freedom of Religion clause as an independent organization not subject to the taxes of the United States, and protected as such by the Constitution.

[Rogue15]

19,000 posts in 16 years? damn i feel old.

[Keyan Farlander]

2) Who gives a flying ****? Yes, I understand for those of us who follow the faiths believe that God frowns upon us doing such things. But in the implied Separation of Church and State that governed the United States and other Western Democracies, can the government, a government of people, not God, still maintain that separation and claim of that when a policy is set in placed that has it's basis in religion? If the United States had an official state religion sponsored by the government, then the policy would be legal. Move to a different country.

 

But it isn't. At the end of the day, the laws which govern the United States and protects the rights of it's citizens must be void of religious leanings and be written and decided by what is right by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles in which the country was founded; that all Men (And Women) are created equal, and have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness.

 

Whether the Church agrees with the policies of the State should not enter into any legal proceedings.

 

And yes, I agree, should the Church wish not to conduct such ceremonies, that is the decision of the Church exercising it's Freedom of Religion clause as an independent organization not subject to the taxes of the United States, and protected as such by the Constitution.

 

I think your characterization of the relationship between church (or religious belief) and state is mistaken, but it actually doesn't matter, because there is nothing in the argument about marriage that is contingent on any religious belief. The question is a purely philosophical one and the argument is from reason alone. Even within Christianity, Judaism, etc., that marriage is between a man and woman is not a religious idea, as if it were some sort of arbitrary divine fiat that God could alter or could have established differently if he had wanted to.

 

As for who gives a flying ****, well, everyone should. The question of marriage is the question of the generation and formation of children, which is the most critical thing to the survival of any society, and it deeply affects everyone in it.