Agree Agree:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 126
  1. #16
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkus View Post
    Tonight on Jon Stewart's show, Rachel Maddow called Justice Scalia a troll. Like internet trolls.
    How O'Reilly-esque!
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  2. #17

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    How O'Reilly-esque!
    In the context she said it, it wasn't.
    Avatar: Munchin's Favorite Matches - #10 - Andre Agassi vs. Pete Sampras - 2000 Australian Open SF

    "If I didn't play tennis, I would probably have to go see a psychiatrist" - Arthur Ashe

  3. #18

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    The Obama administration weighed in with an amicus brief on the Prop 8 case. I've been hearing very conflicting arguments about how much amicus briefs matter, but there it is.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us...n.html?hp&_r=0
    Avatar: Munchin's Favorite Matches - #10 - Andre Agassi vs. Pete Sampras - 2000 Australian Open SF

    "If I didn't play tennis, I would probably have to go see a psychiatrist" - Arthur Ashe

  4. #19
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,658
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    How O'Reilly-esque!
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  5. #20

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Quote Originally Posted by munchin View Post
    In the context she said it, it wasn't.
    You really need to stop it with the facts and accuracy nonsense.
    Towel Avatar, do your thing!

  6. #21
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,658
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    LOL. Right?
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  7. #22

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Pedantic Librarian to a fault here. Though I couldn't remember my favorite working director had an Oscar already a few days ago.
    Avatar: Munchin's Favorite Matches - #10 - Andre Agassi vs. Pete Sampras - 2000 Australian Open SF

    "If I didn't play tennis, I would probably have to go see a psychiatrist" - Arthur Ashe

  8. #23

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    What I am finding even more offensive than the totally offensive use of "racial entitlement" by Scalia is this: It is being seen as a given that Clarence Thomas is going to vote to dismantle Section 5. If anything, that shows an even greater out-of-touch-with-reality status than Michelle Bachman voting against the Violence Against Women Act. Clarence Thomas offends my sensibility on levels that even the most offensive Congressmen have failed to achieve. GH

  9. #24

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Glenn that "Silent Clarence" couldn't even rouse himself to question the man widely known as his puppet master's insult of not the "them" in abstract but the "him" in reality galls on so many levels I'm reduced to sputtering incoherently. If it wasn't for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan Scalia's soliloquy would've gone unchallenged. Justice Sotomayor could barely contain her anger.

    Clarence's assumed vote against Section 5 is just as despicable as Bachman voting against VAWA. Dante didn't present the special ring of hell these two will occupy.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  10. #25
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    The big social issue cases of this term are argued tomorrow and Wednesday - given Ginsberg's public statements on Roe, Robert's compassion for his lesbian cousin (who is his mother's goddaughter, and will be in attendance at the hearing tomorrow), Kennedy's public statements (and written opinions) which indicate he's sympathetic to gay civil rights, and Scalia's vehement arguments that state rights need to be afforded the utmost respect, this case could be decided on anything from a 9-0 to a fully split vote, to deciding favorably on one case, and against the other):

    Supreme Court gay marriage cases could set stage for dramatic societal changes

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in two cases that have the potential to transform American society and the status of gays and lesbians in it.

    In oral arguments on Tuesday morning the 9 justices will consider whether California’s voter approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, unfairly discriminates against gay people. On Wednesday, they’ll consider whether the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act barring the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in states that allow them, constitutes federal overreach.

    Both cases could change the everyday lives of gay people and transform the larger, decades old gay rights movement, which has pursued both a court-based and political strategy to gain more legal protections for gay people. But the California Prop 8 case in particular, called Perry v. Hollingsworth, is considered by both pro and anti-gay marriage camps to be the most important, and potentially sweeping, of the two.

    In Perry, there's a possibility that the court could declare that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage just as heterosexual couples do. Such a decision would send a message from the court that both same sex and heterosexual relationships must be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

    “There aren’t many Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to be as transformative,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law.
    If the court finds a right to marriage for gay people, Chermerinsky said, “it will matter enormously in the lives of millions of gays and lesbians in terms of their ability to marry and it also would be a very profound statement of the court that gays and lesbians are subject to equal protection under the law.”

    John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and the chairman for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, also sees the potential for big, but negative, changes should the court decide to invalidate Prop 8. He says a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage will "forever sever the ties between marriage and children" and discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.

    “It's hard to imagine a more compelling interest than the survival of the species," Eastman said of why the government should be able to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. "We would survive in a way, but without the institution of marriage...you commodify children when you take away the intimate family structure.”

    Just 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear a case brought by a gay couple who wanted to get married in Minnesota, writing that that their claim raised no significant legal issue. At the time, legal opinions often treated homosexuality as criminal, sexually deviant behavior rather than involuntary sexual orientation.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the current court's conservative-leaning swing vote, departed from that tone when he wrote the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas opinion striking down state sodomy laws. Gay people have a right to privacy in their own homes to practice whatever consensual sexual behavior they wish, Kennedy wrote, in a decision that substantially expanded gay rights in the U.S.

    Advocates hope that decision may mean Kennedy will side with them on marriage this time around.

    No one knows how broadly the justices will rule, but the fact that they voted to take both the DOMA and Prop 8 cases at once signals that at least some of the justices may want to settle the question once and for all, by either affirming gay couples’ right to wed or shutting down entirely their constitutional claim to marriage.

    Rest of story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...-politics.html
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  11. #26
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Quick Words Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    52,112
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    I had to chuckle at the "the survival of the species" quip. I guess no one told him that the world's population topped 8 billion last year.

  12. #27
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Supreme Court hints that it won't issue sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage
    By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

    In a historic argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might be hesitant to strike down such laws.

    Following the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

    Williams said there seemed to be “very little eagerness” from any of the justices to “embrace that broad a ruling.”

    At issue in Tuesday’s argument was California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man, one-woman couples. Williams said that both the liberal and the conservative justices seemed wary of issuing a decision that would apply to any state outside of California.

    It is possible that a majority of the justices could support a limited ruling that applies only to California – or one that applies only to California and several other states which allow domestic partnerships that are almost identical to marriage in all but name.

    “Several members of the court seemed to be struggling to find a way to limit this case only to California and one way to do that might be simply to say that the Proposition 8 proponents had no legal power to bring this (suit) in the first place, and I think, frankly for the advocates of same-sex marriage, my guess is that’s the best they could hope for,” Williams said.

    Court observers caution that one should not read too much into the questions the justices ask during oral argument since they don’t necessarily reflect how any particular justice would ultimately vote in the case.

    Rest of story: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...-marriage?lite
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  13. #28
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Quick Words Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    52,112
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    I read a TPM piece on the arguments. Apparently only Scalia made a strong argument that the SCOTUS would have to make some sort of ruling on the case itself and it's merits rather than just throw it out as most of the justices seemed to prefer based on their questions. Something like, "We've already crossed that river."

    Tomorrow they take up DOMA. That's the case I'm more curious about.

  14. #29
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post
    I read a TPM piece on the arguments. Apparently only Scalia made a strong argument that the SCOTUS would have to make some sort of ruling on the case itself and it's merits rather than just throw it out as most of the justices seemed to prefer based on their questions. Something like, "We've already crossed that river."

    Tomorrow they take up DOMA. That's the case I'm more curious about.

    I haven't had the time to look, but I'm curious if RBG gave any indication of how she was leaning on the Prop 8 case. She's made a fair amount of noise in the time leading up to the case about how she felt Roe was decided incorrectly - she thought only the Texas law should have been invalidated, and the Court should have allowed the states more time to grapple with the abortion issue in their own legislatures. A lot of pundits seem to think she's likely to pursue that same line of reasoning here - rule on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, but not go so far as to recognize a right to marry under the Federal Constitution, and instead leaving it (for now) to the state legislatures to act.
    Last edited by Moose; 03-26-2013 at 11:20 AM.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  15. #30
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2012-2013

    Here's what seems to be a very good summary of the argument today - SCOTUS Blog is one of the best resources to get info on Supreme Court cases, and I've found it to be pretty free of bias from either side of the net:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/ar...l/#more-161752

    I'm also looking forward to hearing what Nina T reports over the next few days, since she generally has some inside information that no one understands how she gets insights that you won't hear elsewhere.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •