Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:06:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor  (Read 2337 times)
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 27, 2015, 04:39:24 AM »

That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2015, 04:48:36 AM »

GOP misjudged homophobia will loose house with MadamePrez costtails for Pa, OH, Va 272 frewal
+6 Seats
GOP will hold La

But Omalley wins La due to tenure as mayor of baltimore
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2015, 05:04:34 AM »

GOP misjudged homophobia will loose house with MadamePrez costtails for Pa, OH, Va 272 frewal
+6 Seats
GOP will hold La

But Omalley wins La due to tenure as mayor of baltimore

this is a marked improvement over your usual posts. keep it up! Cheesy
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2015, 09:37:58 AM »

Someone forgot to log into his t-host account...
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2015, 11:39:39 AM »

Someone forgot to log into his t-host account...
Obvious parody of OC is obvious.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2015, 11:42:39 AM »

Well to be fair, many of the voters in their districts are still bravely going against the grain.

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2015, 12:27:02 AM »

That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.
So they were a few years behind the Democrats.

That's not particularly important.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2015, 12:38:06 AM »

Have any Republicans who previously were against or ambiguously opposed to SSM come out in support since the ruling? I've only seen support from Republicans that already were pro-gay, like IRL and Charlie Baker.


That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.
So they were a few years behind the Democrats.

That's not particularly important.

That not how the history books will be written, and you know it.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2015, 12:39:48 AM »

And any who do now should be prepared to be primaried.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2015, 02:05:53 AM »

And any who do now should be prepared to be primaried.

So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2015, 02:07:43 AM »


So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.

There is no inevitability. It takes one new conservative justice replacing one of the 5 who voted in favor to ask for reconsideration of the case.  If that path to reversal is not on the agenda of the GOP candidate, I'm not interested in supporting them.
The preferred path to reversal is proposal of an amendment and a firm commitment to appoint strict constructionists.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2015, 02:20:55 AM »
« Edited: June 28, 2015, 02:32:58 AM by Zioneer »


So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.

There is no inevitability. It takes one new conservative justice replacing one of the 5 who voted in favor to ask for reconsideration of the case.  If that path to reversal is not on the agenda of the GOP candidate, I'm not interested in supporting them.
The preferred path to reversal is proposal of an amendment and a firm commitment to appoint strict constructionists.

Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as I can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2015, 02:28:03 AM »



Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights.  If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption. 

The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then.  I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2015, 02:41:42 AM »



Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights.  If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption. 

The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then.  I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.

But same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when the 14th amendment was adopted. It could be said to be a right, but one that absolutely no one acknowledged for decades.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2015, 06:27:03 AM »



Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights.  If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption. 

The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then.  I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.

But same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when the 14th amendment was adopted. It could be said to be a right, but one that absolutely no one acknowledged for decades.
There's also the fact that heterosexual marriage has profoundly changed since 1868. In 1868, marriage was not a union of two equals under the law. Changes since then have eliminated specific gender-based roles in civil marriage.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2015, 09:03:23 AM »

Have any Republicans who previously were against or ambiguously opposed to SSM come out in support since the ruling? I've only seen support from Republicans that already were pro-gay, like IRL and Charlie Baker.


That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.
So they were a few years behind the Democrats.

That's not particularly important.

That not how the history books will be written, and you know it.
History books aren't going to show most Democrats on the vanguard.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2015, 09:16:34 AM »



Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

Why the hell wouldn't it? Seriously.

There's a downright thugish element to such logic, that picking up a supreme court seat to reverse a law is no different than winning an open senate seat to reverse a law. It utterly and absolutely ignores the differing role of the judicial branch.

Though liberals can be said to feel the same way towards close conservative decisions like Citizens United.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2015, 09:49:19 AM »



Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

Why the hell wouldn't it? Seriously.

There's a downright thugish element to such logic, that picking up a supreme court seat to reverse a law is no different than winning an open senate seat to reverse a law. It utterly and absolutely ignores the differing role of the judicial branch.

Though liberals can be said to feel the same way towards close conservative decisions like Citizens United.

Stare decisis is at its weakest when it comes to controversial decisions about the interpretation of Constitutional text. Having said that, buttressing it as time goes by, would be that a reversal could dissolve a lot of gay marriages, entered into on reliance on this decision, and obviously such a consequence would be even more problematical than the disruption of contracts involving mere money entered into on reliance on a SCOTUS decision. The ying and the yang. In this case, given public opinion, where it is  (majority support SSM), and where it is going (supra majority support SSM), there won't be an overturning anyway. It's not like the abortion decisions.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2015, 10:10:31 AM »

But Torie, you want a Republican President to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn this decision, if they got the chance.  No?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2015, 10:21:58 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2015, 05:54:35 PM by Torie »

But Torie, you want a Republican President to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn this decision, if they got the chance.  No?

Oh, it is way more complicated than that for me.

1. I have not read the decision yet, and would need to do so, and closely, before deciding whether I think it is wrong, and if so, just how wrong, and just how mischievous the precedent is for other cases on other issues (e.g. the embracing of the "living Constitution" concept whole hog, hook, line and sinker).  As to the latter point, it may be that I would just want the rationale for the decision to be made on narrower grounds.

2. See my comment on stare decisis above. Dissolving a host of marriages is a real negative for overturning the decision.

3. If I had been on the Court, I might well have gone for a ruling that forced states to recognize out of state SSM but not forcing states to issue licenses for new marriages, based on the concept of right to travel, along with a concept analogous to the commerce clause ... that some state regulations place an undue burden on it, such as having unusual regulations for trucks, so that they cannot easily move across state lines.

4. Unlike a passel of Pub candidates, I am not much animated by the issue of this ruling creating the specter of infringement of religious expression. That issue can be resolved through other cases, that create the appropriate exceptions to protect such expression, which I have outlined in a post elsewhere. So that concern, should not preclude giving SSM marriages additional and appropriate Constitutional protection.

Hope that helps.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2015, 10:39:34 AM »

But Torie, you want a Republican President to appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn this decision, if they got the chance.  No?

Oh, it is way more complicated than that for me.

1. I have not read the decision yet, and would need to do so, and closely, before deciding whether I think it is wrong, and if so, just how wrong, and just how mischievous the precedent is for other cases on other issues (e.g. the embracing of the "living Constitution" concept whole hog, hook, line and sinker).  As to the latter point, it may be that I would just want the rationale for the decision to be made on narrower grounds.

2. See my comment on stare decisis above. Dissolving a host of marriages is a real negative for overturning the decision.

3. If I had been on the Court, I might well have gone for a ruling that forced states to recognize out of state SSM but not forcing states to issue licenses for new marriages, based on the concept of right to travel, along with a concept analogous to the commerce clause ... that some state regulations place an undue burden on it, such as having unusual regulations for trucks, so that they cannot easily move across state lines.

Hope that helps.

I don't think your darling Jeb Bush or Donald Trump or John Kasich are going to appoint you to the Supreme Court.  They would appoint Paul Clement or Mike Lee or some other crazy conservative.

So, what you think doesn't actually matter to my original point.  You want a Supreme Court who would overturn this decision, even if you don't necessarily want them to overturn this decision.  You're  that type of gay who is like a turkey that supports farmers with axes. 

And, just, holy cow, you're so pedantic.  If you're so against the living Constitution, you can't use trucks to ground your analysis of anything.  They weren't invented way back when.  Rather, you need to take your lawyer cap for a minute and think about why this decision happened.

Laws matter, but only so much.  Remember, we had the 14th Amendment during Jim Crow.  It didn't do anything to help black people.  Instead, what we needed was a social evolution where we viewed black people as equal to white people and deserving of the same rights.  That happened next for women.  And, now, for gay people.  We now view homosexuality as an immutable trait and homosexuality as a benign characteristic of a person, not a disease or a sin.  That is a change in the social facts informing our legal system.  Thus, this has nothing to do with a changing Constitution, it has to do with shifting social facts which inform the laws.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2015, 10:46:29 AM »

The litmus test will be proposing the constitutional amendment to Congress, and more importantly, appointing strict constructionists to the bench. 

If the candidate isn't going to do these things, I simply have no interest in them being President.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2015, 10:47:35 AM »

"You want a Supreme Court who would overturn this decision, even if you don't necessarily want them to overturn this decision."

That is not what I said, and I don't even understand your sentence. But I stand by what I wrote. I think it is clear enough, and that you disagree with it. That's hardly surprising.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2015, 11:53:50 AM »

The litmus test will be proposing the constitutional amendment to Congress, and more importantly, appointing strict constructionists to the bench. 

If the candidate isn't going to do these things, I simply have no interest in them being President.

But why is that the issue that animates you? Why is that the most important issue?
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2015, 12:36:46 PM »

That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.
So they were a few years behind the Democrats.

That's not particularly important.

Nor is it particularly noteworthy; republicans, you see, are nearly always a couple years behind the democrats.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.