StrangeSox

Tex, there's a decent amount of studies that support what you just said. There's a liberal lean in a lot of networks, but they tend to be more socially liberal but conservative economically. Hard-core liberals see the entire media as a puppet of conservative/ corporate interests/ big government. Hard-core conservatives see everyone left of Hannity and Limbaugh as flaming liberals bent on destroying America.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) I agree. The problem with banning a certain type of firearm is defining what is, and what is not, defined. Plus at some point, you pull the trigger and something potentially lethal flies out. Doesn't really matter if it is an assault weapon, something that looks like an assault weapon, or a simple remington .22 There's also the definition of an "assault weapon". Typically, it's a gun that looks scary but has the same or less lethal force than a rifle used for hunting. That, and they're rarely used in crimes, anyway.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) For overall crime rates, my hypothosis would be less guns equals less gun crimes. So I'm not certain that the ban would have no affect on gun crimes. But gun bans don't necessarily mean less guns in the hands of people likely to commit crimes. It means less guns in the hands of those likely to obey laws. I'm glad we have tight control on automatic weapons. I'm glad not everyone is allowed to own explosives and rockets. I don't have a problem with restrictions on weapons, but I don't see an outright ban on handguns as 1) common-sense or 2) effective.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone. Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example. The AWB was a complete joke, Balta. It banned guns based on cosmetic features but not on functionality in most cases. It was just a crappy law that didn't actually address anything important. And it didn't do anything wrt the weapons most often used in crimes -- cheap handguns. The SC agrees with you. They're still leaving states/ cities to best solve their own local issues, they just cannot enact outright bans.

that was the longest AB ever.

Why did this team go back to suck?

Jenks, you're disagreeing with the entire legal argument the majority is presenting. As I see it, you're saying state schools should not be allowed to have any form of non-discrimination policy for RSO's because it will 'discriminate' (using your novel definition of the term) against some groups. Precedent and now this decision strongly disagree.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) The problem is, as Alito points out, that when the group was denied the benefits the school DID have a policy that was NON-DISCRIMANATORY, yet despite having the same membership requirments, only this group was denied. You're right, they did EVENTUALLY change their policy, and attempted to back track during the case by saying that was the policy all along, but it wasn't. Just because they remedied the wrong and made it more "fair" doesn't mean the wrong didn't occur. That's why Alito attacked that lame ass excuse that during that time the group wasn't discriminated against "all that much." Did you read the majority opinion? They address Alito's argument on this very point. CSL agreed that the current policy is what's at stake here. They don't have to be retroactively admitted under an old policy and then grandfathered in forever. I responded to your hypothetical atheist group example right away. It was a poor choice because 1) I hate evangelical atheists and 2) I'm not an atheist. If they really do have an all-comers policy, as is agreed by both Hastings, CSL and the majority (but strangely not by Alito), then those groups should be corrected. They have been. Future groups should not be let in if they have similar policies. What is the problem, again? No. This is just the common argument that "if you're so tolerant, you can't be intolerant of intolerance!" It's redefining terms into meaninglessness. It's akin to the "no true altruism" argument. Ok, a neo-Nazi group not letting in Jews. Also, being gay is not a belief. Eh, no, they didn't, please read the majority opinion or both consenting to see where you're wrong instead of Alito's nonsense.

To clarify that statement, I feel sorry for the rest of the dissenters as well. Alito is not qualified for this job. Both the majority opinion and Stevens show where he's just making things up or being incredibly selective in his dissent.

More sloppy legal reasoning from Alito: I feel sorry for the rest of the justices that have to serve with someone who is so clearly their inferior. That includes the rest of the dissenters. Stevens all but calling Alito a moron without a leg to stand on: and again explaining why CLS's and Alito's arguments are invalid:

The main opinion explains it well, and again punches many holes through Alito's position over and over.

The reason why I was completely unsurprised on who dissented is that I don't expect they'd have the same arguments for a White Supremacist group or an Islamic Caliphate in America group.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) They are. He's saying it's not constitutional for a school to say "hey, any group whatsoever can be performed and recieve X benefits" and then specifically deny one group those same benefits because of a specific belief. And not only did they do that, but they also ignored the fact that other groups were doing the SAME thing and they only did that because of that one specific belief. That's not constitutional. The school said "hey, any group whatsoever that meets our administrative guidelines..." Don't leave that out. They did it because the group excluded some classes of people in a manner that violated non-discrimination pretty blatantly (religious and sexual orientation exclusion), not because of their beliefs. And, recognizing the potential problem, the other groups were told to change. If CLA modified their standards, they would likely be admitted. But you're right back to a very stupid, meaningless definition of non-discrimination. Under Alito's (and your's and russ's) reasoning, a KKK group could apply for official status with a whites-only membership policy and cry "discrimination!" A non-discrimination policy doesn't mean that the school is forced to accept any and all membership applications, even from blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic etc. groups. That is an absurd position to hold. Go read Stevens' affirmation. He lays this out very well. From the majority opinion: Alito's whole point is nonsensical. Stevens explains this and points out numerous flaws and crap definitions in the dissent. The school is allowed to review membership requirements and refuse official recognition based on a non-discrimination policy. They don't need to grant them recognition first, knowing full well what their policies are, and then wait until someone tries to join and is denied. And you're wrong here, because they denied application based on the "stated membership requirements" of the group. Explained here: And, now that this is settled law, I can simply say "you are wrong. It is Constitutional".

Because it fits a clear definition of discrimination, it doesn't need to be officially recognized by a state university. They are still free to form their group and even have meetings on campus.

Disallowing discriminatory groups is not discrimination. They are being considered on individual merit of their views. The argument that anyone advocating for social justice or non-discrimination has to allow in racist, homophobic or other hate groups drives me insane.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) I just read it. I guess what is your counter to his? I think he makes some good points, and is actually much more "liberal" (pro-free speech) than anyone else. I think Alito is right on - the school doesn't agree with the ideas expressed by the group, so it kept them out. But other groups could have and did the same thing, but because the school agreed with those messages, it didn't act. His entire argument is just an attempt to twist a non-discrimination policy back around on itself. He's arguing that they're discriminating against people who discriminate. It's the legal version of the "why do you hate racists?! I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded!" argument. That is a pretty stupid argument. I wouldn't have a problem if the University refused to grant official recognition to an atheist group that denied membership to religious people or required some silly "oath of faith." Plenty of minority groups on college campuses have a specific focus but let in anyone who wants to join. You can join the Korean Lawers group without being Korean. They didn't deny them because they hate gays, they denied them because they refused memberships to gays, jews, muslims, etc. etc. If we follow Alito's brilliant argument, what stops the school from being forced to recognize a local Stormfront, KKK or other racist organization? You can't discriminate against discrimination, man! eta: read Stevens' opinion "In the dissent’s view, by refusing to grant CLS an ex-emption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, Hastings violated CLS’s rights, for by proscribing unlawful dis-crimination on the basis of religion, the policy discrimi-nates unlawfully on the basis of religion. There are nu-merous reasons why this counterintuitive theory is unsound. Although the First Amendment may protect CLS’s discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them."

It didn't say that. I said they don't advocate strongly liberal positions, and they don't. MSNBC does not cover a majority of what I listed off the top of my head in any manner. The media, in general, is friendly to the corporate world. Probably because they're a large part of it. That's not a strong liberal position.

Outright socialism or communism. Nationalization of industry. Nationalized health care. Strict carbon caps. Abolition of the capitalist system. Promotion of strong feminist ideals. Complete withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Some stories about Mumia Abu-Jamal. More investigation of what the G20/ G8 protests are actually about; discussions of their positions; condemnation of police tactics used against the protesters. Significantly stronger environmental laws. Actual criticism of the Iraq War during 2002 and 2003 instead of cheer-leading. Pushing for charges to be brought against various Bush administration officials for various reasons. Removal of "Under God" and "In God we Trust" from government documents.

No, they don't openly advocate for socialism or communism or a whole range of liberal points. You're still conflating Democrats and left-wingers. There really is no mainstream media voice out there advocating far-left-wing views.

Well, for Alito, look at the top of this page. I'll have to get back to you on Scalia. Thomas usually just piggy-backs on those guys.

Fox pretty clearly advocates a pro-capitalism, pro-conservative viewpoint. Many of their opinion hosts and guests are right-wing (Hannity, Coulter, Beck) You do not see the equivalent of that for the left-wing. Again, don't confuse Democrat with liberal. How often is Kucinich largely mocked by the media? He's the closest to a hard-core liberal I can think of in the Senate. As for Byrd, every outlet I listened to (NPR, PBS and a couple seconds on CNN) covered that aspect. They reported on his apologies for it, but also pointed out his using "white n*****" a few years ago and his statement that "race problems were largely behind us" or something to that effect. And you know what I saw elsewhere? Liberals glad that this "racist POS" was out of Congress finally.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:49 AM) Come on. "bad," as if you're an expert on constitutional law. I'm not sure about Alito, but at least Scalia is pretty damned consistent in all of his opinions. Read his books and essays going back and forth with Richard Posner about the interpretation of law if you'd like to find out why he rules the way he does. You might disagree, but the guy has like 40 years of constitutional experience behind him. He knows a hell of a lot more about the law than any of us. That's my point. I'm not an expert, but he commits glaring logical fallacies, not legal ones. And I'm not a logician, either, so what does that tell you? I said the current court is politicized, and that cuts both ways. I asked, because I honestly don't know, how long it's been that way. Justices need to hold certain ideological view points in order to get nominated, and then they need to say-nothing enough to be confirmed. I think Keagan was right when she said the current process is a joke, but I don't see it changing. It's far too easy to score political points in Congress over the issue. Then again, the current process did keep out Harriet Myers. So there's always that.

Are they blocked from going to the HK version?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) LOL is all. What is the left-wing equivalent of Fox? Even Maddow doesn't advocate outright socialism.

Well, it wasn't "serious" like NBC Nightly News, but it wasn't satire, either. But man, that 1/2 news hour was something especially bad. Watch it some time. It's like they tried really, really hard to do the conservative version of The Daily Show, but completely failed to grasp what TDS actually does. Oh, and also failed to hire comedy writers.