StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:19 PM) I guess I don't see the problem with what he said. There's not actually "considerable disagreement" among sociologists that same-sex adoption is harmful to children. There's not a good theoretical reason to believe it would be, and we have considerable empirical evidence to the contrary by now as well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) Disagree, either slavery was okay or it wasnt okay. I dont think there is any other way about that. Well, legally, it was until the 13th, right? Interestingly, aside from the most radical abolitionists of the period, it was assumed even by opponents of slavery that blacks were immutably inferior to whites. Even in the "free states," there were numerous black laws that explicitly deprived them of citizenship. Illinois and several other states had laws forbidding free blacks from immigrating there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) Then let's stop with the outlandish "he's the worst Justice ever" crap, huh? Why can't he be both? Broken clock and all that. edit he's not the worst ever, just the worst in my lifetime. edit2: e.g. when he tries to support Cooper immediately after the last section I quoted I look forward to his dissent in the DOMA case including "homosexual agenda!" like his Lawrence dissent did.

It's a broader "damage to marriage/society" argument http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...pts/12-144a.pdf

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 09:35 AM) I know you said that your ideology was impervious to facts, but I thought this study was interesting and decided to post it anyway! http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.ns...FC?OpenDocument "Go to school and get a job" doesn't really work as a long-term retirement plan when wages stagnate for decades as costs of living keep on climbing. e.g. Meet the CEO Who Cut Worker Pay in Half While Pulling in $21 Million Last Year

I've never taken a law class so it's probable that I've misunderstood, but I think the prop 8 defenders are arguing that it passes a rational basis test, and that rational basis would necessarily rely on social science findings i.e. the harm that gay marriage would (supposedly) cause. e.g. MR. COOPER: Your Honor, we -- we go further in -- in the sense that it is reasonable to be very concerned that redefining marriage to -- as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to that institution and to the interests that society has always -- has -- has always used that institution to address. But, Your Honor, I

His writing style is still better suited to talk radio or editorials but I'm not going to say he's wrong when he's solidly correct here. I'd prefer Kagan's privacy grounds over Scalia's property grounds but it's still a good ruling and a good result.

Reading Volokh blog comments, it appears that it could be in reference to the pro-Prop 8 side's arguments that rely on social science e.g. "what's best for the children." edit: also that they took this case primarily to settle the standing issue anyway where a state government declines to defend a ballot initiative's legality. There was a ruling released today that found that you can't bring a drug dog onto someone's porch and then search the home if the dog alerts. Scalia with a good opinion and Kagan with a (better) concurrence. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) So who is the 5th that wont go for it, thats the real question. I was thinking Roberts was going to, because he wants to be justice that will be remembered. Kennedy according to oral arguments/scotusblog, but he was supposed to be the swing in ACA case so....

The State of California is refusing to defend Prop. 8 in the courts, so a group of private citizens is defending it instead. Sort of like the House wasting a bunch of money hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA. scotusblog has a summary of the oral arguments http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-prop...-oral-argument/

I think tossing it out on standing could lead to other issues since a state executive could essentially nullify state laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court.

From the oral arguments in the Prop 8 case today: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672 boo. probably will get tossed on standing, meaning that the 9th's ruling striking down Prop 8 stands but remains limited to California's unique set of facts.

Rich give less to charity than the poor and a lot of the wealthy giving is to social institutions like orchestras or the Met.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 22, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) Go to school get a degree or not, get a job, support yourself and/or your family. Spare me the charts and graphs that I know you are going to google for me showing wealth disparity...Don 't care.... I know you said that your ideology was impervious to facts, but I thought this study was interesting and decided to post it anyway! http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.ns...FC?OpenDocument "Go to school and get a job" doesn't really work as a long-term retirement plan when wages stagnate for decades as costs of living keep on climbing.

knightni how can you so such little regard for human life?!?!!!! you monster!

Apropos, new study finds inequality has become more permanent, not transitory http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...=rss_ezra-klein hard to save for retirement when you're not making much money in the first place

Woo!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Sigh, hey it's Illinois basketball.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) It's a sad story, and it sucks, and it's a good thing we have programs like Medicare and Social Security to help people like this, Sure, when that kicks in a few a more years, maybe he can finally get the chronic cough and asthma looked at. Oh, and he'll get a modest SS check, which will help, but it'll still be pretty marginal. Well, potentially, it could, but I could point out that we have more than enough wealth in this country to afford a modest retirement. You may have no problem with the wealth distribution in this country, but I do, especially when this is what it results in. A tiny few horde an obscene amount of wealth, more than could be spent in a dozen lifetimes, while millions struggle to just get by. For a while, after WWII, we had a society that was growing rapidly, rewarding those at the top nicely and growing a robust middle class and bringing up wages across the board. In the early 80's, that stopped. It's not surprising that people have not been able to save up much in the intervening decades, especially when you throw in that lost decade+ we're mired in right now. This retirement problem will suck for most people. Eliminating the regressive SS cap and doubling benefits would be a huge start. edit: instead our whole media/political class discussion is centered on just how much we should cut these programs because, again, we're ruled by the stupidest f***ing people on the planet

Not sure what part of that is "fear-mongering doomsday prophecy." It's attainable data and it's from a guy who writes a bunch of retirement advice for Forbes, not some Marxist sociologist writing for Jacobin. Aside from being only about a month into the cuts so lol@u if you think it'd show up instantly, it's also not the same thing at all as a CBO GDP and employment hit projection. It's simply looking at data of exactly where things are now and seeing "oh s***, people don't have any money for retirement, this is going to be very bad."

Personal anecdote: my wife's uncle worked as a retail manager for decades. In 2009, at the age of 60, he lost his job. When unemployment ran out, he had to start drawing from his 401k to cover his mortgage (on his small house). He's been unable to find steady, full-time employment anywhere since 2009 because no one's hiring someone in their 60's for that type of management. His 401k is mostly gone and it's possible that he's eventually going to lose his house. His situation is far from unique, yet your response appears to be even more callous than "let them eat cake."

How does a consumer-driven economy with stagnant wages and ever-rising living expenses function with significantly high savings rates? Again, either way, the system isn't working. Is your answer just "oh well, f*** you, shoulda invested better 30 years ago, enjoy elderly poverty?"