StrangeSox

I thought this is a good response w.r.t. "timing"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) An appellate court can rule on that issue. The 9th asked the California SC to do so, which the CSC did and found that they did have standing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) Well that's true. I guess I was assuming we're talking about the here and now. For Kennedy to say it's too early to decide is sort of a copout. Based on what we know now he can decide if it's constitutional or not. He's kicking the can down the road, which makes me wonder why they decided to hear the case at all. To address standing and whether or not citizens can flood the court with legal challenges a state would normally handle.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional. Prop 8 opponents were making the legal argument that SSM bans are a Constitutional violation and were asking the Court to make a national ruling, e.g. Brown v Board didn't apply to one particular school board.

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.