Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor makes the best argument for the defeat of DOMA in a single question to a stumped attorney   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 232
    More: Hero, Sonia Sotomayor, DOMA, Academy Award, America Ferrera, same-sex marriages, attorney-in-fact  
•       •       •

12189 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 06:54:58 AM  
Lol what a terrible lawyer. You don't have to agree with your opponent but you certainly should anticipate their arguments and understand why you think their argument is incorrect.

And his response at the end? Priceless. Yes let's focus on the procreation component of marriage. I haven't had enough lols today.
 
2013-03-28 08:36:12 AM  
That was three questions.
 
2013-03-28 08:40:16 AM  
This is really more of a lawyer fail than it is Sotomayor pwning the opposition. I don't agree with prop 8 at all and I think the folks defending it are tools, but how can you seriously go into the supreme court without a prepared response for that kind of question?

Probably because there is no response to it that will stand up to scrutiny, but still.
 
2013-03-28 08:54:08 AM  
Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.
 
2013-03-28 09:18:10 AM  

Bontesla: Lol what a terrible lawyer. You don't have to agree with your opponent but you certainly should anticipate their arguments and understand why you think their argument is incorrect.

And his response at the end? Priceless. Yes let's focus on the procreation component of marriage. I haven't had enough lols today.


But that is the problem with this position. Being against same-sex marriage is only supported by some religions and bigots. They recently have switched to children because they knew that SCOTUS would reject "because god"
 
2013-03-28 09:19:16 AM  

GiantRex: This is really more of a lawyer fail than it is Sotomayor pwning the opposition.


But you would assume that this lawyer is the BEST that the position has, right?
Why would you hire a moron to argue your case in front of SCOTUS?

So this is the BEST they have.

If not this time, next time.
It is over, the only question is when will the fat lady sing.
 
2013-03-28 09:20:23 AM  
I kinda thought this was a no brainer, but I live in derp in the heart of Texas and man my FB wall lit up with Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve shiat yesterday... just bigots crawling out of the wood work and only half were my relatives.
 
2013-03-28 09:22:02 AM  
Scalia was overheard to say "Oh Snap" after that one
Kennedy followed up with "You got told"
 
2013-03-28 09:22:17 AM  
Cooper answered that marriage needed to be protected because of "responsible procreation" is a "vital" interest to the state and society and because "same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated."

Responsible procreation?  Meaning using condoms?

If I were there, I'd have to ask what the FARK he's talking about with 'responsible procreation'.
 
2013-03-28 09:22:34 AM  

DamnYankees: Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.


[stoplikingthingsidontlike.jpg]
 
2013-03-28 09:24:03 AM  
Too bad logical argument and juridical insight into technical aspects of the law aren't what decides this case. Face it, homo-friends, your only hope is that Stevens crawls out from under his shell long enough to convince the leftwingers to sign on to his paleolithic state's rights theory.
 
2013-03-28 09:24:05 AM  
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

Wouldn't "Don't Ask Don't Tell" technically have been an answer to that question? I mean, I know that it's been repealed, was being challenged in court and is universally reviled, but it hadn't yet been ruled unconstitutional, so technically...
 
2013-03-28 09:24:22 AM  
 
2013-03-28 09:24:31 AM  

Bontesla: Lol what a terrible lawyer. You don't have to agree with your opponent but you certainly should anticipate their arguments and understand why you think their argument is incorrect.

And his response at the end? Priceless. Yes let's focus on the procreation component of marriage. I haven't had enough lols today.


Done in one.  Every appellate attorney is supposed to be able to predict and answer questions.  And while this is a very good question, it isn't so novel or unthinkable that he should not have predicted it.
 
2013-03-28 09:25:41 AM  
The whole procreation thing doesn't even make sense. What, if gays marry, 85-90% of the rest of the world is going to stop farking just on principal?
 
2013-03-28 09:25:57 AM  

DamnYankees: Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.


Erick Erickson wrote a goddamn sermon yesterday.
 
2013-03-28 09:26:03 AM  
That's sums up their defense of Prop 8.  Those against gay marriage have one of two reasons (or both) 1. I find it icky or 2. My god says...  Neither of those reasons are legal grounds from denying equal rights.
 
2013-03-28 09:26:41 AM  
Activist judges in 3....2....
 
2013-03-28 09:27:05 AM  
I don't get it, how does denying gays marriage somehow encourage heteros to marry?  Am I to assume that they think that if gays could marry, untold amounts of men and women, who are normally straight, woudl suddenly switch teams, and stop breeding?
 
2013-03-28 09:27:45 AM  

Bontesla: Lol what a terrible lawyer


GiantRex: This is really more of a lawyer fail


You should have seen this guy "argue" the Prop 8 case at the other levels of the appeal. He's just not very good. The pro-Prob 8 "expert" who testified at the trial and on the stand changed his position to support the plaintiffs was a winnar too.

/in their defense, it's hard to make a tasty steak out of 16 oz of pure bull shiat

//The Supreme Court should never have granted cert -- the case was so poorly-argued and the record so shiattily developed it's like going hunting for baby seals.
 
2013-03-28 09:30:08 AM  
Cooper answered that marriage needed to be protected because of "responsible procreation" is a "vital" interest to the state and society and because "same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated."


How the fark is this in the interest of society?

cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2013-03-28 09:30:10 AM  
The twists of logic these people are going through to avoid stating their one and only reason to oppose legalized homosexual marriages is amusing...

They know the days of bigotry and religious dogma being codified into law are rapidly coming to a close, and they just can't accept it, can they?

They wear their ignorance, willful or otherwise, proudly on their sleeves. They just aren't capable of adapting to the modern world or accepting that their views have become outdated.

I actually feel a bit sorry for these people... They're pathetic. They're not even worthy of hate.
 
2013-03-28 09:31:39 AM  

Tax Boy: You should have seen this guy "argue" the Prop 8 case at the other levels of the appeal. He's just not very good. The pro-Prob 8 "expert" who testified at the trial and on the stand changed his position to support the plaintiffs was a winnar too.


To be fair, the other side arguing against DOMA made some pretty big blunders as well. The lawyer for the woman who brought the suit literally missed a moment to peg Scalia into a corner on states rights, the definition of marriage, and federalism. Scalia opened his mouth and said something monumentally stupid as a counter argument to an initial statement and she blew it.
 
2013-03-28 09:31:43 AM  

halB: Bontesla: Lol what a terrible lawyer. You don't have to agree with your opponent but you certainly should anticipate their arguments and understand why you think their argument is incorrect.

And his response at the end? Priceless. Yes let's focus on the procreation component of marriage. I haven't had enough lols today.

Done in one.  Every appellate attorney is supposed to be able to predict and answer questions.  And while this is a very good question, it isn't so novel or unthinkable that he should not have predicted it.


I can see what the guy was trying to do - he was trying to limit his argument to a very narrow concept as a way to remain reasonable and to make it easier to defend his position. I'm not saying he did it well, just that it was a strategic choice (one that often works too).
 
2013-03-28 09:32:26 AM  
At this point, the gay marriage issue is like the ending of the extended release of Return of the King. We know it's over. We've seen the end. We're just waiting for all the farking epilogues to finish so the credits roll. Get on the boat, Frodo!
 
2013-03-28 09:32:33 AM  

DamnYankees: Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.


Which is strange because the Bible doesn't say a damn thing about gay marriage
 
2013-03-28 09:32:55 AM  

China White Tea: How the fark is this in the interest of society?


I really, really feel for those kids. I hope at least a few of them escape. The oldest one has completely taken on the same persona. His wife is even starting to look like his mother already and she's only like 22.

Granted, she's about to have her third kid.
 
2013-03-28 09:33:17 AM  

Bontesla: Lol what a terrible lawyer. You don't have to agree with your opponent but you certainly should anticipate their arguments and understand why you think their argument is incorrect.

And his response at the end? Priceless. Yes let's focus on the procreation component of marriage. I haven't had enough lols today.


Is procreation even a component of marriage? People can procreate without marrying and vice versa, so there doesn't seem to be even a weak logical connection there.
 
2013-03-28 09:34:14 AM  
I would be much more impressed with compelling arguments against legalizing same sex marriage.  That would be a noteworthy feat of mental gymnastics bordering on a super power.

The lawyers arguing against same sex marriage are really in a tough position.   I don't envy them.  I dislike them but I don't envy them.  Hell, just look at the stupid shiat Scalia is pulling out of his to try and find something to get traction with.
 
2013-03-28 09:34:55 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Tax Boy: You should have seen this guy "argue" the Prop 8 case at the other levels of the appeal. He's just not very good. The pro-Prob 8 "expert" who testified at the trial and on the stand changed his position to support the plaintiffs was a winnar too.

To be fair, the other side arguing against DOMA made some pretty big blunders as well. The lawyer for the woman who brought the suit literally missed a moment to peg Scalia into a corner on states rights, the definition of marriage, and federalism. Scalia opened his mouth and said something monumentally stupid as a counter argument to an initial statement and she blew it.


I think getting directly antagonistic with a Supreme Court justice is a faux pas, no matter how much of a farking tool he is.
 
2013-03-28 09:36:37 AM  

jayhawk88: The whole procreation thing doesn't even make sense. What, if gays marry, 85-90% of the rest of the world is going to stop farking just on principal?


You just don't seem to understand how tempting it is to the men of the GOP. If it was totally legal and accepted they would not have to hide in public men's rooms any longer.
 
2013-03-28 09:36:56 AM  

soaboutthat: That's sums up their defense of Prop 8.  Those against gay marriage have one of two reasons (or both) 1. I find it icky or 2. My god says...  Neither of those reasons are legal grounds from denying equal rights.


This.

Every secular argument that the anti-gay marriage groups have put up simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.   Responsible procreation?  Not only does that argument not come close to applying, they would have to also ban divorce,premarital sex and marriages of the elderly/sterile to enact marriage rules on"responsible" procreation guidelines.

The ONLY argument that makes any sense is the "my god doesn't like it" argument and we can't enact policy based on only religious grounds; if we do, we have to ban activities that are prohibited by ALL religions, not just some.

/enjoy your burkahs and Sharia law.
 
2013-03-28 09:38:04 AM  

Macinfarker: I wonder if that lawyer was present at the conception of Strom Thurmond's last child


Drew should give Satanic_Hamster a year of TF.
 
2013-03-28 09:38:06 AM  
Hey, this guy will be able to tell everyone that he was part of a landmark court case. Bravely in front of the Supreme Court for one of the most important moments in equality and personal rights our country has ever seen.

Hell just need to leave out the part where he was representing the religious bigots.
 
2013-03-28 09:40:31 AM  

Bloody William: I think getting directly antagonistic with a Supreme Court justice is a faux pas, no matter how much of a farking tool he is.


IDK, we're talking about Scalia I think taking any moment to show how much of a tool he is....well that's lady Just Justice weeping in the corner in happiness at your actions.
 
2013-03-28 09:41:52 AM  

DamnYankees: Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.


I've been seeing this too.  It's amazing how they see no problem with imposing their religion on others, but would probably throw a farking hissy fit if the Jews started trying to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing pork products, or if Muslims tried to pass an amendment outlawing skimpy clothing on ladies.

For the record, I'd be against those two examples just as much as I'm for gay marriage.  And I REALLY love bacon and scantily clad young ladies.
 
2013-03-28 09:42:25 AM  
Oh, for the hell of it, just tell her because they're godless sodomites, okay?

/and follow up with telling her get out of Merica
 
2013-03-28 09:43:39 AM  
tempest.fluidartist.com
 
2013-03-28 09:46:07 AM  

bhcompy: DamnYankees: Reading conservative blogs (which I do a lot), it's interesting to how many of them are now openly retreating into the Bible as their defense of this. For so long they tried so hard to keep this argument secular, and it now feels like even they know they have just flat out lost this fight.

Which is strange because the Bible doesn't say a damn thing about gay marriage


Since when has something not being in the bible ever stopped them?
 
2013-03-28 09:49:15 AM  

keylock71: The twists of logic these people are going through to avoid stating their one and only reason to oppose legalized homosexual marriages is amusing...

They know the days of bigotry and religious dogma being codified into law are rapidly coming to a close, and they just can't accept it, can they?

They wear their ignorance, willful or otherwise, proudly on their sleeves. They just aren't capable of adapting to the modern world or accepting that their views have become outdated.

I actually feel a bit sorry for these people... They're pathetic. They're not even worthy of hate.


A bunch of my bible-thumping friends are trying to use libertarianism as a stance against gay marriage now. It's by far the most retarded argument I've ever heard of, but it goes like this (paraphrased for brevity):

Him: I don't believe that Government should even have a concept of Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that should only be managed by the churches, and the Government should have nothing to do with it or recognize them in any way.
Me: So Atheists can't get married?
Him: If they can find a church that will accept their conversion and marry them, sure they can.
Me: So this means you're against Gay Marriage then.
Him: I didn't say that. If they can find a church that's willing to accept the consequences of going against the bible and marries gay people, then I'm ok with that.
Me: (backs away)


I predict this Fauxbertarian argument to become more and more prevalent in the coming months once it's clear that the 1st Amendment nullifies the Biblical argument for DOMA. Much like how the Tea Party are allegedly Libertarian but then turn into radical fascists as soon as you examine any of their policy positions.
 
2013-03-28 09:50:49 AM  

MithrandirBooga: keylock71: The twists of logic these people are going through to avoid stating their one and only reason to oppose legalized homosexual marriages is amusing...

They know the days of bigotry and religious dogma being codified into law are rapidly coming to a close, and they just can't accept it, can they?

They wear their ignorance, willful or otherwise, proudly on their sleeves. They just aren't capable of adapting to the modern world or accepting that their views have become outdated.

I actually feel a bit sorry for these people... They're pathetic. They're not even worthy of hate.

A bunch of my bible-thumping friends are trying to use libertarianism as a stance against gay marriage now. It's by far the most retarded argument I've ever heard of, but it goes like this (paraphrased for brevity):

Him: I don't believe that Government should even have a concept of Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that should only be managed by the churches, and the Government should have nothing to do with it or recognize them in any way.
Me: So Atheists can't get married?
Him: If they can find a church that will accept their conversion and marry them, sure they can.
Me: So this means you're against Gay Marriage then.
Him: I didn't say that. If they can find a church that's willing to accept the consequences of going against the bible and marries gay people, then I'm ok with that.
Me: (backs away)


I predict this Fauxbertarian argument to become more and more prevalent in the coming months once it's clear that the 1st Amendment nullifies the Biblical argument for DOMA. Much like how the Tea Party are allegedly Libertarian but then turn into radical fascists as soon as you examine any of their policy positions.


Oh yea, I've been seeing the "Get government totally out of marriage" crap too. When I point out that marriage is a civil contract and all civil contracts are enforced by the legal system, they short circuit and just keep yelling that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.
 
2013-03-28 09:53:10 AM  

Bloody William: I think getting directly antagonistic with a Supreme Court justice is a faux pas, no matter how much of a farking tool he is.


I wouldn't get antagonistic in front of any judge, ever.  Especially with the Supreme Court.  You don't have to convince them all, just five.
 
2013-03-28 09:53:36 AM  

Antimatter: I don't get it, how does denying gays marriage somehow encourage heteros to marry?  Am I to assume that they think that if gays could marry, untold amounts of men and women, who are normally straight, woudl suddenly switch teams, and stop breeding?


Yes.  The only thing keeping millions of people from gayness, and millions of biological clocks to stop, is DOMA.
 
2013-03-28 09:56:31 AM  

bhcompy: Which is strange because the Bible doesn't say a damn thing about gay marriage


Well, it does indirectly.  In various passages, it refers to marriage as being between a man and a woman, prohibits men from withholding children from his wife and condemning men from having sexual relations with other men.  Its not a big leap to string those together and say that gay marriage is prohibited.

The issue is that there are a LOT of things that are prohibited in the bible that we don't care about any more.  Right above the "men shouldn't be with other men" part there are passages prohibiting men from shaving their beards or getting tattoos.

The bible thumpers pick and choose which passages they want to believe and which they want to ignore, which is reason enough to dismiss the argument altogether.
 
2013-03-28 09:57:20 AM  

MithrandirBooga: I predict this Fauxbertarian argument to become more and more prevalent in the coming months once it's clear that the 1st Amendment nullifies the Biblical argument for DOMA. Much like how the Tea Party are allegedly Libertarian but then turn into radical fascists as soon as you examine any of their policy positions.


I've heard a different one. It goes something like this:

Libertarian: "Marriage should be just like any other contract."
Me: "Marriage is a special type of contract that can be binding on outside parties."
Libertarian: "How so?"
Me: "Hospitals don't have to be party to a contract in order to be bound to give visitation rights to spouses."
Libertarian: "I don't agree with that."
Me: "You don't agree spouses should automatically have visitation rights?"
Libertarian: "No, that's trespassing."

That paraphrase in no way misrepresents what he said. Honest to God.
 
2013-03-28 09:57:24 AM  

Rann Xerox: Macinfarker: I wonder if that lawyer was present at the conception of Strom Thurmond's last child

Drew should give Satanic_Hamster a year of TF.


No doubt.  It takes a special farker to create a meme entirely from scratch.  +1 internets to him.
 
2013-03-28 09:58:08 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Him: I didn't say that. If they can find a church that's willing to accept the consequences of going against the bible and marries gay people, then I'm ok with that.


The Quakers are one group that will do it.
 
2013-03-28 09:59:37 AM  

Genevieve Marie: MithrandirBooga: keylock71: The twists of logic these people are going through to avoid stating their one and only reason to oppose legalized homosexual marriages is amusing...

They know the days of bigotry and religious dogma being codified into law are rapidly coming to a close, and they just can't accept it, can they?

They wear their ignorance, willful or otherwise, proudly on their sleeves. They just aren't capable of adapting to the modern world or accepting that their views have become outdated.

I actually feel a bit sorry for these people... They're pathetic. They're not even worthy of hate.

A bunch of my bible-thumping friends are trying to use libertarianism as a stance against gay marriage now. It's by far the most retarded argument I've ever heard of, but it goes like this (paraphrased for brevity):

Him: I don't believe that Government should even have a concept of Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that should only be managed by the churches, and the Government should have nothing to do with it or recognize them in any way.
Me: So Atheists can't get married?
Him: If they can find a church that will accept their conversion and marry them, sure they can.
Me: So this means you're against Gay Marriage then.
Him: I didn't say that. If they can find a church that's willing to accept the consequences of going against the bible and marries gay people, then I'm ok with that.
Me: (backs away)


I predict this Fauxbertarian argument to become more and more prevalent in the coming months once it's clear that the 1st Amendment nullifies the Biblical argument for DOMA. Much like how the Tea Party are allegedly Libertarian but then turn into radical fascists as soon as you examine any of their policy positions.

Oh yea, I've been seeing the "Get government totally out of marriage" crap too. When I point out that marriage is a civil contract and all civil contracts are enforced by the legal system, they short circuit and just keep yelling that the govern ...


The best part is when their argument essentially boils down to "I think the supreme court should uphold DOMA because the government should have no right to determine who gets to marry and who doesn't", not even realising that the two halves of their position are mutually exclusive. Granted they don't quite word it that way, they keep saying things like "The supreme court shouldn't even be looking at this case" or something similar. I honestly get the feeling like they just want to shout "GAYS ARE TEH EVILS" but are afraid to do it because of the backlash.

Then don't get me started on the "states rights" nutters. "This isn't a federal issue. Marriage is a state issue". *facepalm*
 
2013-03-28 10:00:52 AM  

Genevieve Marie: MithrandirBooga: 
I predict this Fauxbertarian argument to become more and more prevalent in the coming months once it's clear that the 1st Amendment nullifies the Biblical argument for DOMA. Much like how the Tea Party are allegedly Libertarian but then turn into radical fascists as soon as you examine any of their policy positions.

Oh yea, I've been seeing the "Get government totally out of marriage" crap too. When I point out that marriage is a civil contract and all civil contracts are enforced by the legal system, they short circuit and just keep yelling that the govern ...


There's also the "we should change the name of 'marriage' to 'civil unions' and then everyone can have one, and marriages will only be for the religious"... which is explicitly saying "we want to have the power to make marriage an exclusive club with no gays or atheists."
 
2013-03-28 10:02:20 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Oh yea, I've been seeing the "Get government totally out of marriage" crap too. When I point out that marriage is a civil contract and all civil contracts are enforced by the legal system, they short circuit and just keep yelling that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.


The same people also want the government to stay out of their Medicare, so at least they're being consistent.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report