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.

(Washington Post)   Kindergarten temper tantrum or what the Supreme Court calls "judicial intemperance"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 115
    More: Dumbass, kindergartens, workplace discrimination, Sonia Sotomayor, judicial restraint, comity, Ginsberg, Sandra Day O'Connor, majority opinion  
•       •       •

4359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 03:30:47 PM
Farklibs are upset that Alito mocks fools?  Really?
 
2013-06-25 03:33:49 PM

Granny_Panties: Can Obama appoint himself to the Supreme Court? Because awesome.


He can, but he would have to be approved by the Senate and then immediately resign as President.
 
2013-06-25 03:36:33 PM

themindiswatching: Prediction: DOMA and Prop. 8 get upheld. Their reasoning for Prop. 8 will be that it doesn't retroactively make gay marriages that happened previous to it invalid, so no one lost anything (?!). DOMA will be some "state rights" argument.


As a moderate/conservative, I actually expect the opposite.

Proposition 8, DOMA, and similar laws are in violation of "full faith and credit" clause of the USC. While choosing not to issue marriage licenses to certain couples is the right of each state, they cannot deny couples married in other states the same rights as in their home states. Prop 8 goes too far. As for DOMA, its a states-rights issue. Congress doesnt have the enumerated power to define marriage.
 
2013-06-25 03:46:18 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
"Chicks. Always farking up the rationality of men's work."

cdn.ph.upi.com
"Sam, could I see you outside for a moment?"

thedailyrecord.com
*oomph* *uuuuh* *OWWWWW* *that was my liver!*

2.bp.blogspot.com
"What I meant to say was, I'm honored as always to share the bench with such esteemed colleagues."
 
2013-06-25 03:49:12 PM

tbeatty: Farklibs are upset that Alito mocks fools?  Really?


I suppose you would have been fine with Ginsburg giving Alito biting her thumb at him as he read his opinions yesterday?
 
2013-06-25 03:50:44 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Proposition 8, DOMA, and similar laws are in violation of "full faith and credit" clause of the USC.


I think this will be the kicker. I don't see the Court forcing states to issue same-sex marriage licenses under the Equal Rights Amendment, but I do see them forcing states (and the Federal Government) to recognize same-sex spouses with all rights and benefits, so long as a legal marriage license has been issued in some state. If this is the case, it won't be long before all states issue same-sex marriage licenses.
 
2013-06-25 04:09:48 PM

Serious Black: tbeatty: Farklibs are upset that Alito mocks fools?  Really?

I suppose you would have been fine with Ginsburg giving Alito biting her thumb at him as he read his opinions yesterday?


img.gawkerassets.com
"Nay, as he dares; I will bite my thumb at him, which is a disgrace to him, if he bears it."

www.apfn.org
"Do you bite your thumb at me, madam?"

z.about.com
"I do bite my thumb, sir!"

images.usatoday.com
"Do you bite your thumb at me, madam?"

www.slate.com
"Is the law on my side, if I say aye?"

www.examiner.com
"Ruth, this is the Supreme Court. We decide what the law is!"

images.businessweek.com
"Bring it, Sammy boy!"
 
2013-06-25 04:12:41 PM

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: tbeatty: Farklibs are upset that Alito mocks fools?  Really?

I suppose you would have been fine with Ginsburg giving Alito biting her thumb at him as he read his opinions yesterday?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x272]
"Nay, as he dares; I will bite my thumb at him, which is a disgrace to him, if he bears it."

[www.apfn.org image 374x273]
"Do you bite your thumb at me, madam?"

[z.about.com image 400x446]
"I do bite my thumb, sir!"

[images.usatoday.com image 245x367]
"Do you bite your thumb at me, madam?"

[www.slate.com image 568x346]
"Is the law on my side, if I say aye?"

[www.examiner.com image 399x300]
"Ruth, this is the Supreme Court. We decide what the law is!"

[images.businessweek.com image 600x350]
"Bring it, Sammy boy!"


Thanks for that, buddy. I knew you'd do the Romeo and Juliet reference.
 
2013-06-25 04:23:38 PM
this is all dana milbank has got?  Alito needs to add more tommy tutone to his written opinions?  and i thought the right whined about every little damned thing.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:06 PM
It would be hilarious if  Ginsburg stopped, glared at Alito, and asked ominously,

"Is  there something you'd like to share with rest of us, young man?"
 
2013-06-25 04:59:10 PM

BarkingUnicorn: It would be hilarious if  Ginsburg stopped, glared at Alito, and asked ominously,

"Is  there something you'd like to share with rest of us, young man?"


Actually, just calling him "young man" in nearly any situation would be hilarious enough. More so if she followed it up with something along the lines of, "I hope you brought enough to share with everyone" or "I think you need to stay after Court and write 'I must respect my Senior Justices' three hundred times on the blackboard."
 
2013-06-25 05:10:40 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: themindiswatching: Prediction: DOMA and Prop. 8 get upheld. Their reasoning for Prop. 8 will be that it doesn't retroactively make gay marriages that happened previous to it invalid, so no one lost anything (?!). DOMA will be some "state rights" argument.

As a moderate/conservative, I actually expect the opposite.

Proposition 8, DOMA, and similar laws are in violation of "full faith and credit" clause of the USC. While choosing not to issue marriage licenses to certain couples is the right of each state, they cannot deny couples married in other states the same rights as in their home states. Prop 8 goes too far. As for DOMA, its a states-rights issue. Congress doesnt have the enumerated power to define marriage.


Yeah, I suspect that is most likely. Prop 8 thrown out only saying you can't take away the rights once granted (allowing some marriages to be grandfathered in, I would see as an issue as then there are people indisputably being treated differently). No affect in most states.

For DOMA you just dump it and then in time there will be another case to try and force states to recognize valid gay marriages from other states.

But, as with anything in court, there is always a chance this can go either way.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:18 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: themindiswatching: Prediction: DOMA and Prop. 8 get upheld. Their reasoning for Prop. 8 will be that it doesn't retroactively make gay marriages that happened previous to it invalid, so no one lost anything (?!). DOMA will be some "state rights" argument.

As a moderate/conservative, I actually expect the opposite.

Proposition 8, DOMA, and similar laws are in violation of "full faith and credit" clause of the USC. While choosing not to issue marriage licenses to certain couples is the right of each state, they cannot deny couples married in other states the same rights as in their home states. Prop 8 goes too far. As for DOMA, its a states-rights issue. Congress doesnt have the enumerated power to define marriage.


"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

ORLY?
 
2013-06-25 06:59:18 PM

Cataholic: FlyingLizardOfDoom: themindiswatching: Prediction: DOMA and Prop. 8 get upheld. Their reasoning for Prop. 8 will be that it doesn't retroactively make gay marriages that happened previous to it invalid, so no one lost anything (?!). DOMA will be some "state rights" argument.

As a moderate/conservative, I actually expect the opposite.

Proposition 8, DOMA, and similar laws are in violation of "full faith and credit" clause of the USC. While choosing not to issue marriage licenses to certain couples is the right of each state, they cannot deny couples married in other states the same rights as in their home states. Prop 8 goes too far. As for DOMA, its a states-rights issue. Congress doesnt have the enumerated power to define marriage.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

ORLY?


DOMA does not relate to the laws of the various states. It creates an entirely new class independent of the states, meaning that by federal law, Arizona is required to accept Hawaii's marriages, but the federal government is not. It creates a problem under the 10th amendment and the national supremacy clause if DOMA is valid and FF&C is enforced at the same time.
 
2013-06-25 08:59:04 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: 10 year term limit? 20?


Honestly, I've argued for awhile that a finite term limit would do wonders for the court. My idea is something along the lines of 20 years after the person who nominated you is out of office. So, January 20th of 2037 (20 years after President Obama is relieved), Justices Kagan and Sotomayor become "Justice Emeritus" and are free to argue cases in front of the court, provide opinions in the privacy of the court's counsel, and may otherwise offer secondary leadership. But they cannot serve in any other judiciary position and are given a lifetime pension. That makes the maximum term of tenure 28 years, assuming a nomination happened on the first day of a new administration.

And if we apply it retroactively, Scalia and Thomas get kicked to the curb.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report