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.

(The Detroit_News)   The Supreme Court began its new term today by turning away hundreds of appeals, including Virginia's bid to revive its anti-sodomy law   (detroitnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, sodomy laws, Supreme Court, Paul Clement, Attorney General of Virginia, government shutdown, Chief Justice John Roberts, debt settlement, Richard Cordray  
•       •       •

2536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2013 at 1:41 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-07 12:50:04 PM  
The campaign contribution case is the one which I think is going to be a clusterfark. It's obviously going to be struck down, IMO, and then its just legalizing bribery.
 
2013-10-07 12:57:08 PM  

DamnYankees: The campaign contribution case is the one which I think is going to be a clusterfark. It's obviously going to be struck down, IMO, and then its just legalizing bribery.


They used to call it "the honest graft"
 
2013-10-07 01:05:59 PM  

DamnYankees: The campaign contribution case is the one which I think is going to be a clusterfark. It's obviously going to be struck down, IMO, and then its just legalizing bribery.


I'm more interested in the idea that corporations can have morals and religious beliefs. Because Snarcoworks Inc just founded a religion that says its CEO doesn't have to disclose financial interests.
 
2013-10-07 01:08:12 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: DamnYankees: The campaign contribution case is the one which I think is going to be a clusterfark. It's obviously going to be struck down, IMO, and then its just legalizing bribery.

I'm more interested in the idea that corporations can have morals and religious beliefs. Because Snarcoworks Inc just founded a religion that says its CEO doesn't have to disclose financial interests.


What case is this?
 
2013-10-07 01:21:01 PM  
DamnYankees:

What case is this?


http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/20/u-s-asks-supreme-court-review -h obby-lobbys-birth-control-mandate-challenge/

The general summary is Hobby Lobby got their undies in a bundle because they have to provide condoms (a secret Nazi Muslim code for the abortionplex) to employees under the healthcare law. They contested it because according to company spokespeople, the corporation itself is opposed to the practice on religious grounds. Not the owners, the actual piece of notarized paper is opposed.

So, if a corporation has speech rights, do they not also have other rights under the first amendment? It's not too much of a stretch to have a corporate religious belief and from there, corporate religion. And it totally would NOT open a giant can of worms in regards to discrimination law, patent law, contract law, unemployment law, and labor relations. Totes serious. Pinky swear.
 
2013-10-07 01:24:35 PM  
Suck it Cuccinelli. Suck it long, and suck it hard. Cause it's legal, despite you and your "But it's for the children!" defense.
 
2013-10-07 01:25:33 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: DamnYankees:

What case is this?


http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/20/u-s-asks-supreme-court-review -h obby-lobbys-birth-control-mandate-challenge/

The general summary is Hobby Lobby got their undies in a bundle because they have to provide condoms (a secret Nazi Muslim code for the abortionplex) to employees under the healthcare law. They contested it because according to company spokespeople, the corporation itself is opposed to the practice on religious grounds. Not the owners, the actual piece of notarized paper is opposed.

So, if a corporation has speech rights, do they not also have other rights under the first amendment? It's not too much of a stretch to have a corporate religious belief and from there, corporate religion. And it totally would NOT open a giant can of worms in regards to discrimination law, patent law, contract law, unemployment law, and labor relations. Totes serious. Pinky swear.


The issue here doesn't so much seem to be whether or not corporations have religious protection, but whether the religious protections of shareholders are violated by forcing the corporations they own to take certain actions. Its sort of an interesting question. Need to think about it.
 
2013-10-07 01:30:17 PM  
They turned away the sodomy case?!?!!?  Fark them!  Fark them right in the ass!
 
2013-10-07 01:41:03 PM  
What do they have against prostates?
 
2013-10-07 01:42:51 PM  
Jesus died for your corporations.
 
2013-10-07 01:48:38 PM  
I bet it was a real pain in Scalia's ass when he told Cuchinelli 'no'.
 
2013-10-07 01:51:37 PM  

DamnYankees: The issue here doesn't so much seem to be whether or not corporations have religious protection, but whether the religious protections of shareholders are violated by forcing the corporations they own to take certain actions. Its sort of an interesting question. Need to think about it.


I thought it had been held in the US for a long time now that you don't get to claim religious freedom violations when you're made to follow laws serving a secular purpose?
 
2013-10-07 01:51:41 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: DamnYankees:

What case is this?


http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/20/u-s-asks-supreme-court-review -h obby-lobbys-birth-control-mandate-challenge/

The general summary is Hobby Lobby got their undies in a bundle because they have to provide condoms (a secret Nazi Muslim code for the abortionplex) to employees under the healthcare law. They contested it because according to company spokespeople, the corporation itself is opposed to the practice on religious grounds. Not the owners, the actual piece of notarized paper is opposed.

So, if a corporation has speech rights, do they not also have other rights under the first amendment? It's not too much of a stretch to have a corporate religious belief and from there, corporate religion. And it totally would NOT open a giant can of worms in regards to discrimination law, patent law, contract law, unemployment law, and labor relations. Totes serious. Pinky swear.


And if I was the lawyer on the other side of the aisle, the very first thing I would ask for would be Hobby Lobby Inc's baptismal records.
Or the date of its first Communion.
Or the last time it went to Confession.
Or if it got it's foreskin cut off 8 days after incorporation.
 
2013-10-07 01:52:43 PM  
Among the appeals denied Monday was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's request to review a federal appeals court ruling that threw out the state's ban on oral and anal sex.

Too bad for you, Kenny-boy. Looks like "Virginia is for ass-to-mouth" is going to remain your state's motto.
 
2013-10-07 01:53:25 PM  

Biological Ali: DamnYankees: The issue here doesn't so much seem to be whether or not corporations have religious protection, but whether the religious protections of shareholders are violated by forcing the corporations they own to take certain actions. Its sort of an interesting question. Need to think about it.

I thought it had been held in the US for a long time now that you don't get to claim religious freedom violations when you're made to follow laws serving a secular purpose?


It has, but these are 2 separate issues:

1) Does a given law violate the religious rights of a person.
2) If yes, does applying that law to a corporation violate the religious rights of the shareholders of that corporation.

#2 seems to be the question at issue here.
 
2013-10-07 01:53:49 PM  

Fear the Clam: Among the appeals denied Monday was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's request to review a federal appeals court ruling that threw out the state's ban on oral and anal sex.

Too bad for you, Kenny-boy. Looks like "Virginia is for lovers of ass-to-mouth" is going to remain your state's motto.


FTFM.
 
2013-10-07 01:57:46 PM  
FTA:
The court also declined to hear, at least for now, Argentina's appeal of a ruling that orders it to pay hedge funds that bought up some of the country's unpaid debt from its default in 2001. The country is continuing to pursue its case in federal court in New York and could file another appeal with the Supreme Court.

Wait, hedge funds can sue entire countries in US courts?
 
2013-10-07 01:59:10 PM  
Hey,CoochandEllie!
Buh-bye, dickhead!

All dicks of Virgin-ya rejoice


/i got nothin
 
2013-10-07 01:59:54 PM  
But what about the anti-sodomy opponents?
 
2013-10-07 02:03:17 PM  
What kind of sick bastard is opposed to fellatio and cunnilingus? Also, it really sounds like he needs to cut down on "thinking of the children".
 
2013-10-07 02:05:49 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: They turned away the sodomy case?!?!!?  Fark them!  Fark them right in the ass!


I get the joke you were going for, but turning down the case means "we aren't even going to consider upholding that shiat". Right?
 
2013-10-07 02:06:37 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: What kind of sick bastard is opposed to fellatio and cunnilingus? Also, it really sounds like he needs to cut down on "thinking of the children".


lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-10-07 02:14:31 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: turning down the case means "we aren't even going to consider upholding that shiat". Right?


Turning down the case means that the appeals court's ruling finding the law unconstitutional remains the final word on the matter.
 
2013-10-07 02:17:40 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: DamnYankees:

What case is this?


http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/20/u-s-asks-supreme-court-review -h obby-lobbys-birth-control-mandate-challenge/

The general summary is Hobby Lobby got their undies in a bundle because they have to provide condoms (a secret Nazi Muslim code for the abortionplex) to employees under the healthcare law. They contested it because according to company spokespeople, the corporation itself is opposed to the practice on religious grounds. Not the owners, the actual piece of notarized paper is opposed.

So, if a corporation has speech rights, do they not also have other rights under the first amendment? It's not too much of a stretch to have a corporate religious belief and from there, corporate religion. And it totally would NOT open a giant can of worms in regards to discrimination law, patent law, contract law, unemployment law, and labor relations. Totes serious. Pinky swear.


Wait because of the ACA corps have to provide condoms to employees?  I dont have much use for them but hey I might actually learn how to make balloon animals.
 
2013-10-07 02:17:57 PM  
I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.
 
2013-10-07 02:20:49 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: They turned away the sodomy case?!?!!?  Fark them!  Fark them right in the ass!


Oh blow me.
 
2013-10-07 02:21:12 PM  
If a court that is paid for by taxes is so back logged and outdated that it has to turn down hundreds of cases per year, maybe it isn't so  Supreme.
 
2013-10-07 02:22:10 PM  

DamnYankees: The issue here doesn't so much seem to be whether or not corporations have religious protection, but whether the religious protections of shareholders are violated by forcing the corporations they own to take certain actions. Its sort of an interesting question. Need to think about it.


My inclination would be to frame it as to whether religious preferences can cross the "corporate veil" without breaching it. However, that might be complicated by some corporations (EG: Churches) being explicitly religious by charter. I wonder if a "God or Mammon" ruling limiting such option to non-profit corporations would be possible.
 
2013-10-07 02:22:17 PM  

FloydA: Three Crooked Squirrels: They turned away the sodomy case?!?!!?  Fark them!  Fark them right in the ass!

Oh blow me.


Something something sex with an animal.
 
2013-10-07 02:22:52 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.


that's what selective enforcement is for
 
2013-10-07 02:23:56 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.


They don't have to worry about it, though. Cuccinelli's never gonna see the inside of a jail cell for getting a BJ. The cops aren't going to go looking for straight people to bust up for it. It's a blunt instrument that appears to apply equally but is only enforced when it "needs" to be; in this case, as a weapon to continue to abuse anyone who isn't capital-N Normal. A fine Southern tradition.
 
2013-10-07 02:24:30 PM  

abb3w: DamnYankees: The issue here doesn't so much seem to be whether or not corporations have religious protection, but whether the religious protections of shareholders are violated by forcing the corporations they own to take certain actions. Its sort of an interesting question. Need to think about it.

My inclination would be to frame it as to whether religious preferences can cross the "corporate veil" without breaching it. However, that might be complicated by some corporations (EG: Churches) being explicitly religious by charter. I wonder if a "God or Mammon" ruling limiting such option to non-profit corporations would be possible.


I tend to think that they'd have to say no to this appeal. I mean, what percentage of a corporations shareholders would need to agree that X violates their religion for it to be a violation of the shareholders first amendment rights? 100%? 90%? 50%? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
 
2013-10-07 02:25:45 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws. Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals. Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently? If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.


The AG behind the Virginia push is theofasc Republican Ken Cuccinelli. It's entirely possible he's never gotten a beej, and is jealous of everyone who is getting them. Less likely but also imaginable, he's tired of his wife demanding that he go down once in a while.
 
2013-10-07 02:25:51 PM  

paygun: Coco LaFemme: Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.

that's what selective enforcement is for


And we have a winnar!
 
2013-10-07 02:27:10 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.


There's a reason congress never includes themselves in mandatory drug test policies.

/what I'm saying is they won't consider the law to apply to their own sex acts.
 
2013-10-07 02:27:55 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.


You think most conservatives know that? In their mind, sodomy = gay sex.
 
2013-10-07 02:28:11 PM  
The true winner here are all the GOP congressmen who bang aides and pages. Scalia actually did a solid for the Gay Old Party.
 
2013-10-07 02:34:08 PM  

Alphakronik: If a court that is paid for by taxes is so back logged and outdated that it has to turn down hundreds of cases per year, maybe it isn't so  Supreme.


So they should handle every single case that comes to them? IIRC they only take on cases where they believe the outcome has a good chance of changing. If the lower court's opinion seems pretty solid they usually don't take up the case, but if they think there's some interesting legal nitpick in there that they can expound upon, or some new legal territory that they'd like to set the precendent on, then they're more likely to hear the case.
 
2013-10-07 02:39:12 PM  

DamnYankees: Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.

You think most conservatives know that? In their mind, sodomy = gay sex.


Not so much that, as it is that the only Jesus-approved sex is missionary for procreative purposes only, and you can't enjoy it.

Onan would like a word with the Christians interpreting his story.
 
2013-10-07 02:42:21 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.

They don't have to worry about it, though. Cuccinelli's never gonna see the inside of a jail cell for getting a BJ. The cops aren't going to go looking for straight people to bust up for it. It's a blunt instrument that appears to apply equally but is only enforced when it "needs" to be; in this case, as a weapon to continue to abuse anyone who isn't capital-N Normal. A fine Southern tradition.


Oddly enough, if I recall the case that brought all this on doesn't involve gays at all. It involves a guy that was around 50-something getting a consensual blowjob from a girl in her mid-teens.

Due to Virginia's age of consent laws at the time (which I think have been modified), there was no law against consensual sex in said situation. So Cooch here thinks "Ah-ha! The sodomy law is still on the books, so even though he isn't guilty of statutory, I can prosecute that creep under this law that makes all sodomy of any type, gay or straight, a crime!" The courts have slapped him down continually on that one.

I believe Virginia has since modified the law and done the standard Romeo and Juliet type thing (it isn't statutory rape if one is under 18 and the other is within 3 years of age), but at the time, he couldn't think of anything else to charge the guy with.
 
2013-10-07 03:06:28 PM  

G. Tarrant: A Dark Evil Omen: Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.

They don't have to worry about it, though. Cuccinelli's never gonna see the inside of a jail cell for getting a BJ. The cops aren't going to go looking for straight people to bust up for it. It's a blunt instrument that appears to apply equally but is only enforced when it "needs" to be; in this case, as a weapon to continue to abuse anyone who isn't capital-N Normal. A fine Southern tradition.

Oddly enough, if I recall the case that brought all this on doesn't involve gays at all. It involves a guy that was around 50-something getting a consensual blowjob from a girl in her mid-teens.

Due to Virginia's age of consent laws at the time (which I think have been modified), there was no law against consensual sex in said situation. So Cooch here thinks "Ah-ha! The sodomy law is still on the books, so even though he isn't guilty of statutory, I can prosecute that creep under this law that makes all sodomy of any type, gay or straight, a crime!" The courts have slapped him down continually on that one.

I believe Virginia has since modified the law and done the standard Romeo and Juliet type thing (it isn't statutory rape if one is under 18 and the other is within 3 years of age), but at the time, he couldn't think of anything else to charge the guy with.


You forgot the most damning evidence of homophobia on the Cooch's part here.  He says that if the sodomy law was once again allowed, that he'd only use it to prosecute non-consensual sodomy like rape and statutory rape.

However, after Virginia's sodomy law was struck down by Lawrence v. Texas in 2004, the Virginia legislature took a look at their law.  They attempted to change the wording from an unconstitutional "all gay sex is illegal" to a constitutional "consensual gay sex is legal, but non-consensual gay sex is still a crime."  One man stood up in the legislature and bravely killed that change, to specifically leave the unenforceable "all gay sex is a crime" law on the books.  That man was Ken Cuccinelli.
 
2013-10-07 03:07:08 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.


They just want to make it illegal to be gay.
 
2013-10-07 03:11:36 PM  
Sounds like a 'What part of NO did you not get?' decision.
 
2013-10-07 03:13:24 PM  

incendi: FloydA: Three Crooked Squirrels: They turned away the sodomy case?!?!!?  Fark them!  Fark them right in the ass!

Oh blow me.

Something something sex with an animal.


I think the phrase you're looking for is, "Oh, f*ck a duck!"
 
2013-10-07 03:13:50 PM  

DamnYankees: Coco LaFemme: I've never understood the push to bring back anti-sodomy laws.  Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.  Have any of these morons read a dictionary recently?  If they get sodomy made illegal once more, goodbye ever getting a blow job again.  It's like words have no meaning to these people.

You think most conservatives know that? In their mind, sodomy = gay sex.


I think most outside the most mindless Repub voters know all about it. They simply don't think the law applies to them.
 
2013-10-07 03:17:26 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: What kind of sick bastard is opposed to fellatio and cunnilingus? Also, it really sounds like he needs to cut down on "thinking of the children".


Virginia is for really boring lovers?
 
2013-10-07 03:21:03 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Sodomy comprises both anal sex and oral sex, acts that heterosexuals take part in just as much as homosexuals.


Sodomy is defined in Ezekiel 16:49. None of the things you listed made the cut, the current platform of the Republican Party, on the other hand ...
 
2013-10-07 03:27:32 PM  

omgbears: Alphakronik: If a court that is paid for by taxes is so back logged and outdated that it has to turn down hundreds of cases per year, maybe it isn't so  Supreme.

So they should handle every single case that comes to them? IIRC they only take on cases where they believe the outcome has a good chance of changing. If the lower court's opinion seems pretty solid they usually don't take up the case, but if they think there's some interesting legal nitpick in there that they can expound upon, or some new legal territory that they'd like to set the precendent on, then they're more likely to hear the case.


Thomas has written one opinion. Ever.  If he is a "supreme" judge, I'd hate to see what a "less than supreme" judge holds for a workload.
 
2013-10-07 03:29:37 PM  
Smoke 'em if you got 'em
 
2013-10-07 03:33:25 PM  

Alphakronik: If a court that is paid for by taxes is so back logged and outdated that it has to turn down hundreds of cases per year, maybe it isn't so  Supreme.


Most of the cases they turn down are because they don't feel the need to address the issue directly. Either they are satisfied with the lower court's decision or they don't feel the case is important enough to possibly make changes to overall US law.

I am sure a lot of volume is nonsense. Things like rich guys contesting the terms of their divorce and stuff like that. As far as I know, all you need to put a case submission to the Supreme Court is have a case decided in a lower court and a lawyer willing to file paperwork as you work your way up the chain in the courts.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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