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)   The conservative lawyer who defended California's ban on gay marriage at the Supreme Court is at work on another project: planning his daughter's upcoming same-sex wedding ceremony   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 91
    More: Ironic, Supreme Court, opponents of same-sex marriage, United States federal judge, Ashley Lininger, legal standing, American Foundation for Equal Rights, Theodore B. Olson, Office of Legal Counsel  
•       •       •

1585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 5:24 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-17 07:52:48 PM  

Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

I regret to inform you that that makes no difference at all.


I regret to inform you that words have meanings, and when you say "a thread full of", that implies more than a couple people.
 
2014-04-17 07:55:51 PM  

grumpfuff: Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

I regret to inform you that that makes no difference at all.

I regret to inform you that words have meanings, and when you say "a thread full of", that implies more than a couple people.


I'm glad you agree.
 
2014-04-17 07:58:38 PM  
Republicans never think something is important until it directly affects them. Take St. Reagen: Disliked gun control until someone tried to assassinate him with a gun. Found AIDS laughable until his friend Rock Hudson died from it.
 
2014-04-17 08:00:31 PM  
Yah, I'm in the 'kill all the lawyers' crowd, but there is a job they have to do.
 
2014-04-17 08:03:40 PM  
Lives aren't static. Apply time to anyone and they will change. Instead of pointing fingers, how about hoping this is a sign of personal redemption. And reading TFA, it sounds like he was conflicted all along with the whole issue.
 
2014-04-17 08:46:57 PM  

OregonVet: Yah, I'm in the 'kill all the lawyers' crowd, but there is a job they have to do.


Wouldn't their job be a lot harder if they're all dead?
 
2014-04-17 08:59:04 PM  
If only every Republican could have a gay child.
 
2014-04-17 09:04:02 PM  

Killer Cars: OregonVet: Yah, I'm in the 'kill all the lawyers' crowd, but there is a job they have to do.

Wouldn't their job be a lot harder if they're all dead?


Come on, they make a killing already.
 
2014-04-17 09:18:24 PM  
It's not ironic, it's hypocritical.
 
2014-04-17 09:28:26 PM  

grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.


It's a fundamental right.  Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.
 
2014-04-17 09:30:10 PM  

Warlordtrooper: grumpfuff: Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

A lawyer who has never heard of the full faith and credit clause seems like a bad lawyer

marriage isn't subject to full faith and credit.
 
2014-04-17 09:31:59 PM  

Corvus: gerrymander: nmrsnr: This just in: Lawyers sometimes defend interests that do not comport with their own ideologies.

Wait until someone tells subby that some of the ACLU lawyers who defended neo-Nazis were Jewish.

Mind. Blown.

But they were defending their free speech not their views like this. Your analogy is not even close.


It's actually spot on.  It's a question of whether the government has the right (neo-nazis espousing their beliefs) vs. whether they should exercise that right.
 
2014-04-17 09:35:46 PM  

nmrsnr: grumpfuff: grumpfuff: The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Even that isn't sufficient, at least to me. I could reasonably agree that the government may have both a right and a reason to regulate firearms (I'm really not trying to make this a gun rights thread, honestly, it's just the most obvious example I can come up with) and therefore want to defend a legitimate law, while disagreeing with the particular regulation itself.

Again, this is probably not the case here, but the quote doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.


That's precisely it.

Take for instance the argument over the death penalty.  There is zero question that the legal idea of the death penalty is constitutionally permissible.  Whether a death penalty should exist is another situation.

for myself, I'm against the death penalty.  That doesn't mean that I should sit idly by while and accept an argument that the death penalty is constitutionally prohibited.

It's two completely different issues.
 
2014-04-17 10:48:47 PM  

qorkfiend: Killer Cars: The fact there's some straight dudes out there who have gone antigay for pay isn't new.

Oh, I dunno. Cooper was in the Reagan White House; I suspect he's held his anti-gay stance for quite some time.


There was also a gay prostitute sex scandal in the Reagan White House. Cooper's stance might be pretty wide.
 
2014-04-17 11:17:48 PM  

Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.


I'd be pissing and moaning about this man's lack of principles, but it occurs to me he finally found them.
 
2014-04-17 11:18:55 PM  
Unless he about-faces on the topic of gay marriage for people not his daughter/her wife that is, obviously. Too bad it had to affect him first though.
/Conservatives have no long term vision these days
 
2014-04-17 11:41:48 PM  
Crotchrocket Slim:
/Conservatives have no long term vision these days

I have yet to see compelling evidence that they ever did.
 
2014-04-17 11:51:57 PM  
It's called a job, people.

/Sadly remembering my idealistic youth
 
2014-04-18 12:08:41 AM  

sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right.  Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.


Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.
 
2014-04-18 12:32:02 AM  
Yes, lawyers do often argue cases that are out of line with their private beliefs.  The reality is however, that when you are arguing a high profile case like this one,  your name will be associated with your arguments.

Every lawyer has a choice, this guy was not compelled to take the case, he chose to.  So boo freaking hoo if he gets associated with his arguments and it is detrimental to him in society at large.  He doesn't get some kind of free pass.
 
2014-04-18 12:41:44 AM  
Is this Lawyer a partner at their firm?  Their the face of their firm, boycott!!!!!
 
2014-04-18 12:46:36 AM  

nmrsnr: This just in: Lawyers sometimes defend interests that do not comport with their own ideologies.


Whores of the court.
 
2014-04-18 02:53:56 AM  

grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.


Ah, and there's the gotcha...
 
2014-04-18 07:11:06 AM  

grumpfuff: sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right.  Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.


The Constitution is no longer just the four corners of that piece of paper. It's that piece of paper, plus all of the things that SCOTUS has ever said is also in there. Stuff like the right to travel across state lines, the right to privacy, etc.

It's really the same as saying "this provision means X" or "Y is included in this provision." Just as every court case creates a little bit of new law, every Supreme Court case created a little bit of Constituional Law.
 
2014-04-18 08:17:24 AM  
Wait, you expect a lawyer to have integrity, subby?
 
2014-04-18 08:36:27 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Same old shiat.  Republican finds gay marriage morally objectionable....until his child comes out as gay.

IOW, fark all your families, but MINE is special!!

At least have the courage of your convictions and kick out and shun your kid, like Alan Keyes....or, better yet, don't be a bigoted asshole


Do you really not understand how the American legal system works? A lawyer is a hired gun. He is employed to present his employer's case to the best of his ability. It has nothing whatever to do with his personal beliefs. If it did, there probably would no defense attorneys in practice. A good lawyer, like a good debater, can argue either side of a position with equal success. That's his job.
 
2014-04-18 09:24:31 AM  

grumpfuff: Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.


Then why did subby post the trolltastic headline focusing on the case he took rather than his private views?

Anyways, as far as people who don't support gay marriage, this guy is less reprehensible than others.  "I don't agree with my daughters choice in life but am still willing to support her because of it" is a fark of a lot more preferable than how a lot of people who don't approve of their childrens sexuality treat them.
 
2014-04-18 09:26:06 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Same old shiat.  Republican finds gay marriage morally objectionable....until his child comes out as gay.


Yes, we should certainly damn people whose views progress towards social justice, that will certainly encourage others to agree with we think the moral side of the debate is.
 
2014-04-18 09:33:16 AM  

Warlordtrooper: A lawyer who has never heard of the full faith and credit clause seems like a bad lawyer


Alas the FF&C likely is inapplicable here.

1) the full language of the FF&C states:

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.

There is a reasonable legal argument that the last bit there states that the Congress can declare that a a particular law gets NO effect.  This is basically what Congress did in the sections of DOMA that survived Windsor.  Of course some argue that this is not what the framers meant, but it is a colorable argument.

2) The "public policy exception" to the FF&C means that states can ignore the clause if it involves a statutory right granted in one state that contradicts the statutory rights granted in another.  This is likley the bigger trump card to universal marriage applicability.  Its not a slam dunk either, and there appears to be some movement in the courts to override this exception w/r/t family law, but there are some old terrible cases that upheld anti-miscegenation laws under this rubric.
 
2014-04-18 09:43:22 AM  

Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.


It is like "my senator" vs "the senate" all over again - my lawyer is a great guy crusading for justice (for me), everyone else's lawyers are amoral scumbags who should be jailed for the temerity of joining the profession.
 
2014-04-18 12:13:07 PM  

Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.


True enough.  It's remarkable the number of Republican pols who have paid for a family member's abortion.
 
2014-04-18 12:19:10 PM  

grumpfuff: sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right.  Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.


If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document.  Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty.  It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

It is a fundamental constitutional right, end stop.
 
2014-04-18 12:21:38 PM  

grumpfuff: Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.


The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.
 
2014-04-18 01:44:39 PM  

peterquince: grumpfuff: sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage


Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right.  Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.

The Constitution is no longer just the four corners of that piece of paper. It's that piece of paper, plus all of the things that SCOTUS has ever said is also in there. Stuff like the right to travel across state lines, the right to privacy, etc.

It's really the same as saying "this provision means X" or "Y is included in this provision." Just as every court case creates a little bit of new law, every Supreme Court case created a little bit of Constituional Law.


Again, I am well aware of that. I know later court findings included the right to marriage as a basic right. But that right is based off jurisprudence, not because it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
 
2014-04-18 01:45:41 PM  

lilplatinum: grumpfuff: Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

Then why did subby post the trolltastic headline focusing on the case he took rather than his private views?


A trolltastic and/or misleading headline on Fark??????? OMG THAT NEVER HAPPENS!
 
2014-04-18 01:46:56 PM  

sprgrss: If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document.  Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty.  It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

It is a fundamental constitutional right, end stop.


lilplatinum: The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.


/facepalm

thebreakthrough.org
 
2014-04-18 02:27:19 PM  

grumpfuff: sprgrss: If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document.  Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty.  It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

It is a fundamental constitutional right, end stop.

lilplatinum: The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.

/facepalm


You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right.  The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.
 
2014-04-18 03:15:33 PM  

lilplatinum: You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.


Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy. 

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment.  Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th. 

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus.  Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . "  You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).
 
2014-04-18 03:17:08 PM  

nmrsnr: This just in: Lawyers sometimes defend interests that do not comport with their own ideologies.


Didn't we just go through this with the campaign advisor who told Bush to play up opposing gay marriage in 2008 and Obama to support it in 2012?

grumpfuff: I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.


Freedom of association
 
2014-04-18 05:16:38 PM  

Teiritzamna: lilplatinum: You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy. 

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment.  Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th. 

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus.  Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . "  You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).


Miranda isn't a Constitutional right.  It's a judicially mandated prophylactic.  You are the definition of daft.
 
2014-04-18 07:08:19 PM  

sprgrss: Teiritzamna: lilplatinum: You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy. 

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment.  Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th. 

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus.  Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . "  You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).

Miranda isn't a Constitutional right.  It's a judicially mandated prophylactic.  You are the definition of daft.


I was referring to the rights spoken of within the Miranda warning, but fair enough - I wasn't being particularly clear.

/Hope whatever is pissing you off abates, chief.
 
Displayed 41 of 91 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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