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 New Yorker)   Get me a mad scientist; I need a violin that can fit inside a hydrogen nucleus   (newyorker.com) divider line 91
    More: Obvious, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Alliance Defense Fund, fatal flaw, Justice Kennedy, Defense of Marriage Act, social policies  
•       •       •

3694 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 May 2014 at 6:00 PM (25 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
 
2014-05-30 03:14:13 PM  
Losing a bunch of cases doesn't make you a loser, it makes you a rich lawyer.
 
2014-05-30 03:26:35 PM  

bdub77: Losing a bunch of cases and still being hired to come back and lose more doesn't make you a loser, it makes you a rich lawyer.


FTFY
 
2014-05-30 03:33:14 PM  
Defending a state ban on recognition of same-sex marriage should be a trivial matter, without excuse for mishandling.

Currently, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in more than fifteen states in the United States of America and also in several other nations. In many of these places these marriages have been recognized for several years; a few have recognized these marriages for more than a decade.

Therefore, assuming that opposition to same-sex marriage is intellectually honest and rationally justified, the damage that same-sex marriage causes to society should be readily demonstrable in these states and nations, a consistent pattern with the damage most evident in the places where such marriages have been recognized for the longest.

As such, a defense of a state ban on same-sex marriage need consist only of reference to data sets showcasing this pattern of damage.

Thus far, however, legal counsel defending these bans have never referenced this information which must exist for the entire defense of marriage movement to have any relevance to reality. Instead, they issue predictions of future harm that they expect to occur without referencing any historical data from other locales to justify those expectations. It causes the entire basis for oppositing same-sex marriage to seem purely speculative and, given a failure to cite data from an existing data pool, even baseless.

This is demonstrative of incompetence. If a legal group does not think to reference the substantial body of evidence that must exist if their advocacy is not intellectually bankrupt then I can have no sympathy when their efforts consistently fail.

I must reserve my sympathy for those who will now be harmed by same-sex marriage, and not for the bufoons who are unable to prove that any such harm will occur.
 
2014-05-30 03:45:05 PM  
All of this does not discourage Nimocks

I bet his rate is $800 an hour, minimum.
 
2014-05-30 03:52:21 PM  
The heart of Nimocks's argument comes down to a single word: children. Over and over again in his sixty-page brief, he asserts that the government has a legitimate interest in favoring traditional marriage because only a man and a woman can produce children.

So as long as gay marriage is illegal, gay men will choose to stop being attracted to men and choose instead to be aroused by the female form, which will lead them to marry a woman (maybe even an ex-lesbian) and have lots of (straight) children, which is good because Jesus.  Got it.
 
2014-05-30 03:53:41 PM  
I liked the implication that a man/woman marriage is more stable than a same sex marriage. It will be a decade or more before you can even come close to proving that because there is simply not enough data collected yet to have any type of reasonable idea about how stable same sex marriages are.
 
2014-05-30 04:16:30 PM  
Keep up the good work. We believe in you.
 
2014-05-30 04:19:37 PM  

Slives: I liked the implication that a man/woman marriage is more stable than a same sex marriage. It will be a decade or more before you can even come close to proving that because there is simply not enough data collected yet to have any type of reasonable idea about how stable same sex marriages are.


At least decades.  Homosexuality would have to be come widely socially acceptable before you can compare it fairly.  Widespread social acceptability may shorten or increase stability.  Hard to say. Today, gay couples fight for it and the ones who go for it might have a very strong bond.  In the future, it might happen more willy-nilly.
 
2014-05-30 04:20:51 PM  
We all remeber Thurgood Marshall passionately arguing Brown V. Board in front of the Supreme Court.  History has mercifully forgotten the schmuck who was just as intently and loudly arguing FOR segregation.
Brown v. Board

Loving v. Virginia,

Mranda

Gideon V. wainwright

etc etc etc
  all had someone arguing AGAINST granting what we now consider basic civil rights, and believing they were doing the right thing by doing so...
 
2014-05-30 04:24:03 PM  

Slives: I liked the implication that a man/woman marriage is more stable than a same sex marriage. It will be a decade or more before you can even come close to proving that because there is simply not enough data collected yet to have any type of reasonable idea about how stable same sex marriages are.

The fact that there's no evidence cited to support such a claim, which would presumably include something that would define the word "stable" among other things, is telling. I'd especially like to see how such an argument stacks up against the 100 million or so (wild guess) Americans who were or are currently being raised by divorced parents.
 
2014-05-30 06:08:16 PM  
The rules of marriage are for the people, not unelected judges, to decide.

Yeah, that argument didn't work against interracial marriage either.
 
2014-05-30 06:13:58 PM  
I love this guy!  He's managed to turn losing cases in a guaranteed way to continue to separate fools from their large sums of money.  Truly a capitalist pig worthy of emulation.  The taking money part I mean.  How you do it matters not.
 
2014-05-30 06:17:45 PM  
FTA: ...Alliance Defending Freedom, which is devoted to protecting religious liberty.

These guys are doing a lot of damage to religion by characterizing it as something that will keep other peoples' families from being protected under the law. If you really want to protect your right to worship, stop attack people who do not share your religion.
 
2014-05-30 06:20:02 PM  

Magorn: We all remeber Thurgood Marshall passionately arguing Brown V. Board in front of the Supreme Court.  History has mercifully forgotten the schmuck who was just as intently and loudly arguing FOR segregation.
Brown v. Board

Loving v. Virginia,

Mranda

Gideon V. wainwright

etc etc etc
  all had someone arguing AGAINST granting what we now consider basic civil rights, and believing they were doing the right thing getting paid by doing so...

 
2014-05-30 06:25:20 PM  
The core of his approach is simple, and populist in its orientation. The rules of marriage are for the people, not unelected judges, to decide.

Right. So if you decide you don't want to marry a man, then don't marry a man. It's not up to the unelected judge to decide if you should marry a man or a woman or not get married at all.

So why on God's green earth are you asking for a judge to decide if I should marry a man or a woman?
 
2014-05-30 06:25:38 PM  

Magorn: We all remeber Thurgood Marshall passionately arguing Brown V. Board in front of the Supreme Court.  History has mercifully forgotten the schmuck who was just as intently and loudly arguing FOR segregation.
Brown v. Board

Loving v. Virginia,

Mranda

Gideon V. wainwright

etc etc etc
  all had someone arguing AGAINST granting what we now consider basic civil rights, and believing they were doing the right thing by doing so...


lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-05-30 06:27:05 PM  
Damn, that's an unfortunate name, "Austin Nimocks", you should have sued your own parents instead of all them gay couples etc.

And this is coming from someone who actually picked the Fark handle "Crotchrocket Slim", that should mean something
 
2014-05-30 06:28:44 PM  
If I could make a ton of money fleecing a bunch of idiots fighting a losing cause, you bet I would.
 
2014-05-30 06:30:19 PM  
Austin Numbnuts.
 
2014-05-30 06:34:43 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Damn, that's an unfortunate name, "Austin Nimocks", you should have sued your own parents instead of all them gay couples etc.

And this is coming from someone who actually picked the Fark handle "Crotchrocket Slim", that should mean something


I'm going to agree with you and my handle is a lot worse
 
2014-05-30 06:40:58 PM  
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRINS?!?!?
 
2014-05-30 06:42:15 PM  
Invisible little penis...
www.newyorker.com
 
2014-05-30 06:43:16 PM  

DeaH: FTA: ...Alliance Defending Freedom, which is devoted to protecting religious liberty.

These guys are doing a lot of damage to religion by characterizing it as something that will keep other peoples' families from being protected under the law. If you really want to protect your right to worship, stop attack people who do not share your religion.


This. Thanks to people like this I'm having to constantly remind myself that not all Christians are hateful, ignorant bigots.

At least I hope they're not.
 
2014-05-30 06:49:28 PM  
Plot twist: he turns out to be a gay dude deliberately torpedoing his own cases.
 
2014-05-30 06:57:50 PM  
The heart of Nimocks's argument comes down to a single word: children. Over and over again in his sixty-page brief, he asserts that the government has a legitimate interest in favoring traditional marriage because only a man and a woman can produce children.

Which is why The Alliance Defending Freedom is also in favor of banning marriages where one or both partners is sterile.
 
2014-05-30 07:09:46 PM  
Subby, will a proton cellorator do?
 
2014-05-30 07:28:14 PM  
FTA: "Try opposing same-sex marriage in the federal courts these days. That's what Austin Nimocks does for a living (among other things). Nimocks is senior counsel for a conservative public-interest group called the Alliance Defending Freedom,"


Sigh.
 
2014-05-30 07:33:34 PM  
How about an magnetic cello instead?
hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-30 07:38:29 PM  

Geotpf: Magorn: We all remeber Thurgood Marshall passionately arguing Brown V. Board in front of the Supreme Court.  History has mercifully forgotten the schmuck who was just as intently and loudly arguing FOR segregation.
Brown v. Board

Loving v. Virginia,

Mranda

Gideon V. wainwright

etc etc etc
  all had someone arguing AGAINST granting what we now consider basic civil rights, and believing they were doing the right thing by doing so...

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 391x750]


"Race mixing is Communism"

That bit gets me every time.
 
2014-05-30 07:45:03 PM  
In 40 years (hopefully), this nimrod will be nothing but an answer to a trivia question (and I will still be alive to answer it, but I doubt it, given family medical history of dying before reaching 80).
 
2014-05-30 07:47:55 PM  
I think that his thought may be: There are millions of people willing to give 10% to their imaginary friend. How bout I just take it on this losing proposal before they can figure out how to do real damage with it?
 
2014-05-30 07:48:21 PM  

OddLlama: FTA: "Try opposing same-sex marriage in the federal courts these days. That's what Austin Nimocks does for a living (among other things). Nimocks is senior counsel for a conservative public-interest group called the Alliance Defending Freedom,"


Sigh.


Don't you just love it that the majority religious group in this country seems to think that they are under threat of total annihilation simply because some other people actually want to be considered as being something other than sub-human?
 
2014-05-30 07:49:21 PM  
I'd do that job if I was getting lawyer money. I would basically do Colbert's character on steroids. It would be some incredible Poe's Law stuff.
 
2014-05-30 07:54:00 PM  
I could totally oppose anything in court for conservative shill payscale.
 
2014-05-30 07:57:33 PM  
Let me get this straight. he's a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom by denying people freedom and imposing their religious dogma on others,
 
2014-05-30 08:01:23 PM  

pjbreeze: Let me get this straight. he's a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom by denying people freedom and imposing their religious dogma on others,


According to most of the married people I've met with 10+ years under their belt, opposing marriage IS defending freedom, but I digress.

If you've just learned politicians on BOTH sides are gormless sacks of shiat and ALL of their project are named with emotionally charged names that have NOTHING to do with their actual agenda, which often runs directly against the grain of the name, then you're new to politics. Welcome.

img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-30 08:18:53 PM  
You called?
 
2014-05-30 08:31:18 PM  
"We don't worry too much about what the district courts say,"
It's probably not very smart for a lawyer to be so dismissive of a court.
 
2014-05-30 08:37:57 PM  
"alliance defending freedom"

 The orwellian mad lib naming convention used once again.
 
2014-05-30 08:40:26 PM  

Granny_Panties: Invisible little penis...
[www.newyorker.com image 580x393]


...named "Austin Nimocks."

I mean, really? That's his name, and he KEPT it?
 
2014-05-30 08:40:54 PM  

Mad Scientist: You called?


Get to work, man! We need to properly express our sympathy!
 
2014-05-30 08:44:48 PM  

ReverendJynxed: How about an magnetic cello instead?
[hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com image 470x255]


Rock band classical edition?
 
2014-05-30 08:46:50 PM  
The best thing that has ever happened to me was getting hetero-married.
The worst thing that has ever happened to me was getting hetero-divorced.

I say we ban hetero marriage.  It leads to horrible consequences.
 
2014-05-30 08:56:48 PM  
The purpose of limiting marriage to men and women "is not to ensure that all marital unions produce children. Instead, it is to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born, they are more likely to be raised in stable family units by both their mothers and fathers."

And this "for the children" argument is why every state which bans gay marriage also bans the marriage of convicted pedophiles, child abusers, the poor, the homeless, the previously divorced, people without at least a high school diploma, and any of a dozen other categories of citizens who can be shown to a greater degree than homosexuals to be likely to not have stable family units.
 
2014-05-30 09:01:11 PM  

Karac: The purpose of limiting marriage to men and women "is not to ensure that all marital unions produce children. Instead, it is to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born, they are more likely to be raised in stable family units by both their mothers and fathers."

And this "for the children" argument is why every state which bans gay marriage also bans the marriage of convicted pedophiles, child abusers, the poor, the homeless, the previously divorced, people without at least a high school diploma, and any of a dozen other categories of citizens who can be shown to a greater degree than homosexuals to be likely to not have stable family units.


I grew up in an unstable family unit, and I came out no worse than anyone else here.

OK, so that's not a ringing endorsement, but at least my father wasn't named "Austin Nimocks".
 
2014-05-30 09:14:56 PM  

Karac: The purpose of limiting marriage to men and women "is not to ensure that all marital unions produce children. Instead, it is to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born, they are more likely to be raised in stable family units by both their mothers and fathers."

And this "for the children" argument is why every state which bans gay marriage also bans the marriage of convicted pedophiles, child abusers, the poor, the homeless, the previously divorced, people without at least a high school diploma, and any of a dozen other categories of citizens who can be shown to a greater degree than homosexuals to be likely to not have stable family units.


That's some authentic frontier gibberish right there.
 
2014-05-30 09:35:51 PM  

CodeMonkey4Life: "alliance defending freedom"

 The orwellian mad lib naming convention used once again.


Finally found one that's not.

insiderlouisville.com
 
2014-05-30 09:42:57 PM  
You can't fit a violin inside an atom's nucleus, because violins...are made of...atoms! TFH is illogical.

/pedant
 
2014-05-30 09:55:54 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: You can't fit a violin inside an atom's nucleus, because violins...are made of...atoms! TFH is illogical.

/pedant


static4.quoteswave.com
 
2014-05-30 10:09:49 PM  
"All that matters is how the Supreme Court comes out in the end."

It would be incredible for the Supreme Court to overrule what is obviously a wave a lower court decisions going all in one direction. The Supremes are there to resolve conflicts. For there to be a conflict, the other side has to win somewhere.
 
Displayed 50 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 »






Report