Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 ... 27  28  29 

 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

JustLis wrote:

So... If I'm a baker, and I disagree with Christian marriage, I am allowed to refuse to bake them a cake, right?



They didn't reach that question. This decision is really nothing. The Supremes ruled that the civil rights commission wasn't neutral with respect to the bakers when it found against them.

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently.



You are right, Robbie. But at least two justices still tried to decide the broader issue.

quote:


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."



I think it is wrong to not serve somebody because they are gay. If they wanted muffins or a birthday cake, then the bakery should sell it to them.

But I don't see how you force an artist to create anything.



---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/4/2018, 12:48 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

I think it is wrong to not serve somebody because they are gay. If they wanted muffins or a birthday cake, then the bakery should sell it to them.

But I don't see how you force an artist to create anything.




Yes, the baker claimed to be an artist. We'll see if that theory is generally accepted.

And, of course, it used to be that some (chiefly southern) Christians claimed it was sinful for folks of different races to marry. It's hard to see how the claim of sinful behavior applies to same-sex couples if it doesn't apply to couples of different races.

---
Robbie
6/4/2018, 1:39 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

... it used to be that some (chiefly southern) Christians claimed it was sinful for folks of different races to marry.



It was more than "some Christians". When the US Supreme Court struck down the various laws banning interracial marriages less than 20% of the American populous were in favor of interracial marriages.

And that attitude is hardly "ancient history"

quote:

An April 2011 poll of Mississippi Republican primary voters asked "Do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?". The responses were "Legal" 40%, "Illegal" 46%, and "Not Sure" 14%.



The article does say that they couldn't find the Democratic response to the same question.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#2011_Mississippi

And in 2009 a Louisiana judge refused to marry a mixed race couple. He claimed it was because he was concerned about the children. (He later resigned.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-defends-denied-interracial-marriage/
6/4/2018, 2:52 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:


The article does say that they couldn't find the Democratic response to the same question.





Now, why do you think that is?

Last edited by bigbarry2u, 6/4/2018, 3:46 pm


---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/4/2018, 3:46 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:


The article does say that they couldn't find the Democratic response to the same question.





Now, why do you think that is?



Nobody asked?

---
Robbie
6/4/2018, 4:20 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Stolen from Facebook:


Andy Borowitz
4 hrs ·

I assume this means that gay doctors can refuse to save the lives of homophobic bakers, so it’s all good

---
Robbie
6/4/2018, 4:35 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:


The article does say that they couldn't find the Democratic response to the same question.





Now, why do you think that is?



Nobody asked?



You've got it. In fact, the survey ONLY polled Republicans.

(Daily Mail) - The recently conducted phone poll, by credible firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), slipped the unambiguous racial question into a broader survey about the political chances of Republican candidates.

PPP, a Democrat-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina, said it 'surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24 to 27'.


---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/4/2018, 7:34 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

Andy Borowitz
I assume this means that gay doctors can refuse to save the lives of homophobic bakers, so it’s all good



Fair enough. Because surgery is an art as much as a science....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/4/2018, 7:36 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

quote:

shiftless2 wrote:

quote:


The article does say that they couldn't find the Democratic response to the same question.





Now, why do you think that is?



Nobody asked?



You've got it. In fact, the survey ONLY polled Republicans.

(Daily Mail) - The recently conducted phone poll, by credible firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), slipped the unambiguous racial question into a broader survey about the political chances of Republican candidates.

PPP, a Democrat-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina, said it 'surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24 to 27'.



Can anyone find the original study? Not an article about the study, but the study itself? The link on shiftless's wiki page did not work.

I did find one by the same organization done less than a year later:

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

quote:


Q24 Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?

Legal ............................................................... 67%
Illegal .............................................................. 21%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%




---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/4/2018, 9:05 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

Can anyone find the original study? Not an article about the study, but the study itself? The link on shiftless's wiki page did not work.



Here you go.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/4/2018, 9:51 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Thanks. The poll has a margin of error of 4%, yet this figure changed 27% less than one year later.

Now, why would that be? Hmmmm

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/4/2018, 10:50 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


It's a 14-point change in favor....

In 2011, 40% were in favor.

In 2012, 54% were in favor.

Maybe the 2011 results sparked a conversation. I don't know. Of course, a 4-point margin of error on EACH survey could mean the real number moved from 44% in favor to 50% in favor. Still a nice movement.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/5/2018, 1:48 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Ohhhhhhhhhhh.... I see the problem.

Barry, your 67% figure was for ALABAMA, not MISSISSIPPI. You have to go further down the page to find the Mississippi numbers for the comparison.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/5/2018, 1:51 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


BREAKING: NBC News Special Report: U.S. Supreme Court delivers ruling in Trump travel ban case.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN

---
Robbie
6/26/2018, 9:23 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


McConnell and his Republican friends are surely rejoicing today.

Now if we can just get Anthony Kennedy to hold on for another 2 1/2 years.

Well, if we can just get him to hold on until next January, when the Dems take back the Senate. Then Schumer can hold that seat open until after the next president takes office.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/26/2018, 2:54 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Portions of Sotomayor's dissent:

Taking all the relevant evidence together, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus, rather than by the Government’s asserted national-security justifications....

Ultimately, what began as a policy explicitly “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” has since morphed into a “Proclamation” putatively based on national-security concerns. But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the President and his advisers create the strong perception that the Proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.

Rather than defend the President’s problematic statements, the Government urges this Court to set them aside and defer to the President on issues related to immigration and national security. The majority accepts that invitation and incorrectly applies a watered-down legal standard in an effort to short circuit plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim....

The President’s statements, which the majority utterly fails to address in its legal analysis, strongly support the conclusion that the Proclamation was issued to express hostility toward Muslims and exclude them from the country. Given the overwhelming record evidence of anti-Muslim animus, it simply cannot be said that the Proclamation has a legitimate basis....

Today’s holding is all the more troubling given the stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu v. United States.... In Korematsu, the Court gave “a pass [to] an odious, gravely injurious racial classification” authorized by an executive order....

As here
, the Government invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion....

As here, the exclusion order was rooted in dangerous stereotypes about, inter alia, a particular group’s supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States....

As here, the Government was unwilling to reveal its own intelligence agencies’ views of the alleged security concerns to the very citizens it purported to protect....

And as here, there was strong evidence that impermissible hostility and animus motivated the Government’s policy.

Although a majority of the Court in Korematsu was willing to uphold the Government’s actions based on a barren invocation of national security, dissenting Justices warned of that decision’s harm to our constitutional fabric. Justice Murphy recognized that there is a need for great deference to the Executive Branch in the context of national security, but cautioned that “it is essential that there be definite limits to [the government’s] discretion,” as “individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support....” Justice Jackson lamented that the Court’s decision upholding the Government’s policy would prove to be “a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself,” for although the executive order was not likely to be long lasting, the Court’s willingness to tolerate it would endure....

Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another.


---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/26/2018, 9:33 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Damn


(NBC News) - Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc

The president is likely to nominate someone more conservative than Kennedy, a swing vote who has sometimes sided with liberals on key opinions, including on the landmark ruling that legalized gay marriage.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/27/2018, 1:14 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Yes!!!!!!!!

I said all along this was the only reason I voted for Trump. What a great day for America!

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
6/27/2018, 1:20 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
bricklayer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2928
Karma: 7 (+13/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

bigbarry2u wrote:

Yes!!!!!!!!

I said all along this was the only reason I voted for Trump. What a great day for America!



What do you hope will be the practical results of Justice Kennedy’s retirement, barry, aside from the obvious change in the balance? Do you hope for challenges and changes in the status of current laws? Do you think the expected change will eliminate judicial activism?

6/27/2018, 1:30 pm Link to this post PM bricklayer
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


(CNN) - Trump will push for swift confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice -- before the midterms

A senior White House official says President Trump will push for the swift confirmation of a Supreme Court justice "before the midterm elections."

Gee, what's the rush, Donnie and Mitchie? I thought we really needed to wait a year to make sure we had a quality nominee. Mitchie assured us that there was never a rush....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/27/2018, 1:39 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 ... 27  28  29 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top