Gas Bandit's Political Thread IV

[Chibibar]

The supreme court ruled in FAVOR of Prop 8.

It may seem like semantics, but it's important that no, they ruled to uphold the proposition on the grounds that it was not unconstitutional. There is a big difference in intent, if not practical outcome.

This is far from the last California has seen of this, however. There will be more propositions and appeals and referenda and eventually -- in my lifetime, I'm sure -- this day will go down as a minor footnote to the larger win.

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

 

See my response in the other thread. I'm sorry but there is so insanely much information about this out there, especially today, that I'm just not inclined to search for you. Try the L.A. Times website.

 

[DarkAudit]

Before I take my leave of this thread, a little message for Rush, Sean, et. al.:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

 

[Troll]

Before I take my leave of this thread, a little message for Rush, Sean, et. al.:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Seriously, when you compare people with a different political opinion to JUDAS, you've gone too far. Conservatives are not evil, they are not "enemies to all good government," and they deserve at least a minimum of respect as human beings. You give liberals a bad name with such needlessly incendiary comments.

 

[DarkAudit]

Considering the ones I'm talking about, I haven't gone too far enough. The "torture is good" crowd deserves less respect than the dog mess one scrapes off of one's shoe. That is not a "different opinion", that is stupidity, insanity, or both. Despite what their lawyers might have told them, or the unwillingness of current leadership to do the right and proper thing for the sake of political expediency in the here and now, torture is still a war crime.

 

[Twitch]

Yeah, Hannity, Rush, and Papa bear don't deserve respect. Sane republicans don't like those guys.

 

[DarkAudit]

Yeah, Hannity, Rush, and Papa bear don't deserve respect. Sane republicans don't like those guys.

There ya go. :bows:

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

They found that its presence on the ballot was legal, so they upheld the vote.

 

[Covar]

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

They found that its presence on the ballot was legal, so they upheld the vote.

wasn't it for a state constitutional amendment? if so and it passed there is nothing CA can do except for pass another proposition overturning it. For a federal example see prohibition.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

They found that its presence on the ballot was legal, so they upheld the vote.

wasn't it for a state constitutional amendment? if so and it passed there is nothing CA can do except for pass another proposition overturning it. For a federal example see prohibition.

Exactly.

 

[Troll]

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

They found that its presence on the ballot was legal, so they upheld the vote.

wasn't it for a state constitutional amendment? if so and it passed there is nothing CA can do except for pass another proposition overturning it. For a federal example see prohibition.

The argument was whether an amendment to the state constitution could pass with a simple majority of voters, despite the constitution requiring a 2/3 majority for it to pass in the state legislature. Though obviously that argument failed.

 

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

The court was also (sorry to leave that out) looking at whether the initiative itself was unconstitutional due to its changing the state constitution to a greater extent than ballot measures are allowed to do.

Guess I'm doing homework for everyone anyway.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 3587.story

EDIT: Wow, one missed "also" and there's an implication I didn't mean at all. Allen's right, that was one of the things considered, but I think that was more of a pipe dream that maybe some error might be found there. The major decision that has everyone up in arms is the determination that this limitation on marriage is not so egregious as to significantly alter our state's Constitution.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Some more links!

Sotomayor appointed on Merit? That's not what Karl Rove thinks.

With respect to Sotomayor's qualifications, a number of Republican pundits and spokesmen – including Karl Rove – have attempted to argue that Sotomayor was not appointed on the merits but because she was a woman of Puerto Rican descent.

Looks like GM still aren't out of the mire. Turns out the stockholders aren't happy at a deal that would involve their shares still existing. Guess they'd rather the company went tits up, that's obviously a better investment. Though GM Europe might scrape through.

A change coming to the UK political scene? Included are columns by the party leaders of the three biggest UK political parties about their proposals for change to the current democratic process. About bloody time.

Torture to lead to a court case? This could end badly for someone.

New York Mayoral race could already be over. Change the rules to allow yourself to run again, and then use your own personal wealth to disadvantage other candidates? Yep, democracy at its best.

And finally When in doubt, blame the weather forcasters!

 

[DarkAudit]

Who gives a fuck what Karl Rove thinks anymore? He's the guy who put forward Harriet Miers.

 

[Armadillo]

Karl Rove aside, Sotomayor has some issues that need addressing, as I see it.

1) Six decisions she was involved in have gone before the US Supreme Court. Five were overturned, and her reasoning was disagreed with in the sixth.

2)Ricci v. DeStefano: the case in New Haven, CT brought by white firefighters because their test scores were thrown out because not enough minority candidates passed the test. She was on the panel that upheld the lower court's ruling to throw out the case. It reeks of quotas and discrimination, which do nothing to further the cause of equality.

3) Wrote the opinion in United States v. Howard, which ruled that a ruse employed by State Troopers to lure suspects away from their car so it could be searched was constitutional. IMO, this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

4) "Circuit Courts of Appeal are where policy is made." WRONG.

5) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The defense of this quote is that it occurred in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I don't care when or where she said it, it's a racist statement.

 

[AshburnerX]

3) Wrote the opinion in United States v. Howard, which ruled that a ruse employed by State Troopers to lure suspects away from their car so it could be searched was constitutional. IMO, this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

Even stranger, since that ruling that says the police are no longer allowed to search your vehicle unless they receive your consent, have a warrant, or can actually see incriminating evidence through the windows.

 

[Chibibar]

I do not understand why it is NOT unconstitutional? the process? or the Prop 8 itself? My understanding is the Prop 8 itself.

The court was looking at overturning Prop 8 due to claims that it may have gotten on the ballot illegally.

They found that its presence on the ballot was legal, so they upheld the vote.

wasn't it for a state constitutional amendment? if so and it passed there is nothing CA can do except for pass another proposition overturning it. For a federal example see prohibition.

ok... now I understand and see the difference. The lawsuit was for the PROCESS of the prop 8....

Now I see there is a new lawsuit AGAINST the Prop 8
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/ts_ ... ia_court_2

Let's see how far this goes. Now the lawyers are suing against California for restricting rights of gays and lesbians.

 

[Espy]

Karl Rove aside, Sotomayor has some issues that need addressing, as I see it.

1) Six decisions she was involved in have gone before the US Supreme Court. Five were overturned, and her reasoning was disagreed with in the sixth.

2)Ricci v. DeStefano: the case in New Haven, CT brought by white firefighters because their test scores were thrown out because not enough minority candidates passed the test. She was on the panel that upheld the lower court's ruling to throw out the case. It reeks of quotas and discrimination, which do nothing to further the cause of equality.

3) Wrote the opinion in United States v. Howard, which ruled that a ruse employed by State Troopers to lure suspects away from their car so it could be searched was constitutional. IMO, this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

4) "Circuit Courts of Appeal are where policy is made." WRONG.

5) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The defense of this quote is that it occurred in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I don't care when or where she said it, it's a racist statement.

You and your reasonable objections. Racist.

 

[Armadillo]

You and your reasonable objections. Racist.

I'm sorry.

 

[Dieb]

Karl Rove aside, Sotomayor has some issues that need addressing, as I see it.

1) Six decisions she was involved in have gone before the US Supreme Court. Five were overturned, and her reasoning was disagreed with in the sixth.

Wrong. Two of her cases have been overturned by the Supreme Court - out of 150.

2)Ricci v. DeStefano: the case in New Haven, CT brought by white firefighters because their test scores were thrown out because not enough minority candidates passed the test. She was on the panel that upheld the lower court's ruling to throw out the case. It reeks of quotas and discrimination, which do nothing to further the cause of equality.

From what I've heard of this decision, it doesn't sound good. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the specifics of the case. On the other hand, she's hardly a racial ideologue. For example, here's a case where she clearly goes against political correctness in a dissent in favor of free speach rights.

4) "Circuit Courts of Appeal are where policy is made." WRONG.

No, actually, you are wrong Federal courts of appeals make THOUSANDS of decisions a year. In almost all of those cases, the law simply isn't clear - if it was clear, it never would have made it to that level. Obviously, on a practical ground, those decisions are going to have policy implications - but that doesn't mean that they are DECIDED on the basis of policy. Just that they have policy implications.

5) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The defense of this quote is that it occurred in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I don't care when or where she said it, it's a racist statement.

Oh god, you are an idiot. Calling her a racist for a completely out of context statement - isn't that exactly what conservatives are always saying liberals are doing to them? Hey, now I can accuse you of "playing the race card"! Fun!

In any case, in context, she actually means pretty much exactly the opposite of what it sounds like. Here's a conservative actually admits he was wrong for making accusations similar to those you brought up after reading the full speech. As Rod Dreher puts it: "Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality."

So no, I don't think your objections are very reasonable, actually.

 

[SpecialKO]

EDIT: Damnit, Dieb 'ed me.

1) Six decisions she was involved in have gone before the US Supreme Court. Five were overturned, and her reasoning was disagreed with in the sixth.

I'm not sure what your point is here. That's a fairly typical rate for circuit court decisions that go up the Supreme Court.

2)Ricci v. DeStefano: the case in New Haven, CT brought by white firefighters because their test scores were thrown out because not enough minority candidates passed the test. She was on the panel that upheld the lower court's ruling to throw out the case. It reeks of quotas and discrimination, which do nothing to further the cause of equality.

The whole thing seems to hinge on whether New Haven is correct in believing that the test was subject to disparate impact. Which really says more about New Haven then Sotomayor, but still

3) Wrote the opinion in United States v. Howard, which ruled that a ruse employed by State Troopers to lure suspects away from their car so it could be searched was constitutional. IMO, this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

I quite agree. This ruling really bothers me.

4) "Circuit Courts of Appeal are where policy is made." WRONG.

Not really.

If you read or watch the entire speech, it's quite clear that she is simply pointing out how at the circuit court level, every decision sets effective precedent for legal policy for the entire country, since the only means by which that precedent can be overturned is for the SCOTUS to intervene. This is contrasted with the district court level, which tend not to establish precedent outside that district.

5) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The defense of this quote is that it occurred in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I don't care when or where she said it, it's a racist statement.

How is that different than what Alito said at his own confirmation hearings?

 

[Armadillo]

5) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The defense of this quote is that it occurred in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I don't care when or where she said it, it's a racist statement.

Oh god, you are an idiot. Calling her a racist for a completely out of context statement - isn't that exactly what conservatives are always saying liberals are doing to them? Hey, now I can accuse you of "playing the race card"! Fun!

The quote implies that somehow, a Latina woman would make a BETTER decision in certain cases than a white male would. Not DIFFERENT, but BETTER. Spin it however you want, that's a racist statement, because she's implying superiority based solely on racial identity. Note I didn't say SHE'S racist, but that was a racist statement.

Alito? Yeah, same goes for him.

Also, I'd appreciate you ATTEMPTING to be civil and not going for the "you're an idiot" card, OK?

 

[Dieb]

The quote implies that somehow, a Latina woman would make a BETTER decision in certain cases than a white male would. Not DIFFERENT, but BETTER. Spin it however you want, that's a racist statement, because she's implying superiority based solely on racial identity. Note I didn't say SHE'S racist, but that was a racist statement.

Alito? Yeah, same goes for him.

Also, I'd appreciate you ATTEMPTING to be civil and not going for the "you're an idiot" card, OK

Actually, even taking that quote completely out of context, she says she "hopes", not that she thinks or knows. Of course, in contex, it truely is not a racist or otherwise horrible statement. Of course, it's clear that you haven't read the speech. Here's a quote for you:

"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

How is this racist, exactly? She even says her background, her experiences, are "limitations". It's very clear that she isn't saying being a woman, or being a latino, is somehow better than being white, but that it is simply different. How is this racist? As I said, Rod Dreher, a conservative person who probably disagrees with Sotomayor about pretty much everything, admitted that after he read the full remarks, it wasn't controversial at all.

You're right, I shouldn't have called you an idiot. I have no idea what your intelligence is :slywink: I do, however, think most of your objections are idiotic.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

One more step towards the ad hominem's Dieb, and you would've filled GB's shoes nicely.

 

[Dieb]

One more step towards the ad hominem's Dieb, and you would've filled GB's shoes nicely.

No, to do that I'd have to start making controversial statements backed up by nothing, and called myself a libertarian while believing in that the government should have the power to torture people

 

[Iaculus]

One more step towards the ad hominem's Dieb, and you would've filled GB's shoes nicely.

No, to do that I'd have to start making controversial statements backed up by nothing, and called myself a libertarian while believing in that the government should have the power to torture people

Just a few small steps towards the dark side, chief. One minute you're getting shirty with someone in an Internet political debate, the next you're signing a petition to have them tried for grand treason while stroking your gun in a vaguely Freudian manner.

On the plus side, the dark side has cookies. Evil cookies.

 

[Bubble181]

 

[Armadillo]

Hopefully there's nothing to this story, but it's been circulating under the radar for the past week and a half or so...

Furor Grows Over Partisan Car Dealer Closings

In a nutshell, it appears that all but one of the Chrysler dealerships that have been slated for closure donated primarily to the Republican Party in recent years. Now, it COULD be a coincidence, or evidence that Republican donors make crummy car salesmen, but considering how botched this whole Chrysler fiasco has been, I have my suspicions. I need more information to come to a final determination, but it doesn't look good.

 

[Shakey]

From the article:

A more likely explanation is simply the fact that more Chrysler dealers in general are likely to be Republican contributors, which would mean more of the closed dealers would be seen to be GOP supporters than Democrat supporters: "My hypothesis is that Chrysler dealers, being small businessmen, are more likely to donate to Republicans than Democrats, for predictable reasons. Like any small businessmen, car dealers want lower taxes, a lower minimum wage, fewer regulations, etc."

This seems the likely reason, but it would be nice to have an explanation as to how the dealerships were chosen. Especially since the government is so involved in it.

 

Yup. To expand on Shakey's point from that same part in the article:

The Auto Prophet - an anonymous engineer working for one of the Detroit automakers - is skeptical of the suggestion that political considerations are playing a role in White House car czar decisions on which Chrysler dealers are to be shuttered.

A more likely explanation is simply the fact that more Chrysler dealers in general are likely to be Republican contributors, which would mean more of the closed dealers would be seen to be GOP supporters than Democrat supporters: "My hypothesis is that Chrysler dealers, being small businessmen, are more likely to donate to Republicans than Democrats, for predictable reasons. Like any small businessmen, car dealers want lower taxes, a lower minimum wage, fewer regulations, etc."

I have been reading The Auto Prophet for years and consider him to be among the most credible of bloggers on automotive issues. On this issue, I agree with him to the extent that a definitive, statistical analysis-driven conclusion is not possible until all contributions by all Chrysler dealers is completed.

 

[Armadillo]

Hey, I want that to be the case. I'd hate like hell for this to be political in nature, since that would be one doozy of an abuse of power.

 

[DarkAudit]

Hey, I want that to be the case. I'd hate like * for this to be political in nature, since that would be one doozy of an abuse of power.

Not even close. Torture as official policy and "When the President does it, then it is not illegal," is a doozy of an abuse of power.

 

[Shakey]

Hey, I want that to be the case. I'd hate like * for this to be political in nature, since that would be one doozy of an abuse of power.

Not even close. Torture as official policy and "When the President does it, then it is not illegal," is a doozy of an abuse of power.

Really? You don't think it would be a fairly large abuse of power to take someones business away from them based only on which political party they donate to?

 

Hey, I want that to be the case. I'd hate like * for this to be political in nature, since that would be one doozy of an abuse of power.

Not even close. Torture as official policy and "When the President does it, then it is not illegal," is a doozy of an abuse of power.

Really? You don't think it would be a fairly large abuse of power to take someones business away from them based only on which political party they donate to?

I think that would be bigger than the torture of terrorists. And I'm with DA on the crimes of the Bush administration.

 

[DarkAudit]

I'm not talking terrorists. I'm talking "I'm the GODDAMNED PRESIDENT, and can do whatever the fuck I want because of it." attitude that started with Nixon, festered in the Ford administration, and came to full bloom with Dubya and all the ex-Ford men he brought in. Ford men who thought that Nixon had the right idea, but his only mistake was getting *caught*.