Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 6, 2014 - 01:54pm PT
|
Dave
That comment is actually beneath you. Chaz doesn't appear to be very well educated about our country and why and how it came to be. But a comment about "gay bars" and Chaz is a cheap shot; not at all your usual style.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
^I'm thinking he meant grey bars. Where all the 90 plusers go, before they reach Heaven.
In any event it is probably time to invoke the three famous words.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Mr Kos writes:
"Chaz seems to be very familiar with gay bars."
I've been to a couple. At least a couple, because I can think of a couple I actually like.
No one's bought me a drink, though. I probably need to work out, or shave, or something to up my chances.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
The bar you don't want to walk into is a cop bar. I made that mistake ( hopefully ) once. A place called "Law's" ( should have been a clue ) on Market st in Riverside. Everyone there had real short hair and trimmed mustaches, so at first it seemed like a gay bar.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I didn't have time even to glance at the opinion yesterday, and I barely did so today, but the opinion is a very narrow one, essentially saying that an invocation at the start of a legislative session is a tradition that has been upheld over a long period of time. Kagan's argument, however, also has depth, because long traditions can change meanings over time. As one stanza of the Christian hymn, "Once to Every Man and Nation," says, "time makes ancient truths uncouth."
I find myself increasingly impatient, however, with the "you disagree with me because you're stupid" responses on this forum. Perhaps that's the inevitable product of speech codes, "political correctness," and the substitution of fashion for debate.
The real problem with first amendment jurisprudence is the citizens united and the money is speech cases.
The real problem is that four justices thought it did not violate the First Amendment to prevent the airing of a movie because the content of the movie may influence the outcome of the election. Freedom of Speech exists to protect unpopular and offensive speech. Popular, inoffensive speech needs no protection.
John
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
only thing meaner than a drunk Cop is a drunk Preacher…
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Freedom of Speech exists to protect unpopular and offensive speech
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
Is NBC under some gag order NOT to use the two words muslim, and terrorist in the same sentence? Is the use of the word terrorist now reserved for citizens here? Or is this all stomping on the first amendment?
There is no limit to the lunacy of someone who gets their news from the Benghazi Channel. There is no conspiracy they don't believe. Nothing is too stupid, it seems.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Holy Mackerel.
Richard used to pray a lot before he got religion. Now he's out there askin' for forgiveness like everybody else.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
It is well established that first amendment protections aren't limited to Congressional actions. Most amendments apply to the states.
Where did you get that idea? The 11 the amendment even prohibited the federal courts from injecting themselves in suits by citizens against sovereign states. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the courts were given jurisdiction over states in any capacity.
The Bill of Rights had no effect on how a state treated its churches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted, many did. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What's both sad and funny to me is all this frothing about how terrible this court is over a decision that most here obviously don't like. However, flip the coin over: Most here love Obamacare, so there was no comparable frothing over Roberts asking (and then answering) the ALL-important question: If government can do this, then what can government not do?
The answer: Government can do any damned thing it pleases (5-4).
Strange that there was no frothing about the horrendous implications of THAT decision. That "interpretation" of the Constitution got you Obamacare, which you love, but it will also get you things you don't love going forward. Now, by Supreme Court decision, precedent has been set that there is nothing that government cannot do.
And I'm not digressing here; the subject of this post is not Obamacare, which is water under the bridge! The subject of this post is the inconsistency of the hand-wringing, where a relatively minor thing is magnified all out of proportion, while the most significant "legalized" increase in federal government power in our lifetimes went by with nary a whimper.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Feel free to explain how the ACA decision was wrongly decided.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
t actually want and prefer a tyranny of the Majority, so long as it is your tyranny.
Isn't the rule of majority supposed to be the cleanest, fastest, fairest avenue to declare a choice between two opposing views? Or to pick a leader. Once a majority has voted a law or person into place. Who's to say it can't be questioned, or changed? I'd bet a cheeseburger that if we took a vote to outlaw the smoking of cigarettes today, they'de be gone! Since the laws conception we now have history to look at and decide if its a good law are not. Now knowing how many deathly diseases come from smoking, and how the smoke can affect the health of those around smoking. So it's prolly ok to assume its effecting the health of the environment. And all those billions of Butts that liter the environment and clog water ways and cause death to countless fish and bird marine life. So what is good about smoking manufactured tobacco cigarettes that we should allow the sale? Because it pleasures them and they have a right to treat their body anyway they want? What about the Hooker, why isn't she able to do with her body what she wants? Vegas with its Bunny Ranches has shown us prostitution can be an OK and clean and happy business. So why isn't it allowed elsewhere?
Majority? Well maybe we should start a tyranny over that one!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
madbolter1, you're right on target. Isn't it interesting that a justice who views things from a conservative perspective is an "ideologue," but a justice like Ginsburg, who always votes for the predictably left position, is not? I also find it sadly ironic that many who say that racial animus motivates opponents of Obama have no trouble insulting the intelligence of Justice Thomas.
I treat those sorts of comments as noise to maintain my enjoyment of this place.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Feel free to explain how the ACA decision was wrongly decided.
If, as the majority ruled, the ACA is an exercise of Congress's power of taxation, the inconsistent treatment by the administration violates the Equal Protection Clause -- or else it violates the ACA.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I treat those sorts of comments as noise to maintain my enjoyment of this place.
EXACTLY!
Regarding Obamacare, when ANYTHING can be foisted off on, or required of, the American people in the guise of a tax, you HAVE tyranny.
Here's a little thought experiment....
Imagine the religious right coming into power and requiring people to attend church once a week. People can attend any church of their choice, which gets the new feds over the "establishment" hump. And this requirement is justified on the basis of a tax. We'll see who here has the intellectual honesty and imagination to consider how such a thing could fall under the guise of a tax. It can, and the door is now wide open for ANYTHING to be called a "tax."
That SC decision thrust us into tyranny; of course it's only "felt" as a tyranny as long as the tyrannical decisions are ones you happen to disagree with. Hence the inconsistency of the hand-wringing here.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
congratulations on ascertaining that supertopo posts are inconsistent, hypocritical and hyperbolic…alert the media.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
pronoun challenged, Claud?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!