The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

UNLIKE Ginsburg and the other one [Kagan] who FACILITATED over gay marriages, but stayed ON the court when they ruled that gay marriage was a right, when they SHOULD Have recused themselves.

RW = explicitly right-wing or conservative news outlet
LW = explicitely left-wing or progressive news outlet
?? = unable to confirm left or right

Case 1: Ginsburg presiding over same-sex weddings before the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell vs Hodges

Articles in no particular order

RW
Judge Roy Moore: Impeach Ginsburg for Marrying Two Men Ahead of SCOTUS Ruling on Gay Marriage
By Penny Starr | May 28, 2015 |
Source: cnsnews.com, owned by the Media Research Center

Gohmert: Ginsburg, Kagan ‘Violated the Constitution,’ Didn’t Recuse Themselves from Gay Marriage Ruling
By Melanie Arter | July 8, 2015
Source: cnsnews.com, owned by the Media Research Center

Sidenote about MRC: "does not accept any federal tax money for its operations" -- yet one of it's contributers is none other than Exxon Mobile, which so happens to be the (former) company of now Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

RW
Justice Ginsburg asked to recuse herself in Supreme Court gay marriage case
By Cheryl Wetzstein - February 13, 2015
Source: washingtontimes.com

From the article - the opening line:

"A national organization that supports traditional marriage is asking U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the upcoming gay marriage case since she has spoken and acted in favor of gay marriage."

Impartiality goes both ways guys...

LW
Did Justice Ginsburg Suggest the Supreme Court Will Rule in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage?
By Mark Joseph Stern -- May 19, 2015
Source: slate.com

RW
Justice who loves gay marriage may force it on those who don't
By Charlie Butts, May 20, 2015
Source: OneNewsNow.com

RW
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Invokes Constitution While Performing Same-Sex Marriage
By William Bigelow, 8 May 2015
Source: breitbart.com

LW
Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated a same-sex wedding, and everyone's looking for clues
By Jenée Desmond-Harris, May 19, 2015
Source: vox.com

LW
Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg offer a clue on marriage equality?
By Irin Carmon, May 18 2015 (updated: May 19 2015)
Source: MSNBC.com

When you read the above articles (yes, I read them all), you'll find that at the heart of the Ginsburg case is the following "issue":

From the Slate article.

"With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional. But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way."

However, Maureen Dowd who was a guest at the wedding and works for the NYT, couldn't tell wether she did in fact emphasize the word or whether the sly look was intentional or if Ginsburg just did that all the time, because as it may be, she does use the constitution when presiding over weddings as witnessed by another groom in a wedding ceremony much earlier:

From the Vox article

"As for the constitutional language, it's part of Ginsburg's standard wedding terminology, according to the reporter's forthcoming biography of Ginsburg, much to the awe of one of her clerks. In 2000, Ginsburg presided over the wedding of her former clerk, Paul Berman, to a former clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun. "I'll never forget the end," Berman, now a law professor at George Washington University, recalled. "Instead of ‘by the power invested in me, by whatever' she said, ‘by the power vested in me by the United States Constitution.' My wife always jokes that if we got divorced it would be unconstitutional.""

So basically, it's up to the interpretation of how the people who were at the wedding and heard her say the words, whether she was hinting at something, or was just being cheeky. Same-sex marriage was already legal in the Washington state area so she wasn't speaking to any contrary.

From the MSNBC article

"No one seriously believes that Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart on the court, will be the swing vote in the decision in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges – that would be Justice Anthony Kennedy. The justices generally meet a few days after a case is argued for a closed door conference to take an initial vote tally and assign opinions, so under normal circumstances, Ginsburg would already know the case’s outcome. But rather than giving a preview, it is more likely that the often-careful Ginsburg was emphasizing “constitution” at that moment to underscore her own vision of that document. She has long believed the constitution can expand to embrace people who were left out at the founding – including gays and lesbians."

Expanding on this bit from another source -- ThinkProgress:

LW
Why Justice Ginsburg Can Officiate All The Legal Same-Sex Weddings She Wants
By Zack Ford, May 27, 2015
Source: thinkprogress.org

"The same-sex weddings Ginsburg has officiated were all conducted in Washington, DC, where it was legal for the couples to marry. Ginsburg was certainly correct that the Constitution vests her with judicial power, and DC law allows any “judge or retired judge of any court of record” to officiate a marriage ceremony. Ginsburg was simply performing one of her official duties, administering the law as befits her constitutional title. Furthermore, she made no public comment on whether the couples were entitled to those marriages under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the actual question at stake in the same-sex marriage cases."

But, as I posted left and right, it's only fair I bring in the judge who wanted her to recuse herself --> Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore

From the 2nd Washington Times article

"Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law issued a press release in May, saying, “Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that ‘A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.’ 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a Justice ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”"

Judges should indeed be able to keep his/her opinion until such time when the court has made a decision one way or another. Therefore, it's imperative we should hold Judge Moore to his standards when there's an abortion-case in court (and you can bet there are more to come), and remind him what he said when Ginsburg might have hinted at her voting one way or another (I'll get back to that in a second), and to ask Judge Thomas to recuse himself from the vote (after all, he asked Ginsburg to do the same):

From the Slate article

"[...] National Review’s Ed Whelan grabbed ahold of the news and penned an acidic attack on Ginsburg, asserting that that “in violation of that obligation of impartiality, she has instead signaled at every turn how she will vote in the pending marriage cases and how she expects the Court’s majority to vote.

[...]

During an anti-abortion rally this January (2015), Justice Clarence Thomas met with two vehemently anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion activists and took a picture with them at the court. Thomas complimented one of the activists on his anti-abortion tie. By Whelan’s logic, Thomas should probably recuse himself from the same-sex marriage cases, and he should certainly recuse himself from any future abortion rights cases. Like Ginsburg, Thomas has expressed rather vague support for a constitutional cause. If Whelan had any intellectual consistency in this arena, he’d have to condemn both Ginsburg and Thomas to the dugout. Instead, he only picks on Ginsburg."

My input:

So, what it basically comes down to, is that Ginsburg is pro-marriage equality and Moore feared it would bring the vote in favor of the ruling, as he, himself, has issues with marriage equality (why else recluse yourself from voting on the matter in his Alabama court):

Damn he's even suspended these days -- who woulda thunk that

Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Justice, Suspended Over Gay Marriage Order
Source: The New York Times

Looks like he, himself, has a problem with judicial ethics:

"Nine months after instructing Alabama’s probate judges to defy federal court orders on same-sex marriage, Roy S. Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, was suspended on Friday for the remainder of his term for violating the state’s canon of judicial ethics."

Calling the kettle black, and all that.

Ala. Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended For Rest Of Term Over Gay Marriage Stance
Source: npr.org

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling
Source: Los Angeles Times

"We are here to talk about Chief Justice Roy Moore and his repeated refusal to follow the rule of law," John Carroll, a former federal magistrate representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission, told the court. Carroll said Moore abused his power as chief justice to promote a private agenda against same-sex marriage.""

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended Because He Won’t Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
Source: Breitbart.com

Note:
I used the following resources to check whether sources were left, right or anything else:
* Media Bias/Fact Checking
* Google.com

[Coco Pops]

I can't speak for down under, but ethics hasn't had anything to do with government (or business ) behavior in this country for a very long time.

But would the US govt. stoop to that level to silence veterans who were treated badly?

[Falcon Horus]

Forgot to add another resource I used in my previous post:
* Ranking the media from liberal to conservative, based on their audiences

There's a handy image that goes with the article.

****//****

I wasn't done yet, but I exceeded the max limit of characters so here I shall continue...

UNLIKE Ginsburg and the other one [Kagan] who FACILITATED over gay marriages, but stayed ON the court when they ruled that gay marriage was a right, when they SHOULD Have recused themselves.

RW = explicitly right-wing or conservative news outlet
LW = explicitely left-wing or progressive news outlet
?? = unable to confirm left or right

Case 2: In Garhkal's opinion (same-sex) marriage is a right. How does this relate to the SCOTUS ruling Obergefell vs Hodges (link see previous post)?

LW
Why These Four Justices Rejected Marriage Equality
By Sunnivie Brydum, June 26 2015
Source: Advocate.com

"The Supreme Court has declared that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry the person they love, bringing marriage equality to all 50 states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's sweeping, eloquent decision affirming the freedom to marry was joined in full by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

But the decision was not unanimous — Chief Justice John Roberts authored the minority's dissent, while Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and, most vociferously, Antonin Scalia, writing additional dissenting opinions. It's unusual (though not unprecedented) for every dissenting justice to write separately[...]"

Each of the Judge's notes are reblogged in the article. At least, one of them should be made aware that marriage did in fact start as a contract between two parties, usually without any sort of consent from the actual people who would be doing the marrying. To gain more land, power, money, respect.
Also, forget about consenting adults when children were forced into marriages (and still are being forced into arranged marriages).

But oh well, same-sex marriage is really going to bring the end of times... yup, definitely...

Thomas refers to the "marriage entitlements" -- you know, the benefits which straight couples automatically gain when they get married. Yup, entitled -- that's what he chose as word.
Coming from an African-American, I guess, he knows what he's talking about.

I find it rather hilarious he thinks same-sex couples should be happy enough they can engage in civil partnerships and marriage where it was legal before the ruling. And that they are not harassed for it.

Perhaps, we should have taken his entitlements away for a change -- see how he would feel then.

LW-center
Supreme Court makes gay marriage a nationwide right
The landmark 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, provoked bitter dissents from the court's conservatives.
By Josh Gerstein, 06/26/15 (Updated 06/27/15)
Source: Politico.com

"The Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage nationwide by ruling that the U.S. Constitution bars states from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The landmark, 5-4 decision split the court along the usual ideological lines, with Republican appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court’s liberal wing to back same-sex marriage rights and the court’s remaining GOP appointees dissenting."

RW-center
Here's What Supreme Court Says about Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
By Morgan Lee and Jeremy Weber -- 6/26/2015
Source: ChristianityToday.com

Judge Kennedy's view on the matter, after the ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

[Falcon Horus]

Ethically isn't this a bit wrong?

In my neck of the woods, the other side of down under, that would be a gross breach of privacy. Wouldn't even pass through the parliament in one piece.

[Falcon Horus]

In leaked document, the case for Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ takes another huge hit

"The Trump administration can’t solve the problem that has always bedeviled this policy, which is that there isn’t any credible national security rationale for it. Unlike on the campaign trail, when you’re governing, you actually have to have justification for what you’re proposing, or you often run into trouble."

[Annoyed]

Everyone is quite well aware of the circumstances under which trump was elected.

Cocky, yes, but they did not "insist" on running Hillary, she was the person the Democrats chose, and until you can back up your conspiracy theories about here being "promised the job", they mean nothing. The democrats chose poorly in Hillary, sure.

I would agree with that. I won't defend democrats for doing something patently stupid. Bill warned Hillary not to do it, she ignored his advice.

Thing is, those folks aren't really THAT stupid. So there's gotta be another explanation that we don't know about.

[Annoyed]

Well, isn't this special.

'Star wars' actor Riz Ahmed fears people will turn to ISIS due to lack of diverse movie roles

British actor Riz Ahmed issued a warning to the entertainment industry.

The actor said a lack of diversity in television and movies in the U.K. could cause people to "retreat to fringe narratives, to bubbles online and sometimes even off to Syria."

The actor, while addressing British Parliament, said the U.K. has failed to represent minorities on screen.

"If we fail to represent, we are in danger of losing people to extremism," Ahmed claimed.

Veiled threats, anyone?
This guy needs to get blacklisted, fast.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't see how you get a threat from that. You marginalize people, they react, much like someone going into a bar and shooting some Indians saying "get out of my country" because he thought they were middle eastern.
Exclusion has consequences.

[Gatefan1976]

Thing is, those folks aren't really THAT stupid. So there's gotta be another explanation that we don't know about.

How about one you do.
Russian interference in the election via propaganda to destroy what credibility Hillary had in order to de-motivate the voting public.
Naaahhhhh..............

[Gatefan1976]

Are you a local Gatefan? Would love your opinion on this.

Yeah, I'm in NSW dude.

The govt. here have a new tactic where if you criticize a body say the ATO or Centrelink they now release your public details to the press hope that smears you enough and get you to back down if what you are saying is critical or damaging. And it's legal now thanks to the Deputy PM and cabinet.

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. From what I can gather, they cannot do it -just- for criticism, but if you make a false claim against them. Now, that's pretty bloody murky ground, but let me give you a personal, but obviously anecdotal experience. Mrs GF got hit with one of these automated checks some 3 years ago and we started to receive letters of demand from Centerlink. By the end of 2 weeks, they were claiming we owed them 32 thousand dollars in illegally obtained payments over 5 years. We questioned it (obviously) and what ended up happening is that a person with the same name and birthdate as Mrs GF had moved to NZ, which meant this person could no longer claim. All we had to do was show that she was not the same person, work through the details and at the end of it, they ended up owing -us- money.
We never went public, never went to the press and complained, we just worked within the system and got it sorted out.
This law would have zero effect on us, for example.
However, I am sure you are aware of the HUGE push of late for the government to crack down on dole bludgers, and this could be an effective tool in doing exactly that. People have essentially -asked- for the government to step in and do something, and this -is- doing something. Is it the most effective way to do it? I don't know, but it certainly plays into the Australian "tall poppy syndrome" culture.

They are also using this tactic to silence veterans who have returned from war zones.


Ethically isn't this a bit wrong?

Ethically? I don't know if I would call it ethically wrong, but If you are releasing people home addresses and such, I would certainly call it -morally- wrong, and potentially inciting violence. It's certainly not a law I would vote for if I were in parliament, and I think it is a case of too little too late for the labour party to cry about it now as it passed unanimously. Parliamentarians should spend a more time considering the blowback of policies before signing of on them because they make good sound bites if you ask me, and that's not unique to any political system or country.

[SoulReaver]

But would the US govt. stoop to that level to silence veterans who were treated badly?

the current US govt? definitely

as a draft-dodger himself the LSOS doesn't really have much respect for the military
for law enforcement yes obviously (they enforce the laws that benefit the elite$) but not for the military (not the low ranking grunt anyway)

generally speaking the conservatives are the ones who least respect the military (contrary to what they claim) cf. what happened to Jose Guerena

[garhkal]

Not until it's well and truly proven -- otherwise it'll just be #FakeNews, #DemocraticLies and/or #LIES!

I keep seeing people say they colluded. HOW? Unless russia hacked the election machines, then all they did was the same propaganda slandering that we see in all the tv ads..

He failed to mention he met with a Russian envoy. The same one, which got Flynn into hot water.

But flynn was not a sitting senator on the foreign relations committee, like Sessions was during that time. ERgo his JOB is to meet with envoys.. So why the shock, he did??

See new post on this matter. Lots of articles from every side of the journalistic and opinionated spectrum.

True, there are those on the left, who feel that there was no legal basis for people to claim they should have recused themselves, but those same people feel Sessions should not only recuse himself from this investgation, but should be immediately canned...

Don't worry, your republican overlords are already hard at work to make voting even harder to do. Soon, you won't have to vote anymore.

So IYO, voter ID laws are making things hard to vote? Guess China, India and Mexico ALL COUNTRIES which do require them (and in some cases MORE), to vote all suppress people then..

Case 2: In Garhkal's opinion (same-sex) marriage is a right. How does this relate to the SCOTUS ruling Obergefell vs Hodges (link see previous post)?

Where you getting that idea from? Since Marriage itself is not a right, how then would 'the equal protection clause" mean gay marriage is a right..?

"The Trump administration can’t solve the problem that has always bedeviled this policy, which is that there isn’t any credible national security rationale for it. Unlike on the campaign trail, when you’re governing, you actually have to have justification for what you’re proposing, or you often run into trouble."

Wasn't trump using a list Obama cam up with??

[Gatefan1976]

I keep seeing people say they colluded. HOW? Unless russia hacked the election machines, then all they did was the same propaganda slandering that we see in all the tv ads..

There are -levels- of propaganda Garhkal, and there are also different platforms that you can use.
I use your words against you in a news ad, that's propaganda, sure.
I use the spectre of possible criminal activity commited by you, and have it splashed all over the written text news and nationwide TV, that's totally different, that's trial by public, something trump is currently learning a great deal about.

But flynn was not a sitting senator on the foreign relations committee, like Sessions was during that time. ERgo his JOB is to meet with envoys.. So why the shock, he did??

It's not.
The bad bit is everyone conveniently forgetting that they did it when asked directly under oath.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman", got Clinton done for perjury, and it's the exact same thing "I did not meet with any Russian officials", it's perjury as well.

True, there are those on the left, who feel that there was no legal basis for people to claim they should have recused themselves, but those same people feel Sessions should not only recuse himself from this investgation, but should be immediately canned...

Yes there are, for perjury. You would think the AG would know that is a crime.

So IYO, voter ID laws are making things hard to vote? Guess China, India and Mexico ALL COUNTRIES which do require them (and in some cases MORE), to vote all suppress people then..

Please, look into voter suppression, it's not ALL about voter ID laws.

Where you getting that idea from? Since Marriage itself is not a right, how then would 'the equal protection clause" mean gay marriage is a right..?

Equal protection under the law. Marriage gives rights, denying those rights to people you disagree with in by definition not equal protection. A great legal example of this would be spousal privilege.

Wasn't trump using a list Obama cam up with??

And?
Did Obama use it?
Did he sign EO's based off it?
Don't you say that actions speak louder than words?
Trump -acted-.

[Annoyed]

[edit]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
Thing is, those folks aren't really THAT stupid. So there's gotta be another explanation that we don't know about.

How about one you do.
Russian interference in the election via propaganda to destroy what credibility Hillary had in order to de-motivate the voting public.
Naaahhhhh..............

[/edit]

Originally Posted by garhkal
I keep seeing people say they colluded. HOW? Unless russia hacked the election machines, then all they did was the same propaganda slandering that we see in all the tv ads..

There are -levels- of propaganda Garhkal, and there are also different platforms that you can use.
I use your words against you in a news ad, that's propaganda, sure.
I use the spectre of possible criminal activity commited by you, and have it splashed all over the written text news and nationwide TV, that's totally different, that's trial by public, something trump is currently learning a great deal about.

Remind me to say something about that tomorrow when I'm sober again.

[edit]

garhkal has a point. There is no hard evidence that the Russians actually hacked voting machines or altered the vote count in any way. They used propaganda and tried to change public opinion at best. I'm pretty sure we've done the same thing to other countries in the past. So, for the sake of discussion, let's concede that they did deliberately use propaganda to try to help the candidate they preferred, Trump.

You're advancing the theory that they undermined Hillary's credibility in the eyes of her potential voters.

Whose fault is it that those potential Hillary voters were stupid enough to pay heed to propaganda from a potentially hostile foreign power? They *should* have ignored the Russian claims or at the very least investigated them before basing their vote on them.

*IF* China, for example had mounted a propaganda campaign against Trump, accusing him of whatever, the details don't matter, how much attention do you think I would have paid to their claims?

I've seen you post that you agree that Hillary was a poor candidate choice for them, and that their platform doesn't appeal to the working class voters that they counted on in the "blue wall" states. These are the real reasons they lost.

One of the core tenets of every self-help or 12-step program I've ever heard of is that the first step in solving a problem is admitting to yourself that you have a problem.

As long as the Democrats and their supporters remain in denial about the reasons they lost and keep trying to blame whoever, they cannot begin to make the changes they need to make in order to win again.[/edit]

[Coco Pops]

Yeah, I'm in NSW dude.

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. From what I can gather, they cannot do it -just- for criticism, but if you make a false claim against them. Now, that's pretty bloody murky ground, but let me give you a personal, but obviously anecdotal experience. Mrs GF got hit with one of these automated checks some 3 years ago and we started to receive letters of demand from Centerlink. By the end of 2 weeks, they were claiming we owed them 32 thousand dollars in illegally obtained payments over 5 years. We questioned it (obviously) and what ended up happening is that a person with the same name and birthdate as Mrs GF had moved to NZ, which meant this person could no longer claim. All we had to do was show that she was not the same person, work through the details and at the end of it, they ended up owing -us- money.
We never went public, never went to the press and complained, we just worked within the system and got it sorted out.
This law would have zero effect on us, for example.
However, I am sure you are aware of the HUGE push of late for the government to crack down on dole bludgers, and this could be an effective tool in doing exactly that. People have essentially -asked- for the government to step in and do something, and this -is- doing something. Is it the most effective way to do it? I don't know, but it certainly plays into the Australian "tall poppy syndrome" culture.

But do you think the outcome would have been different had you made it public?

I'm only going of what was presented on The Project on Friday, and the way it was presented was that if you went public with a complaint they would make your life hell till you either withdraw your complaint or capitulate..

Ethically? I don't know if I would call it ethically wrong, but If you are releasing people home addresses and such, I would certainly call it -morally- wrong, and potentially inciting violence. It's certainly not a law I would vote for if I were in parliament, and I think it is a case of too little too late for the labour party to cry about it now as it passed unanimously. Parliamentarians should spend a more time considering the blowback of policies before signing of on them because they make good sound bites if you ask me, and that's not unique to any political system or country.

Yes but if the VA is not treating returning soldiers in a reasonable manner and they can't get any redress from them going public seems the only way these days to get a grievance sorted. It's I think still a little wrong that the government can then smear you for wanting to complain..