Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The pro-doma oral arguments were so unbelievably weak this was a given.

I chuckled a bit, but only because I read DOMA as "Dome, eh?"

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I want to read some delicious butthurt, but I can't find any. Even my conservative friends are pretty happy about this.

Ask and you shall receive.

The GOP can't challenge SCOTUS because that would mean undermining the recent rulings that it favors.

I wonder how long it will take for my job to consider gay-partners when next-of-kin decisions are needed.

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for my job to consider gay-partners when next-of-kin decisions are needed.

Should be immediate...right?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for my job to consider gay-partners when next-of-kin decisions are needed.

Should be immediate...right?

Now you are acting like you have never dealt with a federal agency .

My guess is that it would depend on whether they are actually married by a state that does actually allows same-sex marriage. Of course that is after we spend 12 months writing new policies...

Actually since I remember where D-USA work. NoK notification is whoever the individual put down to be notify first.

This is Obama's first step toward making us all get gay-married!

 Monster Rain wrote:
This is Obama's first step toward making us all get gay-married!

erm... wut?

o.O

Not a bad day of judicial work.

Retire next month from the Military. Now I can watch from the outside how the military tries to adjust as fast as possible to gay marriage couples

How fast did it adapt to DADT?

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually since I remember where D-USA work. NoK notification is whoever the individual put down to be notify first.

Definitely, if you put down the homeless person in the tent next to you as your NoK/Emergency Contact then we will notify them. That has always been the case and has not changed.

I was wondering more about a case of "not having capacity to make decisions". In that case the actual relative would have to make decisions for you, unless you have a DPOA nominating somebody else. If there is no DPOA then we would have to go with family (which wouldn't include gay spouses prior to the ruling today).

How fast did it adapt to DADT?

When Clinton did DADT it was brilliant of him and freaking funny. Perma Marker to black out a certain question on federal documents and literally "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" we had it nice and tidy within a week. This is different. This involves benefits with the military. Like mention before. On Post Housing, Basic Allowance for Housing, PX/Commissary access, and a slew of others bennies.

Translation: It's going to be a complete clusterfeth for awhile.

 d-usa wrote:
My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

As a filthy atheist I have to say marriage isn't a religious word, it's not a religious institution, nor should those who don't have an invisible friend or do things that people with invisible friends don't like be prohibited from being married. By all means, religious institutions can carry on being bigots and hopefully get more and more irrelevant by continuing to refuse to marry certain people, but they should not have an exclusive hold on what marriage is.

Because marriage has changed a hell of a lot over the many thousands of years it has been around. Hell, it is older than most invisible friend appreciation groups...

Oh We know KM. Military going to be all over the news in a perception of not being fast enough to enforce the new guidelines. Wondering if some asshat senator next year saying we need to have a fix number living on post by fiscal 15. Meaning gay married couples jump the waiting the list already establish

As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

That's a stupid argument, and you should know better.

If California put a referendum on the ballot saying "all weapons must be melted down" and it passes, do you think that California should be allowed to round up all weapons and melt them down? And that the Governor or AG should have to defend it?

Just because a majority of the people want to do something that is unconstitutional doesn't mean that they should be able to do so just because there are more of them. And for conservatives who love the "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" argument to now cry "but, democracy" is just laughable.

Tho permanent political class didn't defend it because it was unconstitutional, there was no reason to defend it. This case did nothing to render the initiative system kaput, it enforced that the Constitution trumps a bunch of people who are butt-hurt about a social issue because they can't get their heads out of the 1930's.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

That's a stupid argument, and you should know better.

I should? Dude... project much?

Tho permanent political class didn't defend it because it was unconstitutional, there was no reason to defend it. This case did nothing to render the initiative system kaput, it enforced that the Constitution trumps a bunch of people who are butt-hurt about a social issue because they can't get their heads out of the 1930's.

I think you missed his entire point...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As much as I tend to look at gay rights as another civil rights case... Scalia has an interesting dissention:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What he's saying is that the whole point of the initiative system (referundum) is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like, but the actual citizens do...

Now the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be kaput... because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass, can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

That's a stupid argument, and you should know better.

I should? Dude... project much?

It is fairly obvious when you make argument based on your own conclusions, and when you repeat something someone else said. The stuff that you come up with yourself is of a higher quality that this argument.

Tho permanent political class didn't defend it because it was unconstitutional, there was no reason to defend it. This case did nothing to render the initiative system kaput, it enforced that the Constitution trumps a bunch of people who are butt-hurt about a social issue because they can't get their heads out of the 1930's.

I think you missed his entire point...

Enlighten me, what point did I miss.

That he thinks that a state should be forced to defend a law that violates the constitution simply because a loud majority wants to violate the constitution?

 d-usa wrote:


Enlighten me, what point did I miss.

That he thinks that a state should be forced to defend a law that violates the constitution simply because a loud majority wants to violate the constitution?

First of all... I'm on your fething side on this issue.

Secondly... I was thinking Scalia, but it was Kennedy that wrote this dissent...

Thirdly...it's interesting because there's 20 some-odd states that allows referendum of these sorts. I'm not talking about this Prop 8 scenario, I'm talking about something that the population "wants" but, the political class does not.

For instance, let's take the Keystone Pipeline dealio... what if the citizen passes the referendum in PA to allow the Keystone Pipeline to move forward, but the Sierra Nevada group sues the state to prevent the implementation of the pipeline project. The PA dept of justice refuses to defend the case, because they're big supporters of the Sierra Nevada group. See where I'm going?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Enlighten me, what point did I miss.

That he thinks that a state should be forced to defend a law that violates the constitution simply because a loud majority wants to violate the constitution?

First of all... I'm on your fething side on this issue.

You said it was an interesting argument. I disagreed. I know we are on the same side there, I just think that argument doesn't make any sense.

Secondly... I was thinking Scalia, but it was Kennedy that wrote this dissent...

Thirdly...it's interesting because there's 20 some-odd states that allows referendum of these sorts. I'm not talking about this Prop 8 scenario, I'm talking about something that the population "wants" but, the political class does not.

For instance, let's take the Keystone Pipeline dealio... what if the citizen passes the referendum in PA to allow the Keystone Pipeline to move forward, but the Sierra Nevada group sues the state to prevent the implementation of the pipeline project. The PA dept of justice refuses to defend the case, because they're big supporters of the Sierra Nevada group. See where I'm going?

Refusing to defend something because they like something is quite a bit different than refusing to defend something because it is unconstitutional.

Oklahoma passes stupid referendums on a regular basis, many of the unconstitutional. It gets thrown out by the state supreme court and our legislature and AGs don't push for Supreme Court hearings because they know there is no case. Not because they are in cahoots with anybody.
Just because enough people want something doesn't mean that it passes constitutional muster and needs to be defended.

We might see more of this in the coming years as individual states get sued over their definitions of marriage.

I also think the Obama administration was wrong to decline to defend it. I don't think it's the purview of the executive to decide what laws it should or should not enforce for whatever reason (except, perhaps, executive orders?). DOMA was bad law, but it was the law, duly passed by the legislative. Perhaps Dogma or Sebster or someone like that can convince me otherwise but that also seems wrong to me.

Good. Now hopefully same-sex couples can now be afforded the same immigration rights, tax privileges, etc. that heterosexual couples enjoy.

 Ouze wrote:
I also think the Obama administration was wrong to decline to defend it. I don't think it's the purview of the executive to decide what laws it should or should not enforce for whatever reason (except, perhaps, executive orders?). DOMA was bad law, but it was the law, duly passed by the legislative. Perhaps Dogma or Sebster or someone like that can convince me otherwise but that also seems wrong to me.

Well Congress can and did defend a law if the executive chooses not to.

The executive is, well, the executive. It's the branch that does the actual governing within the bounds established by the courts and with the laws enacted by the legislator. While there is a presumption that the executive will enforce the law, that's actually not required. On a small scale, think of any time a cop did not issue you a ticket. Discretion is part of the authority of the executive.

As for defending the law, I think it's more appropriate to allow a branch that wants the law upheld to defend it, rather than attempt a half hearted defense. this isn't like that episode of Star Trek where riker had to argue that Data was property. There are plenty of government lawyers willing and able to step in.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I also think the Obama administration was wrong to decline to defend it. I don't think it's the purview of the executive to decide what laws it should or should not enforce for whatever reason (except, perhaps, executive orders?). DOMA was bad law, but it was the law, duly passed by the legislative. Perhaps Dogma or Sebster or someone like that can convince me otherwise but that also seems wrong to me.

Well Congress can and did defend a law if the executive chooses not to.

The executive is, well, the executive. It's the branch that does the actual governing within the bounds established by the courts and with the laws enacted by the legislator. While there is a presumption that the executive will enforce the law, that's actually not required. On a small scale, think of any time a cop did not issue you a ticket. Discretion is part of the authority of the executive.

As for defending the law, I think it's more appropriate to allow a branch that wants the law upheld to defend it, rather than attempt a half hearted defense. this isn't like that episode of Star Trek where riker had to argue that Data was property. There are plenty of government lawyers willing and able to step in.

I am sure we could make a big threat about the separation of the branches and talk about this. If we can argue that the Executive HAS to defend it, could we then also argue that the Judiciary HAS to uphold it? The three branches have the ability to make independent decisions by design, this might be one of them. Would be an interesting discussion though.

If Proposition 8 was a legislative law instead of a referendum, and California lawmakers had defended it, would the SCOTUS have made the same decision regarding the California law?

 Polonius wrote:
Well Congress can and did defend a law if the executive chooses not to.

The executive is, well, the executive. It's the branch that does the actual governing within the bounds established by the courts and with the laws enacted by the legislator. While there is a presumption that the executive will enforce the law, that's actually not required. On a small scale, think of any time a cop did not issue you a ticket. Discretion is part of the authority of the executive.

As for defending the law, I think it's more appropriate to allow a branch that wants the law upheld to defend it, rather than attempt a half hearted defense. this isn't like that episode of Star Trek where riker had to argue that Data was property. There are plenty of government lawyers willing and able to step in.

OK - how much, shall we say, prosecutorial discretion does the executive have? Could the executive, say... you know, it doesn't matter what example I use. I imagine the answer is "as much as it can get away with until impeached", right?

essentially, yes.

Remember that Ford unilaterally issued a general pardon to Nixon. Certain social crimes become more or less decriminized under the right president.

The only real oversight is impechment or the voters. Since even Democratic voters in the US are pretty strict "law and order" voters, nobody gets far by failing to enforce the laws.

 Polonius wrote:
Since even Democratic voters in the US are pretty strict "law and order" voters, nobody gets far by failing to enforce the laws.

Except when it comes to immigration

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Since even Democratic voters in the US are pretty strict "law and order" voters, nobody gets far by failing to enforce the laws.

Except when it comes to immigration

I appreciate a good rimshot, (of course, Republicans have no problem ignoring Insider Trading laws), but even that is a complex issue. Some interesting polling numbers:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/22/americans-immigration-pew-poll-congress-amnesty-citizenship/2448895/

TLDR: basically most Americans of both parties seem to think that both mass deportation and mass amnesty are stupid.

For the most part, Americans dont' understand that Judge Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a fantasy.

Immigration thread need to be started. Not started here

Frankly I don't care. DADT and DOMA did not effect me or mission execution. Of course I did not care unless it becomes my issue. Example be flaunting the repeal of DADT and DOMA in uniform and/or out of uniform. As long as they are treated the same as male-female married couple. No favoritism, No specials, and No damn Pet project favoritism

10mg Percoset does not mix well with 5mg Antivan.......I even ate....wowser...WoWsEr......rollercoaster ride....

Anyway. Both sides need to stick with a level playing field.