Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
If there is no legitimate argument for a ban, it won't even pass the lesser standards.
but the lesser standard is "write whatever"
rational basis overtly does not require that the argument exhibit non-stupidity
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
This is worse than I could ever imagine.
God help us
God help us all.
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
If there is no legitimate argument for a ban, it won't even pass the lesser standards.
but the lesser standard is "write whatever"
rational basis overtly does not require that the argument exhibit non-stupidity
It simply means that the government has a legitimate reason for a law or regulation that is rationally linked to it (in other words, the connection is not a non sequitur).
If I invest $5 in a company's stock, and the value of the share doubles, from whom have I taken the other $5 when I sell it?
if you place it in an offshore bank account where it pools with preposterous amounts of yours and other peoples wealth and enters a closed financial loop were it does nothing but make even more money for you and the bankers looking after it, then the answer to that is everyone
you are harming everone who is not you or one of your bankers
Theodore Olson. Founder of the Federalist society, defender of anonymous sourcing, and winner of Bush v. Gore, he is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is so ridiculous it cannot be justified by any reasonable means. His position is that there is literally no legitimate argument for the ban in any context, at all.
Go kick ass, Ted.
how does that work
scotus precedent is that legislatures can write active nonsense and still issue constitutional legislation
When rights are concerned, they need some reasonable excuse. How good the excuse needs to be varies from right to right.
doesn't that elevated scrutiny standard only apply for protected classes, in which case any outright ban would be unconstitutional anyway
If there is no legitimate argument for a ban, it won't even pass the lesser standards.
but the lesser standard is "write whatever"
rational basis overtly does not require that the argument exhibit non-stupidity
Ronya, you're wrong. The standard isn't "write whatever" it is "write whatever so long as it is constitutional" which is the entire point of SCOTUS review.
You cannot simply "write whatever" law you wish to write. See Brown v BOEd. See Roe v Wade. See Florida v United States.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
It's official. The sequester did not effect my wife's job. She starts in about 3 weeks.
Oh, also, Ronya, that is not in any way an accurate summation of how American federal government works or SCOTUS precedent.
Brown, Roe, and ACA cases being the pertinent example of why.
believe me that I am quite willing to argue that your supreme court makes stuff up as it goes along
but baldly arguing that there is no rational basis is quite hard to do
You're just wrong, Ronya. This is an instance where you are incorrect. The lesser standard that laws have to pass is not "write whatever". As I said a post or two up.
If I invest $5 in a company's stock, and the value of the share doubles, from whom have I taken the other $5 when I sell it?
if you place it in an offshore bank account where it pools with preposterous amounts of yours and other peoples wealth and enters a closed financial loop were it does nothing but make even more money for you and the bankers looking after it, then the answer to that is everyone
you are harming everone who is not you or one of your bankers
where's the parent quote from
(the proximate answer is, btw, "the people who you lent the $5 to, i.e., the company's founders in an IPO, or the previous shareholder")
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Post-PAX work is the worst work. I'd much rather be hungover in Boston eating chowder with awesome nerds than sitting here in a tie and drinking bad coffee.
+8
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Fuck, woke up to an email saying I didn't get into Washington.
@ARCH YOU DID NOT HIT THE ADMISSION COMMITTEE HARD ENOUGH.
Seriously though who the fuck sends and email like that at six in the morning?
"WE THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WAKE UP WITHOUT BEING DEPRESSED SO WE PUT THIS IN YOUR INBOX"
Posts
but the lesser standard is "write whatever"
rational basis overtly does not require that the argument exhibit non-stupidity
God help us
God help us all.
they are in the dinner thread you nub
skippy chat
Brown, Roe, and ACA cases being the pertinent example of why.
y'all jelly
Pax isn't a dinner it's a convention
First no cougars and now this
It's a great injustice that i am not in any of those! Outrageous!
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
if you place it in an offshore bank account where it pools with preposterous amounts of yours and other peoples wealth and enters a closed financial loop were it does nothing but make even more money for you and the bankers looking after it, then the answer to that is everyone
you are harming everone who is not you or one of your bankers
Stop headbutting walls!
did you see that I am the reigning right handed arm wrestler of pax
more pix are coming I think @elki hasn't posted any yet and I think @tarranon and @msmya took pics too
Ronya, you're wrong. The standard isn't "write whatever" it is "write whatever so long as it is constitutional" which is the entire point of SCOTUS review.
You cannot simply "write whatever" law you wish to write. See Brown v BOEd. See Roe v Wade. See Florida v United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XznEs896f7Y
I don't remember having my picture taken, though. I do remember SIG filming me (I think) during karaoke. I am anxiously waiting on that. :-)
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
believe me that I am quite willing to argue that your supreme court makes stuff up as it goes along
but baldly arguing that there is no rational basis is quite hard to do
this is an outrage
someone call my broker
WHAT?!?!!
that is my dream
is p sweet.
You're just wrong, Ronya. This is an instance where you are incorrect. The lesser standard that laws have to pass is not "write whatever". As I said a post or two up.
Every argument against gay marriage is a non-sequitor at this point.
where's the parent quote from
(the proximate answer is, btw, "the people who you lent the $5 to, i.e., the company's founders in an IPO, or the previous shareholder")
I read that as DRINK and decided to become a bartender and invent a cocktail called the Sarksus.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
@ARCH YOU DID NOT HIT THE ADMISSION COMMITTEE HARD ENOUGH.
Seriously though who the fuck sends and email like that at six in the morning?
"WE THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WAKE UP WITHOUT BEING DEPRESSED SO WE PUT THIS IN YOUR INBOX"