The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
Are there any negative consequences if they DON'T turn over exculpatory evidence?
Conviction should be reversed if this is found out after the fact. During the case defense attorneys can make the court compel the DA to turn over something they think they are entitled to have have but hasn't been given to the defense yet. The court could do an in camera review of something and determine whether it should be turned over.
Depending on the severity of failing to comply with Brady, bar sanctions could be brought against the prosecutor. But keep in mind reasonable legal minds can differ as to what is actually exculpatory. Defense attorneys use that term very broadly, prosecutors narrowly.
I forget what this has to do with the case we were discussing though...
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
Are there any negative consequences if they DON'T turn over exculpatory evidence?
Conviction should be reversed if this is found out after the fact. During the case defense attorneys can make the court compel the DA to turn over something they think they are entitled to have have but hasn't been given to the defense yet. The court could do an in camera review of something and determine whether it should be turned over.
Depending on the severity of failing to comply with Brady, bar sanctions could be brought against the prosecutor. But keep in mind reasonable legal minds can differ as to what is actually exculpatory. Defense attorneys use that term very broadly, prosecutors narrowly.
I forget what this has to do with the case we were discussing though...
Somebody brought up the "Anything you say can and will be used against you" part of the Miranda Rights and believed it meant that the police don't have to give out exculpatory evidence, when actually means that while the 5th amendment protects you from having to incriminate yourself, it doesn't deny you the "right" to put your foot in your mouth, so to speak.
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
Are there any negative consequences if they DON'T turn over exculpatory evidence?
Conviction should be reversed if this is found out after the fact. During the case defense attorneys can make the court compel the DA to turn over something they think they are entitled to have have but hasn't been given to the defense yet. The court could do an in camera review of something and determine whether it should be turned over.
Depending on the severity of failing to comply with Brady, bar sanctions could be brought against the prosecutor. But keep in mind reasonable legal minds can differ as to what is actually exculpatory. Defense attorneys use that term very broadly, prosecutors narrowly.
I forget what this has to do with the case we were discussing though...
Somebody brought up the "Anything you say can and will be used against you" part of the Miranda Rights and believed it meant that the police don't have to give out exculpatory evidence, when actually means that while the 5th amendment protects you from having to incriminate yourself, it doesn't deny you the "right" to put your foot in your mouth, so to speak.
Actually it means that anything you say will be used against you, and nothing you say or do will be used in your favor.
The recent court ruling just appends that to mean that anything you say will be used against you, as well as anything you don't say.
The leading case is Brady: the prosecution has an affirmative duty to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession and control to the defense. Evidence in the police dept is in the possession and control of the DA.
Are there any negative consequences if they DON'T turn over exculpatory evidence?
Conviction should be reversed if this is found out after the fact. During the case defense attorneys can make the court compel the DA to turn over something they think they are entitled to have have but hasn't been given to the defense yet. The court could do an in camera review of something and determine whether it should be turned over.
Depending on the severity of failing to comply with Brady, bar sanctions could be brought against the prosecutor. But keep in mind reasonable legal minds can differ as to what is actually exculpatory. Defense attorneys use that term very broadly, prosecutors narrowly.
I forget what this has to do with the case we were discussing though...
Somebody brought up the "Anything you say can and will be used against you" part of the Miranda Rights and believed it meant that the police don't have to give out exculpatory evidence, when actually means that while the 5th amendment protects you from having to incriminate yourself, it doesn't deny you the "right" to put your foot in your mouth, so to speak.
Actually it means that anything you say will be used against you, and nothing you say or do will be used in your favor.
The recent court ruling just appends that to mean that anything you say will be used against you, as well as anything you don't say.
"You have the right to get fucked, because we're basically going to convict you no matter what happens at this point."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
"We don't even care if you did it! Just so long as SOMEBODY goes to jail."
So Roberts just put a stay on the the 4th's gay marriage ruling. Had he not done that, gays and lesbians would have been able to start getting legally married in VA tomorrow. The 6th is suppose to have a ruling soon and that may create a split, since there seems to be bets that they may likely uphold a gay marriage ban.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
Actually, the fundies were supportive of (or at the least quiet about) the Roe decision, in large part because at the time, opposition to abortion was seen as a primarily Catholic belief. At that time, the big baliwick of the Protestant evangelicals was racism and defending its use. It wasn't until the mid-80's that they tacked to homosexuality and abortion as campaigns to rally around.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
Actually, the fundies were supportive of (or at the least quiet about) the Roe decision, in large part because at the time, opposition to abortion was seen as a primarily Catholic belief. At that time, the big baliwick of the Protestant evangelicals was racism and defending its use. It wasn't until the mid-80's that they tacked to homosexuality and abortion as campaigns to rally around.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court manages to fuck it up and forbids gay marriage at the federal level.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court manages to fuck it up and forbids gay marriage at the federal level.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court manages to fuck it up and forbids gay marriage at the federal level.
Sure, if Justice Kennedy suddenly decides to completely reverse himself on the issue and ignores all the precedents he himself set.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court manages to fuck it up and forbids gay marriage at the federal level.
Sure, if Justice Kennedy suddenly decides to completely reverse himself on the issue and ignores all the precedents he himself set.
And also decides to take up a federal issue when all the appeals are from state laws
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
I'm fully expecting the toxic tea party, which has gotten a stronger hold on the Republican party to bitch about activist judges when they don't get the ruling they want. Followed by efforts to try and change the law and/or not follow it. Given the current political climate, I'm not convinced that the derp proceeding gay marriage bans being struck down by the SCOTUS will be a few years. Not unless the current conservative movement, running things like the tea party, gets disemboweled for being so awful.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
I'm fully expecting the toxic tea party, which has gotten a stronger hold on the Republican party to bitch about activist judges when they don't get the ruling they want. Followed by efforts to try and change the law and/or not follow it. Given the current political climate, I'm not convinced that the derp proceeding gay marriage bans being struck down by the SCOTUS will be a few years. Not unless the current conservative movement, running things like the tea party, gets disemboweled for being so awful.
Nobody is going to want to talk about this by the 2016 general beyond some very local level officials. Especially after nothing happens. For the same reason that the ACA has hardly been mentioned in most campaign ads this go 'round. The Supreme Court is going to make their ruling and that will be the end of it aside from the gnashing of teeth. And you can only gnash your teeth for so long until its just gums.
Great, so now we wait for Emperor Anthony to check if he currently feels like acting like a decent human being or not.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
I'm fully expecting the toxic tea party, which has gotten a stronger hold on the Republican party to bitch about activist judges when they don't get the ruling they want. Followed by efforts to try and change the law and/or not follow it. Given the current political climate, I'm not convinced that the derp proceeding gay marriage bans being struck down by the SCOTUS will be a few years. Not unless the current conservative movement, running things like the tea party, gets disemboweled for being so awful.
Nobody is going to want to talk about this by the 2016 general beyond some very local level officials. Especially after nothing happens. For the same reason that the ACA has hardly been mentioned in most campaign ads this go 'round. The Supreme Court is going to make their ruling and that will be the end of it aside from the gnashing of teeth. And you can only gnash your teeth for so long until its just gums.
How do those percentages look for habitual voters in swing states?
looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against all the bans because
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
The SCOTUS ruling on abortion didn't address point 3.
Comparing feelings on abortion to feelings on gay marriage is a mistake. A large mistake.
The idea that a SCOTUS ruling in favour of gay marriage would make the Republican Party throw up their hands in defeat is fanciful at best. Regardless of one's feeling on abortion, it shows that the party isn't going to give up on the basis of a supreme court ruling.
The SCOTUS ruling on abortion didn't address point 3.
Comparing feelings on abortion to feelings on gay marriage is a mistake. A large mistake.
The idea that a SCOTUS ruling in favour of gay marriage would make the Republican Party throw up their hands in defeat is fanciful at best. Regardless of one's feeling on abortion, it shows that the party isn't going to give up on the basis of a supreme court ruling.
I don't think it shows that at all, because the two aren't comparable. Honestly I think it's a little bit disgusting to compare them at all. It dramatically trivializes abortion.
The Republican Party isn't the gay marriage problem, though there's a lot of intersection with it. Far more than with the Democrats, but it wasn't that long ago when a darling of the Democrats declined to do anything about California banning gay marriage.
Thanks, Obama.
I don't think the party is dedicated to preventing gay marriage, even though those who are dedicated to doing so are mostly in the Republican party. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I don't think the younger members of either party oppose it, and I think it'll quickly vanish from the mainstream. By 2020 it won't even be a campaign issue in the Presidential election, except as ammunition loaded by Democrats to fire at their enemies and raise a bit of cash.
Within a decade, the people most guilty of perpetuating conflict over gay marriage will be far, far rightwing evangelicals and amoral progressive strategists flogging the dead horse to get a little more cash from its hide.
looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against all the bans because
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
Indeed; just look at how making abortion legal ensured that no republicans got mired in that issue in 2012.
Better keep voting for them anyway, though. Otherwise they'll never get the message and change.
+3
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited August 2014
Women are more plentiful than gay people. Losing control over women's rights is a bigger blow against Christian power. Plus, babies? Adorable. So we shouldn't kill them, and that is what abortion is. That's pretty much where we still are with at least 20 % of Americans.
The SCOTUS ruling on abortion didn't address point 3.
Comparing feelings on abortion to feelings on gay marriage is a mistake. A large mistake.
The idea that a SCOTUS ruling in favour of gay marriage would make the Republican Party throw up their hands in defeat is fanciful at best. Regardless of one's feeling on abortion, it shows that the party isn't going to give up on the basis of a supreme court ruling.
When is the last time you heard a politician decry miscegenation?
Not 'use a racist dogwhistle about it' but actually address the public policy implications of legalized miscegenation.
looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against all the bans because
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
Indeed; just look at how making abortion legal ensured that no republicans got mired in that issue in 2012.
How is Windsor and the upcoming Kitchen ruling more comparable to Roe and Casey rather than to Loving?
looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against all the bans because
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
Indeed; just look at how making abortion legal ensured that no republicans got mired in that issue in 2012.
How is Windsor and the upcoming Kitchen ruling more comparable to Roe and Casey rather than to Loving?
I've no idea.
I'm just saying it's historically the case that a supreme court ruling doesn't make an issue "settled" in US politics. Or even a vote-loser.
looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling against all the bans because
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
Indeed; just look at how making abortion legal ensured that no republicans got mired in that issue in 2012.
How is Windsor and the upcoming Kitchen ruling more comparable to Roe and Casey rather than to Loving?
I've no idea.
Then maybe you shouldn't?
I'm just saying it's historically the case that a supreme court ruling doesn't make an issue "settled" in US politics. Or even a vote-loser.
Historically, that is entirely dependent on the ruling. How many campaign ads are talking about Kelo v New London?
Posts
Are there any negative consequences if they DON'T turn over exculpatory evidence?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm pretty sure it's grounds for an appeal, at the least.
Conviction should be reversed if this is found out after the fact. During the case defense attorneys can make the court compel the DA to turn over something they think they are entitled to have have but hasn't been given to the defense yet. The court could do an in camera review of something and determine whether it should be turned over.
Depending on the severity of failing to comply with Brady, bar sanctions could be brought against the prosecutor. But keep in mind reasonable legal minds can differ as to what is actually exculpatory. Defense attorneys use that term very broadly, prosecutors narrowly.
I forget what this has to do with the case we were discussing though...
The problem is that the current court has been chipping away at Brady.
Somebody brought up the "Anything you say can and will be used against you" part of the Miranda Rights and believed it meant that the police don't have to give out exculpatory evidence, when actually means that while the 5th amendment protects you from having to incriminate yourself, it doesn't deny you the "right" to put your foot in your mouth, so to speak.
Actually it means that anything you say will be used against you, and nothing you say or do will be used in your favor.
The recent court ruling just appends that to mean that anything you say will be used against you, as well as anything you don't say.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
"You have the right to get fucked, because we're basically going to convict you no matter what happens at this point."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
That was always going to be the case because they were always going to stay the rulings until the Court decides the issue next term. I just can't wait until June when it comes down and ends all the damn idiocy about this.
I'll be hugely surprised if it ends all the damb idiocy about this.
Yeah, I mean look at what the fundie crowd starting doing after Roe V Wade. I'd say, expect them to go full derp but those clowns already are, so just expect the idiocy to get more appalling. Silver lining is that it might really turn enough people off, that the shitty movement loses steam and becomes politically toxic. Or we'll get stuck waiting for the biggest age demographic with a shitty view to die off, so that indulging in the idiocy is no longer politically expedient.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Actually, the fundies were supportive of (or at the least quiet about) the Roe decision, in large part because at the time, opposition to abortion was seen as a primarily Catholic belief. At that time, the big baliwick of the Protestant evangelicals was racism and defending its use. It wasn't until the mid-80's that they tacked to homosexuality and abortion as campaigns to rally around.
mmm identity politics
I don't see how this is at all comparable to Roe or Casey rather than being comparable to Loving. Which, aside from being a direct comparison throughout the arguments over gay marriage, when have you ever heard of Loving v Virginia? I'm sure there will be a few stupid county clerks here and there, but I don't expect there will be all that many, nor would I expect it to last more than a couple years beyond next June.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court manages to fuck it up and forbids gay marriage at the federal level.
I hate how possible that seems.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Sure, if Justice Kennedy suddenly decides to completely reverse himself on the issue and ignores all the precedents he himself set.
And also decides to take up a federal issue when all the appeals are from state laws
I'm fully expecting the toxic tea party, which has gotten a stronger hold on the Republican party to bitch about activist judges when they don't get the ruling they want. Followed by efforts to try and change the law and/or not follow it. Given the current political climate, I'm not convinced that the derp proceeding gay marriage bans being struck down by the SCOTUS will be a few years. Not unless the current conservative movement, running things like the tea party, gets disemboweled for being so awful.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Nobody is going to want to talk about this by the 2016 general beyond some very local level officials. Especially after nothing happens. For the same reason that the ACA has hardly been mentioned in most campaign ads this go 'round. The Supreme Court is going to make their ruling and that will be the end of it aside from the gnashing of teeth. And you can only gnash your teeth for so long until its just gums.
How do those percentages look for habitual voters in swing states?
1) it is the right thing to do
2) it is consistent with a pro-liberty stance that I prefer.
3) it will remove an effective club used today to justifiably beat Republicans in the head.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Comparing feelings on abortion to feelings on gay marriage is a mistake. A large mistake.
The idea that a SCOTUS ruling in favour of gay marriage would make the Republican Party throw up their hands in defeat is fanciful at best. Regardless of one's feeling on abortion, it shows that the party isn't going to give up on the basis of a supreme court ruling.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I don't think it shows that at all, because the two aren't comparable. Honestly I think it's a little bit disgusting to compare them at all. It dramatically trivializes abortion.
The Republican Party isn't the gay marriage problem, though there's a lot of intersection with it. Far more than with the Democrats, but it wasn't that long ago when a darling of the Democrats declined to do anything about California banning gay marriage.
Thanks, Obama.
I don't think the party is dedicated to preventing gay marriage, even though those who are dedicated to doing so are mostly in the Republican party. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I don't think the younger members of either party oppose it, and I think it'll quickly vanish from the mainstream. By 2020 it won't even be a campaign issue in the Presidential election, except as ammunition loaded by Democrats to fire at their enemies and raise a bit of cash.
Within a decade, the people most guilty of perpetuating conflict over gay marriage will be far, far rightwing evangelicals and amoral progressive strategists flogging the dead horse to get a little more cash from its hide.
Thanks, Obama.
double post but I'm just going to leave that part.
Indeed; just look at how making abortion legal ensured that no republicans got mired in that issue in 2012.
When is the last time you heard a politician decry miscegenation?
Not 'use a racist dogwhistle about it' but actually address the public policy implications of legalized miscegenation.
How is Windsor and the upcoming Kitchen ruling more comparable to Roe and Casey rather than to Loving?
I've no idea.
I'm just saying it's historically the case that a supreme court ruling doesn't make an issue "settled" in US politics. Or even a vote-loser.
Then maybe you shouldn't?
Historically, that is entirely dependent on the ruling. How many campaign ads are talking about Kelo v New London?