US 2024 Presidential Election

[gorfias]

A joke from the Bee

‘What Do YOU Think My Policies Might Be?’ Kamala Harris Asks CNN’s Dana Bash During Interview

SAVANNAH, GA — In a brilliant stroke of political savvy, Kamala Harris answered one of Dana Bash's questions on her proposed policies by turning the question back on the interviewer: "What do YOU think my policies might be, Dana?"

babylonbee.com

My news feed has a lot of negative things to say about the Harris/Walz "interview".

Example:

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I would have gone with a full faith and credit argument. You get gay married in Hawaii and move to Wyoming? Wyoming has to honor the marriage certificate (public record). Biden signed the Defense of Marriage Act to block such marriages for this reason but I think the USSC would have struck DOMA down. Congress just can't pass an act stating the constitution must bend to their interpretation.

Laws are only unconstitutional if they are specifically against something in the constitution. I don't think the DoMA is against anything in the constitution.

So when you say a certain right is protected Constitutionally? It is now. It wasn't for over 200 years, by the same Constitution. And it could easily not be again, in future, depending on what a group of 9 political appointees think.

Again, you don't know that for certain.

The point: if the judges rule one way, that's the law. So you cannot say the Constitution provides protection for something if they don't agree. Doesn't matter if you think it's "objective" or clear or whatever.

Some things are objective. No matter the judges you have on the court, Chicago's infamous unconstitutional handgun ban would always be unconstitutional because the 2nd amendment.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, you don't know that for certain.

I do know for certain that it wasn't protected for 200 years, because gay marriage was not allowed. That's a fact.

I don't know for certain that it will be overturned, and I've never claimed that's a certainty. That's not my point. My point is they could rule the other way if they wanted. Nothing stopping them. It wasn't considered "objectively constitutional" for 200+ years, and 4 of the 5 necessary judges already think it's still not.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I do know for certain that it wasn't protected for 200 years, because gay marriage was not allowed. That's a fact.

I don't know for certain that it will be overturned, and I've never claimed that's a certainty. That's not my point. My point is they could rule the other way if they wanted. Nothing stopping them. 4 of the SCOTUS judges already thought it should've gone the other way. Just one more is all it would take, and it won't matter a single little bit whether you or I think the right is solidly constitutional.



Yet a judge could rule otherwise, and their decision would be law. SCOTUS judges have ruled things that have been found to be untrue by other SCOTUS judges, many many many times.

Again, you can challenge that (if it were overturned) with a better argument and those exact same judges could rule differently. Again, just because something is not allowed doesn't mean it isn't protected. The constitution is rather vague and it just doesn't say ABC or XYZ is protected. If you don't attempt to even challenge it, it's essentially Schrodinger's cat. If gay marriage was challenged 200 years ago and it was denied, then yes, the constitution didn't protect it. It's similar to a kid not asking parents for permission to go to the park or something and then saying their parents don't allow that when they never asked.

Yes, we all know a judge can technically rule whatever they want, but they don't do that. And AGAIN, if you don't like a judge's ruling, you can literally write a law that does most things (like say gay marriage or abortion).

 

[Silvanus]

Again, you can challenge that (if it were overturned) with a better argument and those exact same judges could rule differently.

Could. Could Could Could.

Also could not.

And if they don't, then it's not constitutionally protected, whatever you say.

How are you failing to grasp this?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Could. Could Could Could.

Also could not.

And if they don't, then it's not constitutionally protected, whatever you say.

How are you failing to grasp this?

Do you not understand Schrodinger's cat?

You can literally say nothing is protected by the constitution if you want to, but that's obviously not true.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you not understand Schrodinger's cat?

You obviously don't, if you think it relates to this situation.

You can literally say nothing is protected by the constitution if you want to, but that's obviously not true.

You cannot truthfully say nothing is protected by law.

You can truthfully say things are not protected by law if the law does nothing to protect them, and they're banned.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You obviously don't, if you think it relates to this situation.



You cannot truthfully say nothing is protected by law.

You can truthfully say things are not protected by law if the law does nothing to protect them, and they're banned.

It does very much apply.

At any time, anyone can challenge any protection and the courts can overturn that protection...

The same logic works both ways. You can't say the constitution does not protect something if it's never been asked to/challenged to protect that said thing. Nor can the constitution protect anything when at any time a judge can say that it doesn't.

 

[Silvanus]

It does very much apply.

I would love for you to explain Schrodinger's Cat to me. I'm dying to hear what your understanding of it is.

At any time, anyone can challenge any protection and the courts can overturn that protection...

That's right, which is entirely my point. Before they overturn it, the Constitution conveyed protection. After they overturn it, the Constitution doesn't convey protection. Whether it conveys protection or not.... depends on what the judges decide at any given time.

The same logic works both ways. You can't say the constitution does not protect something if it's never been asked to/challenged to protect that said thing. Nor can the constitution protect anything when at any time a judge can say that it doesn't.

I absolutely can say it doesn't protect something if SCOTUS haven't weighed in and its banned. Before Obergefell, gay people could not marry in those districts. They did not have the right. It's not that the right just hadn't been "discovered". They could not do it, it was illegal.

Think about what you're saying here. You're saying that the Constitution protects something even if its banned, based on the potential that a judge in the future could-- if he felt like it-- decide to unban it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump is getting yelled at by the anti-abortion crowd because he just can't help but tell people what they want to hear.

Trump under fire from anti-abortion activists as team plays down comments

The Trump campaign has sought to walk back his comments suggesting he favored a ballot measure to expand abortion access in Florida.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I would love for you to explain Schrodinger's Cat to me. I'm dying to hear what your understanding of it is.



That's right, which is entirely my point. Before they overturn it, the Constitution conveyed protection. After they overturn it, the Constitution doesn't convey protection. Whether it conveys protection or not.... depends on what the judges decide at any given time.



I absolutely can say it doesn't protect something if SCOTUS haven't weighed in and its banned. Before Obergefell, gay people could not marry in those districts. They did not have the right. It's not that the right just hadn't been "discovered". They could not do it, it was illegal.

Think about what you're saying here. You're saying that the Constitution protects something even if its banned, based on the potential that a judge in the future could-- if he felt like it-- decide to unban it.

According to you, judge interpretation of the constitution conveys protection and the constitution itself has no power in essence. A judge in your world could say that saying the word "the" is forbidden and then the constitution doesn't protect that when we all know the constitution protects that. Gay people also didn't ask if they could marry either. If you can show me where gay people asked for the right to marry and got denied, that's at least something that can then be argued that the constitution didn't protect them. If a kid in school has to use the bathroom, thinks he can't leave class, then shits himself; it's not because using the bathroom was banned, it's because he didn't ask. If you don't ask, then you can't say it's banned.

 

[Elijin]

"They could have challenged this 200 years ago and had a similar outcome, you just don't know!"

If gay marriage had been argued in front of the SC 200 years ago, the lawyer would have been disbarred for conduct at a minimum.

Also lol "the gays weren't asking for marriage back then", yeah they were a bit busy hiding in fear.

 

[Avnger]

This argument is example #981723 that Phoenixmgs has absolutely zero ability to understand reality beyond his own personal experiences. Since he's never been concerned about having his own rights, no one else should ever be either.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

According to you, judge interpretation of the constitution conveys protection and the constitution itself has no power in essence. A judge in your world could say that saying the word "the" is forbidden and then the constitution doesn't protect that when we all know the constitution protects that. Gay people also didn't ask if they could marry either. If you can show me where gay people asked for the right to marry and got denied, that's at least something that can then be argued that the constitution didn't protect them. If a kid in school has to use the bathroom, thinks he can't leave class, then shits himself; it's not because using the bathroom was banned, it's because he didn't ask. If you don't ask, then you can't say it's banned.

"I know that you will stone me to death for sodomy if I admit that I am gay, but before you kill me could you let me marry this person who is the same sex as me? No? Well then I'm taking this all the way to the supreme court!"

*Gets stoned to death before any argument can be made to the supreme court*

End scene.

 

[Trunkage]

According to you, judge interpretation of the constitution conveys protection and the constitution itself has no power in essence. A judge in your world could say that saying the word "the" is forbidden and then the constitution doesn't protect that when we all know the constitution protects that. Gay people also didn't ask if they could marry either. If you can show me where gay people asked for the right to marry and got denied, that's at least something that can then be argued that the constitution didn't protect them. If a kid in school has to use the bathroom, thinks he can't leave class, then shits himself; it's not because using the bathroom was banned, it's because he didn't ask. If you don't ask, then you can't say it's banned.

The constitution stated that all men are equal. But that didn't happen, particularly for the first 200 years

Are you pretending that minorities just didn't ask to stop things like slavery?

 

[Trunkage]

I have further questions

Throughout the US there were laws against homosexuality. Why would you ask for a homosexual marriage when what you are doing is illegal? Shouldn't you be asking for homosexuality to be legal first? Do you think asking for gay marriage wouldn't end up with you in jail?

When do you think homosexuality became legal?

After homosexuality did become legal, do you think gay marriage was not asked for?

Did you know that anal sex is still banned in 12 states? Not homosexuality, even anal sex between heteros. And the Supreme Court just stops them from enforcing it?

 

[Agema]

But no one should vote for someone you are describing. She's only been running for 5-6 weeks! Yikes!!!

What's the problem? It's another ~10 weeks to the election. 3.5 months is plenty of time to get that stuff done.

After all, election winners have less than 3 months to prep to be president.

 

[tstorm823]

Throughout the US there were laws against homosexuality.

Not exactly, there were anti-sodomy laws. Today, it feels almost cliche to speak of condemning the action rather than the person, but the idea of a person as homosexual as an identity is rather new. Sorting people into distinct categories based on who they might have sex with is only really as old as modern psychology.

 

[Agema]

ITMT: Trump goes right into enemy territory and lays it out. Example was the town hall with CNN leftist activist disguised as a journalist Kaitlan Collins. He tells us he would end the Ukraine idiocy in 24 hours.

Do you remember back in 2016 how Trump insisted he would get a wall built between the USA and Mexico as the centrepiece of his vision? Maybe he's going to be just as effective as that at ending the Ukraine war.

I mean, Trump's got a more than a small history of overpromising and underdelivering, and that was true even before he got into politics.

 

[Trunkage]

Not exactly, there were anti-sodomy laws. Today, it feels almost cliche to speak of condemning the action rather than the person, but the idea of a person as homosexual as an identity is rather new. Sorting people into distinct categories based on who they might have sex with is only really as old as modern psychology.

So, since you weren't called homosexuals, you can't be targets of laws