That is not where elections are won. That is where elections are bought.The particular problem for leftists being that the stronger the party tacks to the left, the more it is likely to step away from the middle ground where elections are won.
That is not where elections are won. That is where elections are bought.The particular problem for leftists being that the stronger the party tacks to the left, the more it is likely to step away from the middle ground where elections are won.
Ah, I would say that Biden and Trump do this frequently. Mainly due to the fact that they dont know what day it is and forgot what their points arePretty sure that's just full oxymoron there.
Eh, I had disingenuous originally then wanted to soften the accusation somewhat so added the unintentionally. I didn't really read back the full thing in my head afterwards. Probably should have replaced that, yeah. I blame being half asleep at the timeAh, I would say that Biden and Trump do this frequently. Mainly due to the fact that they dont know what day it is and forgot what their points are
I think people here try to make posts short so other can read them. So sometimes you need to elaborate later. Which is what I think might have happened here as this could be seen as disingenuous. Or Avnger's using the wrong term
You blame being asleeply awake?I blame being half asleep at the time
Gay marriage isn't getting overturned... (Yes, technically, the judges can rule whatever the hell they want but they don't do that)That's a meaningless truism, irrelevant to the question.
A: X law could be overturned, it could change in future.
B: But the law as it stands right now is X.
B has no fucking relevance. It's a tautology, a statement of the obvious that has no bearing on A. It's like responding to someone who says we could go to the shops with "but we're at home right now".
Not to mention that you chose to endlessly dispute it when I said it wasn't protected in the past.
That's pretty much implicit in what I said anyway. You were the one who brought the Constitution up and said it had this mythical overriding power, which obliged me to point out that this power didn't work when it was tried before.
Some when some new technology comes out and is deemed protected by something in the constitution, some new protection isn't "discovered"?The constitution is a document written in ink. Nothing new is "discovered" about it. Anything that the court says about what the constitution protects or does not protect is a reinterpretation. A discovery would be finding something unknown or hidden in the constitution. It would be finding new sections of it were written in invisible ink. Judges and justices don't "discover" that a certain paragraph or amendment can be applied to a particular case, they decide that it can be based on their reinterpretation of that section.
Constitutional protections are only as strong as judicial opinions to uphold them. If you end up with a supreme court with a majority opinion that gay marriage, or abortion, or guns should be restricted country wide they'll reinterpret the constitution and legal precedent to allow them to do that.
OMG, I don't mean there's no reason for gay people to want to have lived together and all that. I said there's no reason why they would've cared for being married in the sense there's an official paper saying they're married (as what benefits would they get directly from that say 200 years ago? Whereas now you have some rather good benefits from that).What you are claiming is literal nonsense that has no basis in reality
Here's what I want to do. Look up the term Boston Marriage. Tell us all what you see
I should probably stop posting first thing in the morning entirely, I guessYou blame being asleeply awake?
No, the constitution is reinterpreted with that new technology in mind, and it's judges that are giving that technology a constitutional protection rather than the constitution conferring it innately.Some when some new technology comes out and is deemed protected by something in the constitution, some new protection isn't "discovered"?
So your approach is just: "I feel like it's unlikely"? Actual Supreme Court justices feel it can be overturned, and I think they have more insight into their own chances than you do.Gay marriage isn't getting overturned... (Yes, technically, the judges can rule whatever the hell they want but they don't do that)
Which it already was. Proving that I was right in saying that it wasn't protected before. So one wonders why you brought it up as if it disputed my point.Because to be protected or not, you have to challenge/argue it, that was my point.
....which shows how it can be interpreted the other way again in future, which was my point.AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, I've said numerous times that society changes and the way people can read the same words today is different than yesterday.
That's my time to comment most often, largely cause all these weirdos on the wrong continent.I should probably stop posting first thing in the morning entirely, I guess
Tomayto, tomahtoNo, the constitution is reinterpreted with that new technology in mind, and it's judges that are giving that technology a constitutional protection rather than the constitution conferring it innately.
1) It's not gonna happen. 2) Even if it did, there's a law that negates. 3) Can't we focus on things that would help everyone more (gays included)?So your approach is just: "I feel like it's unlikely"? Actual Supreme Court justices feel it can be overturned, and I think they have more insight into their own chances than you do.
Which it already was. Proving that I was right in saying that it wasn't protected before. So one wonders why you brought it up as if it disputed my point.
....which shows how it can be interpreted the other way again in future, which was my point.
You were the one implying that the Constitition itself protected things regardless of interpretation, and that the Constitution itself would stop the SCOTUS ruling against. You've now shifted away from that position, but nobody else has forgotten.
Sorry, which law makes overturning Obergefell impossible, or preserves nationwide same sex marriage access if it is?1) It's not gonna happen. 2) Even if it did, there's a law that negates.
Of course we can. We can focus on other things at the same time. Of course, it's the conservative Supreme Court justices like Thomas and Republican legislators and governors who keep devoting time to arguing Obergefell should be overturned, so kindly direct your complaints to them.3) Can't we focus on things that would help everyone more (gays included)?
"Silvanus didn't do my research for me quickly enough, so it's his fault I made a mistake!"And that took you how many pages to finally get to?
I think the US has already seen dozens upon dozens of Supreme Court decisions overturned by later Supreme Court decisions, and that the Republican Party and several Supreme Court justices certainly don't consider it "settled".Once certain things are decided/put in motion, there's no going back. You think black people should worry about slavery happening again?
I live in Ohio; if someone could get rid of all of those annoying Canadian geese, I would be for it.The latest attempt at pure racist hysteria from the shared conservative brain cell is that black immigrants are eating people's pets. Just truly vile people who deserve to lose every last good thing in their life.
View attachment 11842
View attachment 11845
They keep forgetting that Harris is the one who will be certifying the election...So. Several state Republican Parties have put forward 14 of the same fake electors who violated the law and their constitutional duty after the 2020 election.
And J.D. Vance has explicitly stated he would have refused to certify the 2020 election. Even after Trump has now acknowledged he lost (last month, at long last).
The Republican Party is about as open as possible now about violating the constitution in pursuit of staying in office.
Not really.Tomayto, tomahto