OldGimletEye Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 On 8/29/2017 at 8:22 PM, Lew Theobald said: Okay, you're right as to the Substantive Due Process analysis. They would apply strict scrutiny under the Substantive Due Process analysis. But, as the court has said these kind of causes implicate both clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 On 8/29/2017 at 8:25 PM, Lew Theobald said: Right. Substantive due process; therefore Equal Protection. Like I said. Here is what started this. You said. Quote Which is precisely why the Supreme Court did NOT mandate same-sex marriage on Equal Protection grounds, but based it instead on a largely-undefined dignity right. Had it been decided on Equal Protection grounds, there would have been no clear bounds to the implications. What you originally asserted, seems kind of different than what the court was saying ie both clauses are implicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said: Sarcasm? I never said they had to do anything. In this case, the less analysis the better. Not as such. It seems to me your complaint about the opinion lacking any "actual analysis" is simply based on their analysis not meeting whatever unclear standard you are maintaining here. 2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said: LOL. The asexual bromance would be protected, but you want to discriminate against monks in monasteries. Didn't really understand the monk one. Did you mean, say, marrying god like nuns? If so, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 The monks already have a tax break! It's the bromance bachelors that need one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, dmc515 said: We Fight! Dammit. Now I have to go search my comics. Seriously though bitching and griping about Trump isn't going to make a difference. It really amazes me that this man is the POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Lew Theobald said: You know best. But what about people who live alone? Why should they be left out? Is...is this a serious question? Ok. The asexual bromance should be allowed to marry because last time I checked, any heterosexual couple was allowed to marry even if they were asexual. All of your other examples are not between two individuals...individual people...that aren't gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said: Seriously though bitching and griping about Trump isn't going to make a difference. That's not what fighting means - certainly not to Cap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Lew Theobald said: You forgot about Peter Parker and Aunty May. Why can't they marry? They don't have to boink each other. Just for the tax break. We all know poor Peter and his Aunt have trouble making ends meet. At least, he did in the old comics. If Marisa Tomei was my Aunt, I might have a different opinion on incest laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Where is my giant can of Bot Be Gone? Give it up guys, it's not real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Has everybody forgotten the prophetic cautionary song by Zager and Evans In the year 2525? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: Where is my giant can of Bot Be Gone? Give it up guys, it's not real. From what I have read and observed you don't actually add much to the convo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Ok, posters her have spent several pages commenting on Trump and Transgender issues, with emphasis on the military, but somehow missed this: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mattis-orders-pentagon-to-allow-transgender-troops-to-continue-serving-pending-study/ar-AAqX5NJ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580 WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis late Tuesday announced that transgender troops will be allowed to continue serving in the military pending the results of a study by experts. The announcement follows an order from President Trump — first announced in a tweet — declaring that transgender service members can no longer serve in the military, effectively reversing an Obama administration policy. The order also affects the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Coast Guard. "Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said in the statement. "In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place." Mattis' move buys time for the Pentagon to determine how and if it will allow thousands of transgender troops to continue to serve, whether they will receive medical treatment, or how they will be discharged. As Defense Secretary, Mattis has emphasized that he has little tolerance for policies that detract from military readiness or the Pentagon's effectiveness on the battlefield. At the last moment in June, he delayed the Pentagon's plan to accept new transgender troops. His reasoning: He demanded more study to determine the effect of recruiting them on the Pentagon's ability to fight and win wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Ok, posters her have spent several pages commenting on Trump and Transgender issues, with emphasis on the military, but somehow missed this: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mattis-orders-pentagon-to-allow-transgender-troops-to-continue-serving-pending-study/ar-AAqX5NJ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580 Nice.It's good to know there's at least a couple of adults in the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Given the thread title, posters here really should have linked to this article or one like it: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-a-crowd-what-a-turnout-trump-says-while-visiting-texas-amid-hurricane-harvey/ar-AAqWRSZ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580 Basically, Trump is thrilled by being greeted by a crowd of his supporters in the flood zone. Anybody surprised? His supporters in the 'comments' section see nothing wrong with this. And then there is Cruz's claim that two thirds of the Sandy relief bill was unrelated pork, hence his 'No' vote on the package. This article does a fair job of demolishing that claim: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ted-cruz’s-claim-that-two-thirds-of-the-hurricane-sandy-bill-‘had-nothing-to-do-with-sandy’/ar-AAqURF2?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580 Some folks in the 'comments' repeated Cruz's claims, only to become confused when confronted with links to the actual bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Ok, posters her have spent several pages commenting on Trump and Transgender issues, with emphasis on the military, but somehow missed this: Well, that only happened a few hours ago, after most or all of the discussion. Give us a break! But yeah, this is precisely why I tried to emphasize what Trump's memo actually ordered - namely affording Mattis and the DoD discretion in figuring out how to implement the policy in regards to serving members, at least for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Nice.It's good to know there's at least a couple of adults in the administration. He's literally doing what he was told to do - study the situation and figure out if he can ban them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Heh, looking back at that thread this seems oddly prescient: Quote Well, surely we can't let the personal opinions of authors influence our enjoyment of their work. (Indeed, that's one of the problems here—Bakker insists that his opinion of his own work is the most important one, followed by the opinions of people with whom he is intimate.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: He's literally doing what he was told to do - study the situation and figure out if he can ban them. You think that's what his boss told him to do? Or wanted him to do? Kinda doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I think Trump should ban white people from serving in the military in high sunshine locations, because of the yuge cost of sunscreen on the defense budget and the cost of treating skin cancers resulting from personnel not using it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 31 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: You think that's what his boss told him to do? Or wanted him to do? Kinda doubt it. I think they are figuring out how to implement the ban and kick people out of the army without there being a bunch of law suits. I don't think they are specifically looking for a way to tell Trump they can't kick people out of the military on the basis of gender identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.