Obama's Legacy
President Obama has been having a pretty good week. Actually, to be perfectly accurate, President Obama's legacy has been having a pretty good week. At the end of all presidencies, everything they've achieved and failed to achieve is lumped together under this term, so that historians can debate about the president's legacy for decades to come. It's a normal part of the American cycle. This week, Obama won a preliminary victory in Congress and he just won a resounding court confirmation of his biggest legislative victory to date, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which has become the eponymous "Obamacare"). Next week, the Supreme Court is expected to declare marriage equality for all, in every state. As I said, a pretty good week all around, legacy-wise.
In fact [warning: this paragraph is intended for regular readers of this column], if tomorrow was a working day for me, I would definitely be handing Obama the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, without even really considering anyone else for the honor. This is a sideways method of reminding folks that I'll be on vacation both Friday and Monday, so while I will try to post some re-run columns for everyone to enjoy, original columns won't resume until next Tuesday. OK, end of program note -- and my apologies for just cramming it into the text like this.
The Supreme Court today handed down a stunning 6-3 decision upholding the entirety of the Obamacare law, including subsidies for everyone equally across America. The stunning part was not only that six justices voted for a commonsense reading of the law, but that the decision for the majority (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) was so strong in its legal reasoning. Many had assumed that the legal basis for upholding the law would come from what is called a Chevron precedent (from a previous case involving the company), where the court ruled that an agency (in the Obamacare case, the Internal Revenue Service) could interpret vague language in the laws that are written for them, because they pretty much have to do so in order to implement these laws. That wasn't the route Roberts took, however. Instead, he wrote an opinion which, as one court-watcher commented "reads like the government's brief" -- in other words, that accepts Obama's basic argument that the entire case was a silly waste of time. It took nine months for a conservative activist group to even find the apparent contradiction that the typo caused, so how could the intent have been what they claimed it was? If you read the whole law, it is patently obvious what the one badly-written clause was supposed to mean. This is the way Roberts ruled, and it should preclude a lot of other silly legal challenges to the law's text. It also means future (Republican) presidents won't be able to suddenly direct the I.R.S. to "interpret" the clause any differently -- because Roberts yanked the rug out from trying to do so. The ruling is clear: there will be one interpretation of this clause, and it is exactly what Obama and the Democrats have claimed all along. Period.
Obama's happiness at the ruling was evident in his Rose Garden statement after the news broke. Obamacare is indeed here to stay, and now a part of American life. Any Republican who argues otherwise is now going to have to come up with a solid plan that covers just as many people, which certainly hasn't happened yet (five years later, and counting) and isn't likely to appear on the horizon any time soon. Republicans will rant and rave about Obamacare for years to come (some still rant and rave over Social Security, decades after the fact), but Obamacare will still be there while they do. Sooner or later, Republicans may actually join with Democrats in fixing any parts of the law which aren't working as well as designed, without also trying to kill the entire program off. I don't see this happening any time soon, but stranger things have happened in the world of politics.
The number of people who have benefited from Obamacare is over ten million and climbing. Obamacare has drastically shrunk the percentage of Americans who have no health insurance, and this number is likely to shrink even further in the next two years (eventually, it'll flatten out at a new low). It's gone from 18 percent of the population to less than 12 percent already, and it'll likely be in single digits after next year's open enrollment period. The costs of healthcare are rising at the slowest level since the 1950s. Any Republican so-called "replacement plan" will have to directly compete with those statistics.
So Obama was certainly entitled to his victory lap in the Rose Garden today. He'll likely be taking another one on Monday, when the court's final decisions of the judicial year are expected, and when the marriage equality case's decision will be made public. While the Obamacare decision is an easy one for Republican presidential candidates to rant and rail against, the gay marriage decision is going to be a lot more problematic for them. Watch the rhetoric next week, and see whether the ever-expanding field of Republican candidates includes some statements that are at the extremes. Watch for any Republican who urges their party to just "move on" from the issue get excoriated by the others for "surrendering."
Obamacare and the equality of gay people are two of the biggest achievements in Obama's legacy, to be long remembered by history. The trade issue will also likely be remembered, although whether it will be entered on the positive or negative side of the legacy's ledger remains to be seen. Bill Clinton is remembered for NAFTA, but not in all that positive a light, to give just one past example. Obama is pushing hard to get his Trans-Pacific Partnership deal through, and he just cleared an enormous hurdle this week in Congress by getting the fast-track authority bill through. This has annoyed many in his own party, and is a rare instance of Obama passing legislation on his agenda with mostly Republican support. But if he gets the deal through, he will ultimately be remembered for it, for better or for worse. It will be one of his signature achievements in Congress during his term as president, either way.
Obama's legacy is currently being more clearly defined. Losing the Obamacare case would have been a tremendous blow to that legacy. But there are two other issues which have yet to be finalized. The first, as mentioned, is the marriage equality decision from the Supreme Court. The second, with a fast-approaching deadline at the end of the month, is the negotiations with Iran over curtailing their nuclear activities. The chances for reaching a deal, at present, don't look all that good. The Iranians are sticking to a few positions which are truly deal-breakers for America. But then the negotiations always get the fiercest right before deadlines, so we'll see what happens. No deal may be reached, which wouldn't exactly tarnish Obama's legacy (he did make the effort to try to get a deal, after all). A bad deal could be reached, which would actually tarnish Obama's legacy if Iran was caught cheating in any way at some future date. Or a good deal could emerge, which would obviously be a good thing for Obama's legacy. We'll see where it all goes in the next few weeks.
This June will be remembered as an important month when historians consider Obama's legacy, that much is for certain. He won a big fight in Congress over fast-track trade authority -- which incidentally extends this power for six years (through the next president's first term, in other words). He won a big fight in the Supreme Court over the law which now popularly bears his own name. If the high court rules for marriage equality for all, as most expect it to do, this will not be as a direct result from anything the president did on gay rights -- but it's hard to see Obama not going down in history as the best president gay people have ever had, in general. When you compare America when Obama took office and where we'll be when he leaves office -- on gay rights in particular -- Obama will easily stand head and shoulders above the rest. If he can actually get a good and verifiable deal with Iran, it could have wide repercussions to the entire Middle East situation (again, for better or for worse).
Obama's still got lots to do as president. He's got a year and a half more to go in the Oval Office. Big things will get decided during that time. And, of course, he's got over six years of achievements already. But when we all look back on his legacy as a whole, a lot of it will be centered around this very short period of time.
Maybe (again, if I weren't going to play hooky tomorrow) I would have given the award to "President Obama's legacy." Because Obama's legacy certainly is having a big week.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The stunning part was not only that six justices voted for a commonsense reading of the law,
Bull...
Roberts specifically STATED that the common sense reading of the law was that subsidies were not available to those who enrolled thru Federal Exchanges...
"In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
(emphasis mine)
I'll give Obama his victory lap...
It'll just make slamming Obama for the Iran Nuke deal all the more sweeter :D
Always planning ahead... :D
Michale
The Iranians are sticking to a few positions which are truly deal-breakers for America.
Let's be accurate..
They are deal breakers for AMERICANS....
Obama deal breakers??
Not so much...
However, to be fair, Obama might be less inclined to take a bad deal, now that he has the SCOTUS win...
Michale
House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/246204-gop-bill-would-force-supreme-court-to-enroll-in-obamacare
Nice...
Force the SCOTUS to live with their decision..
I love it!!!
Michale
This decision would have been stunning only if it had gone the other way, which was never in jeopardy of happening.
This decision would have been stunning only if it had gone the other way, which was never in jeopardy of happening.
Easy ta say now..
But I know for a fact that several Weigantians were worried.. :D
Michale
Easy to say now and easy to say quite a while ago.
Which I did.
When conversing with YOU!
President Obama's legacy may not be the only legacy worth mentioning here.
I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts also has legacy on his mind, as do the rest of the rational members of his court who care about how their decisions will stand the test of time.
I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts also has legacy on his mind, as do the rest of the rational members of his court who care about how their decisions will stand the test of time.
Sounds kinda selfish to me..
I want a leader who worries more about the country and less about their legacy..
THAT is what a true leader does..
Michale
“You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an ‘Exchange established by the State.’ The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B… Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’
That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
-Justice Scalia
Once again, the hypocrisy of the Left is laid bare..
They bemoan, they whine, they cry when the SCOTUS legislates from the bench..
Of course, when the SCOTUS legislates in the Left's favor..
They are all for THAT...
Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy..
Michale
It's obvious that Scalia has dropped his "original intent" charade and decided to really embrace his theocratic political hack persona. The upside to his SCOTUScare sore loser hissy fit may be that he's tired of all the liberal activist argle bargle from John Roberts and maybe he'll just go away now that The End is near.
After President Hillary has fully implemented Kennedy's Big Gay Agenda, she should have the SCOTUScare death panels evaluate Scalia to see if he needs any help.
The upside to this ruling is that the Left will NEVER be able to slam the TOO BIG TO FAIL argument without looking like flaming hypocrites...
If TBTF is good enough for TrainWreckCare, it's good enough for anything else...
Silver lining.... :D
Michale
Michale,
I want a leader who worries more about the country and less about their legacy..
I'm beginning to understand your problem. You think legacy is a four-letter word and if a leader worries about it then he can't be worrying about what is good for his country.
Doing the right thing for your country and worrying about your legacy can be part and parcel of the same visionary leadership that your country needs so much. The Obama administration and the Supreme court both bear this out.
Obama reacted to the court decision by noting his signature legislation was now written into the fabric of the USA.
I would phrase it differently: the court effectively pinned Obamacare to The Nation's Sleeves, so that the Republicans can't keep losing it.
The High Court's ruling has been described as a stinging rebuke to the plaintiffs. I would characterize it as a Dope Slap. The Court sent a clear message to anybody with legal ears to hear:
Settled Law
Or
The Camel Is In the Tent
Baby boomers may recognize a Nice Rocky and Bullwinkle episode title in that!
I'm beginning to understand your problem. You think legacy is a four-letter word and if a leader worries about it then he can't be worrying about what is good for his country.
In a manner of speaking..
Legacy = Ego
When a legacy takes priority over doing what's right for the people you lead, there is a problem..
Doing the right thing for your country and worrying about your legacy can be part and parcel of the same visionary leadership that your country needs so much.
It COULD be....
But in this case, it's not...
Nor is it the case in the Iran Nuke Deal..
Or any other of a dozen examples of Obama's legacy taking priority over what's best for the country..
The High Court's ruling has been described as a stinging rebuke to the plaintiffs. I would characterize it as a Dope Slap. The Court sent a clear message to anybody with legal ears to hear:
Yes, the SCOTUS did send a clear message..
"Plain english means little in the actions of a law.. Agendas are the only things that matter..."
Or, if you prefer the actual text:
"In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
What part of "compel us to depart" do you not understand???
Michale
M-9
Scalia's dissent is a face saving effort, written in an operatic style. Not French, Italian or even German operatic style...it's Klingon Opera, the angriest opera in the Multiverse!!!
Robert's majority opinion fully anticipated Scalia's bombastic dissent. How? By repeatedly citing Scalia's own 2012 dissent on how the law was supposed to work. So much for "words have no meaning." Ouch. Double ouch.
Scalia's dissent is a face saving effort, written in an operatic style. Not French, Italian or even German operatic style...it's Klingon Opera, the angriest opera in the Multiverse!!!
Of course you would say that.... :D
The simple fact is, even Roberts acknowledge that the plain text of the law is what the plaintiffs said it was...
Subsidies are ONLY available to those who go thru state exchanges...
Roberts basically adopted the TOO BIG TO FAIL mentality..
That's why I am somewhat happy. I can hold that over ya'alls heads until time immemorial.. :D
Michale
Michale
M-17 Roberts basically adopted the TOO BIG TO FAIL mentality.
Others may say that, but not Roberts or his majority. His majority opinion is firmly based on legal precedent about how to resolve ambiguities in legal wording. That is a traditional court function. Laws get written by committees and are interpreted by committees.
I'm glad you are somewhat happy. Like the little kid who wanted a pony for Christmas. Christmas morning, he sees a big mound of horse droppings under the tree. The kid is beaming as he runs around searching all the rooms. There must pony somewhere!
The SCOTUS has sent a big, strong signal. It does not want to revisit the legitimacy of AHC. Lower courts will take the hint.
Apparently, my streak with SCOTUS predictions is intact... :^/
Now, we have the precedent established that millennia-old definitions can be changed on a whim to any group who chooses a different lifestyle...
I can't wait to see the day when a man can marry his gerbil... :^/
Michale
Others may say that, but not Roberts or his majority.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what Roberts said... But I understand why you don't want to concede that.. :D
His majority opinion is firmly based on legal precedent about how to resolve ambiguities in legal wording. That is a traditional court function. Laws get written by committees and are interpreted by committees.
Simply not factual..
Roberts re-wrote the law both times it came before him....
This is documented fact...
Michale
Marriage Equality
now the law of the land
ACA survives
Scalia weeps acid tears
Conservatives threaten to
burn themselves
but don't
they burn churches
instead
Marriage Equality
now the law of the land
Good... Now my best friend can marry his gerbil and my wife's best friend can marry her porsche..
Is this a great country, or what!!!??
It WAS a great country, B.O.....
Michale
So much for the very first part of the very first Constitutional Amendment...
Michale
People will marry gerbils...people will set themselves on fire in protest...promises, promises. Strange, twisted minds in conservative land.
" Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's god-given right."
-Lenny, GHOSTBUSTERS
Apparently, not in Obama's Amerika... :^/
Michale
M-20???
Quote? Source? I've looked, no can find Roberts saying any such thing. Paraphrase maybe? Of something somebody on Fox said? In the words of somebody around this craggy little island we call Weigantia: "Bueller?"
Oops, they did it again. The Supreme Court is well and truly tacking to port. Mixing metaphors, the thud of feinting conservatives can clearly be detected on seismograph plots. No world from South Carolina whatever within the last half hour. It's gone dark. Last known communication is truly horrific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUWhyQHhc8
Actually, that is EXACTLY what Roberts said... But I understand why you don't want to concede that.. :D
Unless of course, you bother to read the rest of the paragraph to which your quote comes from. Is there a reason you do not include that text in your embolden quotes?
I can't wait to see the day when a man can marry his gerbil... :^/
A gerbil does not inherently have the legal power of consent. Same goes for minors or inanimate objects...
Quote? Source? I've looked, no can find Roberts saying any such thing.
Page 20 of the opinion (pg 25 of the pdf version), Last paragraph. But as I said above, the first half of the paragraph that Michale fails to quote adds much context...
Bashi-29
This? (sorry formating screws up using cut and paste from a pdf).
Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of
Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the
phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42
U.
S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isola
-
tion,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of
[the statute] as a whole.”
Department of Revenue of Ore.
v.
ACF Industries, Inc.
, 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this
instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to
depart from what would otherwise be the most natural
reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.
Yup. That's it. Reads a little different when taken in context, eh?
A gerbil does not inherently have the legal power of consent. Same goes for minors or inanimate objects...
Two problems with your rebuttal..
ONE... A gerbil can't give consent to be bought or owned.. Yet, it's still OK to buy and own one..
TWO.. And this is the clincher.... The definition of marriage has been changed.. It's not a huge stretch to eliminate the consent decree.. Even if an animal or inanimate object NEEDED to give consent..
Sorry, your argument is superfluous and irrelevant...
Yup. That's it.
And, once again, since it's not the argument I quoted, it is also irrelevant...
I have CJ Robert's own words..
All ya'all got is spin...
Michale
Bashi -31
That clears things up. I was expecting a quote, or near quote or a paraphrasing or a blind quote.
What we're dealing with here is an example of "quantum semantics" where the act of actually reading a tiny piece of text immediately makes it's meaning uncertain. Conversely, understanding a small meme rewrites the tiny text.
This is advanced stuff, you need Ph.D. in theoretical English to operate on this level. I'm way out of my comfort zone, so I'll just shut up and leave it to the pros.
ONE... A gerbil can't give consent to be bought or owned.. Yet, it's still OK to buy and own one..
Slaves were not legally allowed to marry other slaves or owners.
TWO.. And this is the clincher.... The definition of marriage has been changed.. It's not a huge stretch to eliminate the consent decree.. Even if an animal or inanimate object NEEDED to give consent..
And yet in a way that preserves consent. I think to eliminate consent would be a huge stretch and would conflict with the bill of rights and constitution directly. In quite a few places Marriage has been changed recently. Interracial marriage was illegal in this county. Historically polygamy was common and accepted. Still is in certain countries. I might also point out certain native American tribes had a form of transgender marriage that was perfectly normal in their societies.
Sorry, your argument is superfluous and irrelevant...
Petty dismissives, eh? Yawn.
And, once again, since it's not the argument I quoted, it is also irrelevant...
Text from the same paragraph is irrelevant? Man, you are really are trying to define what is is...
If you have to narrowly define the argument to such a degree are you really making a relevant one?
Sorry, I'll stick to the actual SCOTUS opinion in it's entirety to decide it's real meaning...
Michale wrote:
"ONE... A gerbil can't give consent to be bought or owned.. Yet, it's still OK to buy and own one.."
Wow, you really have a problem with any kind of logical reasoning, don't you Michale?
Property, such as the gerbil, and objects which lack both life and consciousness, can't by definition give consent. Not only are they not considered to be human beings, but in Star Trek language, they aren't considered to be any kind of sentient being or lifeform at all. Therefore, they are not entitled to any kind of rights at all and are not subject to any kind of human law. Human law, as it applies to them at all, applies only in terms of property, i.e. it really concerns the human who owns "it." Not the "it" itself.
It's the difference between "Data" the android, and the tricorder Data is using as a tool. Data can get married. The "tricorder" cannot.
Again, there is no slippery slope. Never has been. To quite one of your favorite lines, "This is documented fact."
By the way, once again I was right about a Supreme Court ruling. I only got the vote total wrong. Was I also not right, your statements to the contrary about their comments from the bench during the hearing Michale notwithstanding, about how both Ginsburg and Kennedy were going to vote?
On this one, I think I am personally allowed to rub it in once with a "I told you so." :-D
John & Bashi,
Who cares if Republicans want to marry furniture or farm animals? There's no reason to follow them down their stupid rabbit holes. They try all this scary talk about a slippery slope as if the rest of us are the tyrants who want to police everybody's personal lives. I couldn't care less if polygamy becomes legal again. If Republicans think they can build a coalition to make their super-freaky relationship wish list legal, I say they should go for it. Frothy Santorum would make an excellent leader for the coalition.
Slaves were not legally allowed to marry other slaves or owners.
And if this was 100 years ago, then you would have a point..
But it's not, so you don't...
Property, such as the gerbil, and objects which lack both life and consciousness, can't by definition give consent.
You don't get it..
WHY do they need to GIVE consent???
If they have no life, no consciousness, no sentience, then there is no reason they MUST give consent..
Unless you are making the argument that the definition of marriage requires consent...
Is THAT the argument you are making??
Michale
Michale,
Good... Now my best friend can marry his gerbil and my wife's best friend can marry her porsche..
You have one weird circle of friends! ... oh, wait ... :)
The bad guys are just being stupid when it comes to furniture and farm animals, but they may be sort-of right about polygamy. If my neighbors choose to form committed relationships of more than two consenting adults, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I still think the most likely scenario is that they'll form a movement to marry their long black rifles.
(40) I still think the most likely scenario is that they'll form a movement to marry their long black rifles.
Perfect!
I still think the most likely scenario is that they'll form a movement to marry their long black rifles.
Wouldn't that be akin to incest?
Heh.
Well, you know, didn't someone say that his rifle was his baby?
Not one single person here has been able to give ANY logical or rational reason why "consent" is needed from a non-sentient biologic or inanimate object.
Ergo, the arguments against marrying a car or a gerbil are superfluous and without merit..
The ONLY argument ya'all can make against marrying a non-sentient biologic or inanimate object is that it doesn't fit the definition of marriage..
Well, guess what, me buckos..
We just CHANGED the definition of marriage.. A definition that has stood for thousands of years... A definition that, according to one theory, was created by god himself. Or herself.
And, in the blink of an eye, that definition was changed to fit the lifestyle of a small SMALL percentage of the American people..
If someone can explain to me the logic of that...
"Well, I am all ears..."
-Ross Perot
Michale
You have one weird circle of friends! ... oh, wait ... :)
Heh :D
Michale
And if this was 100 years ago, then you would have a point..
But it's not, so you don't...
So says the person who is wrongly asserting that marriage has gone unchanged for thousands of years. Either time matters or it doesn't. Or is it time doesn't matter for your argument but not others?
Not one single person here has been able to give ANY logical or rational reason why "consent" is needed from a non-sentient biologic or inanimate object.
Because marriage is a contract and contracts need sentient participants. At least from a legal perspective. From a silly, purely to provoke an argument perspective, I'm sure your Porsche/gerbil marriage will be one of pure happiness...
We just CHANGED the definition of marriage.. A definition that has stood for thousands of years... A definition that, according to one theory, was created by god himself. Or herself.
Just disproved that. See [34] above...
So says the person who is wrongly asserting that marriage has gone unchanged for thousands of years.
I really hate it when you put words in my mouth..
I never, NOT ONCE, claimed that marriage has gone unchanged for thousands of years..
Not one single time..
Because marriage is a contract and contracts need sentient participants.
Says who???
The "definition" of marriage?? The law???
Guess what, sonny jim.. Those were both changed...
THAT is the point ya'all can't address..
"A marriage is a contract blaa blaa blaa"
We just CHANGED the definition of marriage.. Do you get that??
So, if we can CHANGE the definition of marriage to appease a small SMALL percentage of bullying Americans, then there is absolutely NO REASON we can't change it some more to appease an even SMALLER percentage of Americans... Those who want to marry their gerbils or their cars..
Either you are for "Marriage EQUALITY" in ALL it's glory and splendor... Or you are not...
Michale
I never, NOT ONCE, claimed that marriage has gone unchanged for thousands of years..
Oh, sorry, "the definition of marriage" ... Does not change the point one single iota. I still proved it was bull and it still does not excuse that 100 years matters for my point but not for yours.
Says who???
The "definition" of marriage?? The law???
Yes.
We just CHANGED the definition of marriage.. Do you get that??
No we did not change the definition of marriage, we added to the definition of marriage. Nothing in the SCOTUS ruling prevent a man and a woman from getting married. Now same sexes can get married. Just like we added not too long ago that a man and a woman of different races could get married. The world did not end then, and it will not end now no matter how hysterical you get...
The bad guys are just being stupid when it comes to furniture and farm animals, but they may be sort-of right about polygamy.
The same argument that can be made for group marriages can ALSO be made for non-sentient biologic marriage and inanimate object marriage..
The EXACT same argument..
If ya'all are really for Marriage Equality as ya'all claim to be, then preventing a man from marrying his gerbil is as discriminatory and wrong as preventing a man from marrying another man...
Michale
The bad guys are just being stupid when it comes to furniture and farm animals, but they may be sort-of right about polygamy.
I am also constrained to point out that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman was "stupid" within our lifetimes..
I realize these inconvenient facts aren't very welcome around here as of late...
But these ARE the facts... Whether you like them or not..
Michale
Here's what Michale posted on Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 02:28 PDT:
"Just so I am on the record..
The ruling in gay marriage will be 7-2 (or possibly 6-3) against changing the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years..."
This too:
"The ruling will be 5-4 in favor of interpreting the law as it is written and gutting the subsidies based on the stated intent of one who was intimately involved in the creation of TrainWreckCare.."
The spambot was right about everything. We concede.
JFC,
Yer a little late as usual..
I already conceded that a couple days ago.. :D
I seem to recall ya'all making a buttload of predictions for the 2014 Mid-Terms.... I also seem to recall that ya'all were completely unequivocally TOTALLY wrong and I was dead on ballz accurate... :D
Where's ya'all's concessions??
{{chiiiirrrrrrppppp}} {chiiirrrrpppppp}
Near as I remember, only The Stig had the integrity to concede...
Apparently, with that one exception, I am the only one here who can concede when they are wrong..
:D
Michale
Here's what Michale posted on Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 02:28 PDT:
Apparently, you follow this "spambot" quite closely.. :D
Funny how that is, iddn't it?? :D
"You can't win!! I have god on my side!!!"
-Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS
:D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Unless you are making the argument that the definition of marriage requires consent...
Is THAT the argument you are making??"
YES. Where is Captain Obvious when you need him? Consent is the cornerstone of contractual law. Otherwise you would not be able to void a contract when consent was lacking. DUH!
"And, in the blink of an eye, that definition was changed to fit the lifestyle of a small SMALL percentage of the American people.."
No, as Bashi said, we did NOT change the definition of marriage. We expanded equality.
"The same argument that can be made for group marriages can ALSO be made for non-sentient biologic marriage and inanimate object marriage..
The EXACT same argument.."
No, it is NOT the EXACT same argument Michale. And no amount of shrill hysterics on your part is going to "Make it so" as Picard would say.
"I am also constrained to point out that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman was "stupid" within our lifetimes.."
There were also many other things that were "stupid" within our lifetimes too. Such as; a white man marrying a black woman, or a black man being President, or a woman wanting to be an astronaut. Thank god we now know differently and things have changed for the better.
These ARE the facts... Whether you like them or not..
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” ? Martin Luther King Jr.
Time has changed and moved on. You should too.
"Apparently, with that one exception, I am the only one here who can concede when they are wrong.."
Really? I have yet to see any evidence of that! :-D
YES. Where is Captain Obvious when you need him? Consent is the cornerstone of contractual law. Otherwise you would not be able to void a contract when consent was lacking. DUH!
We just changed the definition of marriage... So, your argument that consent is the definition of marriage is rendered moot..
No, as Bashi said, we did NOT change the definition of marriage. We expanded equality.
The definition of marriage was "a man and a woman"...
That definition has been changed...
No, it is NOT the EXACT same argument Michale. And no amount of shrill hysterics on your part is going to "Make it so" as Picard would say.
You simply saying it's not the exact same argument w/o providing ANY supporting evidence doesn't make you right..
There were also many other things that were "stupid" within our lifetimes too. Such as; a white man marrying a black woman, or a black man being President, or a woman wanting to be an astronaut.
You must be a LOT older than me.. :D
Because none of those things you mention were "stupid" in my lifetime..
Really? I have yet to see any evidence of that! :-D
That's because you only see what you WANT to see.. Your BS idea that the definition of marriage hasn't changed is one such example. :D
Michale
No, as Bashi said, we did NOT change the definition of marriage. We expanded equality.
Yet, you refuse to expand that equality to people who want to marry non-sentient biologics or inanimate objects..
Pure, unadulterated discrimination!!!!! BIGOTRY!!!!!!
And you call yourself a liberal!!!! :D
Michale
Oh goody - I get to call myself a lib because I don't refuse to expand marriage equality to Republicans who want to marry their long black rifles!
BTW John M, I don't think you're an anti-gun marriage bigot.
Until Republicans step up and start demanding their gerbil marriage licenses, I won't believe that that is really the pressing civil rights issue that the GOP Chicken Littles seem to think it is. Big Gerbil needs to get organized. Maybe Dennis Miller and a gerbil could do a new Fox sitcom to introduce the nation to this GOP gerbil love thing. I just don't know if it would convince me. I would always have to wonder if the gerbil really liked Dennis, much less wanted to be married to him. But I would definitely let Dennis marry his gun.
Lemme know when you are going to start ignoring me, JohnFC :D
Michale
Dear Milli Vanilli,
You're just lip-syncing talking points that you pick up from Palin and Breitbart. You shouldn't flatter yourself by suggesting that it has anything to do with you.
You're just lip-syncing talking points that you pick up from Palin and Breitbart. You shouldn't flatter yourself by suggesting that it has anything to do with you.
And yet...
Here you are.... :D
What does it say about a person who gets into a debate with a spam bot???
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
Michale
It is true that it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to talk to a chatbot, but The Quantum™ always forgives me for all of my transgressions. Under the circumstances, I really don't take His rules very seriously, but I do think that everybody else should follow them.
Quantum be upon you. The Singularity is near.
"Dogs barking, can't fly home without umbrella"
:D
Under the circumstances, I really don't take His rules very seriously, but I do think that everybody else should follow them.
Do as I say, not as I do....
The quintessential Liberal... :D
Michale