Yeah, I remember BostonBarrister. Smart fella. I liked him a lot.
I don’t mean to leave any one out. There’s quite a few I miss. Push was always a favorite as I remember.
Cool! I am a topic!
I spell my name with a lower ‘p’ here. Appreciate the respect though.
The good news @Mufasa, is your still here.
Stay even my friend 
Is it short for Patrick or the verb to describe a bad habit of yours?
Kind of a weird morning…
2 Likes
Indeed:
The DEMS…and the Far Right…stand to really embarrass themselves, because they both want an “ideologue” on the Court…
Yes. He is Conservative (in the “Non-Trump” sense); but he is also a student of the Law; the Constitution; has been a Law Clerk of the SCOTUS; had taught Law; AND has also rendered in the area of 300-plus decisions.
“Qualified” is an understatement.
1 Like
The NYT (I think it was the NYT) had a chart showing Kavanaugh as less conservative than Gorsuch. At least there’s that for Dems, I guess…
I read earlier he’s ruled in support of NSA data gathering over privacy rights. Can’t say I’m a big fan of that…
1 Like
Hey pat, hope you’re doing well. I haven’t participated in the forums for years and no plans to change that, but appreciate the callout. I’m still working out regularly. My partner and I will be celebrating our 11th anniversary next month, and my youngest just graduated from high school. Life is good
4 Likes
Congrats on the happy news and the graduation!
What divide? All I see is Americans and love
(if you are like me, you need to watch for 25-30secs to clue on to what’s happening)
All hail the GOP.
1 Like
This is exactly the kind of journalism that is hurting the reputation of media organisations.
It is extremely light on for details, I have zero idea what the actual court case is about other than some platitudes put forward by the defence and a single quote than make it seen that the prosecution is arguing against the most accepted of ideas. Maybe this is what is actually happening but when I see this, it fails the sniff test.
It is then closely followed by lots of detail about a previous case with no link to this one other than it involved gay people. This leaves you with the impression that a very thin and poorly put together piece was actually filled with evidence.
This is classic avoiding reporting and choosing to campaign. At some point, readers are going to need to develop skills to sniff out this practice and reject it for it to stop. This is the age of social media and we all like out biases confirmed and companies know how to exploit it so I don’t have much hope.
Anyway, anyone have details of what is actually being argued in this one?
3 Likes
Well this is from September of 2017, I just hadn’t seen it until now.
case of Donald Zarda who claims he was fired by his company, Altitude Express, for being gay.
Pretty self explanatory. Also there are various links within the article itself that lead to more information. Just requires a simple click(s).
Also, it was followed up, apparently all over the place. Just required a 10 second google to find this.
1 Like
The posts about LGBT anti-discrimination statutes reminded me of this.
For anyone concerned that the SCOTUS would overturn same sex marriage, you might like this perspective. Emphasis mine.
Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, writing for the WSJ.
"In Masterpiece Cakeshop last month, every conservative justice save Clarence Thomas signed onto Justice Kennedy’s language as follows: “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts.”
If there is a danger for Obergefell over the longer term, it lies in some critics’ claim that gay marriage is somehow in unavoidable future tension with religious liberty. As Justice Samuel Alito noted in last month’s Janus decision, stare decisis is easier to abandon when a challenged precedent is thought itself to impinge on a constitutional right.
This “inevitable conflict with religious liberty” argument—which Justice Alito touched on in his Obergefell dissent—is unsound, most notably because any high-court majority inclined to overturn Obergefell would also have the votes to apply the First Amendment directly to secure whatever religious objectors’ rights it thought necessary to vindicate. Still, the argument underscores an additional reason to hope that in its consideration of objectors—bakers, florists, photographers and the rest—the court takes care to respect both pluralism and liberty."
3 Likes
I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance in hell any branch ever tries to overturn gay marriage. Too many bigots finally died and support isn’t showing any signs of moving in the opposite direction.
I’m more curious if they’ll try to go after their protected class status, but even then I don’t think theyll end up doing anything
Well, we aren’t all dead, but yeah, maybe enough of us are. Hopefully enough of us yet live to protect religious liberty (wedding cake makers, for example).
1 Like
Hopefully more want to protect liberty.
We’ll take all the help we can get.
Liberty with qualifications is not liberty, it’s freedom to oppress.