Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
for a straight man, you're quite the drama queen.
Drama queen?

Didn't you compare a law to reaffirm the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion to Jim Crow Laws?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/13/anti-gay-jim-crow-comes-to-kansas.html

what's interesting is that what they are proposing is *exactly* what INDY has said anti-gay discrimination can't compare to: Jim Crow.

Yes you did.

Drama queen? Let me just take a few quotes from the article about Virginia:

The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

"Loving for all." For all? If we can't discriminate in marriage because of race. If we can't discriminate in marriage because of sex. How can we discriminate on the basis of number? How is it constitutional to draw the line there?

The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.
The 14th amendment was written specifically to address discrimination against ex-slaves. Where in the Loving Decision did it say, "this ruling applies to same-sex marriages also"?

She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring

Which all but admits these judges are acting outside the law and unconstitutionally. If pointing out that a judicial oligarchy and an imperial president make these scary times for republicanism and the rule of law makes me over dramatic, so be it.
 
The 14th amendment was written specifically to address discrimination against ex-slaves. Where in the Loving Decision did it say, "this ruling applies to same-sex marriages also"?


Once again you're trying to have it both ways, and why no one can take your constitution beating seriously. Here you try and say that the 14th amendment only applies to the context of the time, but you absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who says consider the context when speaking about the 2nd amendment.

So which one is it?
 
mrz021614dAPR20140214034512.jpg


Oddly plausible.
 
So Debo Adegbile was blocked by the Senate for a position in the JD's Civil Rights division because Republicans didn't like that he had a history of fighting for civil rights.
 
So Debo Adegbile was blocked by the Senate for a position in the JD's Civil Rights division because Republicans didn't like that he had a history of fighting for civil rights.

Don't the democrats control the senate? Didn't some Democrats vote no as well? What was the position of police groups regarding the nominee?

Finally, why is this president attempting to pack the DOJ with leftist radicals?
 
Seven. All white. All of whom should be fucking embarrassed.

The police groups? I assume they erroneously viewed it as "us vs. them," but I don't actually know.

I don't ever trust your opinion on what a leftist radical is, so I won't dignify your last question with a response.
 
Hard to tell. Could have been their judgement because it seems a more complicated case than it appears based on the articles I've read. Sad thing is that re-election hopes can outweigh other, more important principles
 
An aide for one of the Dems said they voted against the nomination because "it's a 30-second ad that writes itself." This has nothing to do with it being a complicated case. It only has to do with seven Dems afraid of their GOP opponents being able use a catchy soundbite like "This senator nominated the defender of a cop killer to the Justice Department!" in an attack ad.

In fact, the only reason that the Fraternal Order came out so strongly against Adegbile is because the appeal that he wrote won. Yes, that's right: the appeal he wrote had merit and in fact commuted the death sentence of Abu-Jamal because the jury had been given improper instructions. So, not only did he do his job, he did it correctly. He's not a radical, he's a respected and intelligent lawyer.

This is actually a very controversial trial and court decision. I don't feel like we need to get into the nitty gritty of breaking it down, but he's not a radical defending someone for no reason. Plenty of reasonable people have a lot of reasonable questions about the Abu-Jamal verdict.
 
Opposition to the state = opposition to the forces intended to serve the state
 
free%2Bmumia.gif


What is it with leftist radicals and cop killers?

The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court represented a murderer, does that make him a leftist radical?

Honestly, think a little deeper about this. A lawyer's job is to provide competent representation to his client. It's part of constitutional law that all defendants deserve a fair trial, regardless of the crime they're accused of.

Would you rather have kangaroo courts where we just pretend to care about justice and hand out the death penalty, if the crime was bad enough? If so, you're the radical.
 
Back
Top Bottom