: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

Quantum be upon you. The Singularity is near.

And yet...

Here you are.... :D

What does it say about a person who gets into a debate with a spam bot???

hehehehehehehehehehehehe

Michale

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.

Michale

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

"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.

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

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

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...

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

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...

Heh :D

Michale

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

Wouldn't that be akin to incest?

Heh.

Perfect!

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 ... :)

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

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.

"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

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...

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.

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

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.

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...

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. 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

Apparently, not in Obama's Amerika... :^/

Michale

Michale

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

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

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

If TBTF is good enough for TrainWreckCare, it's good enough for anything else...

Silver lining.... :D

Michale

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

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

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.

Which I did.

When conversing with YOU!

Easy ta say now..

But I know for a fact that several Weigantians were worried.. :D

Michale

Nice...

Force the SCOTUS to live with their decision..

I love it!!!

Michale

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

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