Cabana Boy Futures are UP!

Scalia's dissent is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things.  You know what summarizes the current law of the land?

Go me!

- Gabriel Malor

Someday in the future, we'll not be a nation of laws.  I mean, we're already a nation with nothing resembling a "rule of law" concept, but eventually they'll just do away with them altogther, because they will have become obsolete. 

Like savages, we live in  a "might makes right" approach to managing our lives, so why pretend law has anything to do with it? 

Get power.  Use it.  That's all it is, and that's all it's going to be until after the bones are piled so high nobody can fart without blowing them over. 

The People don't have standing to defend a measure passed by popular vote.

That is just plain bullshit.

"classes" of citizens - how the fuck does anyone with an IQ over 70 take an institution seriously (as an American, constitutional body) that right off the bat introduces an indefensible "principle" that ipso facto contradicts the very basis of the entire constitutional order (the individual, with equal protection, as the basis of the legal order)?

the state conferring/denying "dignity" and so on

even "strict" vs. "rational" scrutiny - undergraduate-level lazy rationalization for the court to legislate and make shit up instead of intelligently applying clear principles and language

all b.s. - the whole framework and terms of reference of the SCOTUS are illegitimate - for a constitutional court

as has been said elsewhere, the SCOTUS has evolved into an unaccountable super-legislature for dummies (and I do not exclude the "conservatives" here, at least not all of them)

listen to the pathetic, illiterate oral arguments (by all sides) in the Obamacare case when they're attempting to discuss the insurance business (quintessence of the problem:  they have no legitimate standing to even be discussing the topic, and they display an astonishing level of real-world ignorance about it when they do insist on discussin it)

Posted by: Marcus at June 26, 2013 12:40 PM (GGCsk)

I just went there and read it for the first time.  Well stated imo.

This is what happens when keeping  your cushy Breitbart gig is more important than principles:

@KurtSchlicter

The gay marriage  fight created an artificial barrier to gay Americans joining with conservatives.  The fight is over.  Time to fight together.

Fucking  BULLSHIT.  This is  the same  stupidity that Rick Wilson, whoever the fuck he is, was pushing.  "Just concede on the gay marriage  thing so it's not an issue anymore.  Then  they won't  be able to call us meanie-heads again."

Fucking childish  thinking.

36 -

Somebody would still have to remember how to tie knots.  I'm not counting on that. 

TL; DR

Shorter: We are all so terribly fucked.

46 -

Sounds to me like you are your own small tent. Which is your problem, not ours. 

Posted by: teh Wind at June 26, 2013 12:52 PM (JIMJN)

The hospitals are pretty leveraged by the government already.

They've been in bed with it for a while.  How this controls which way they go? Unknown.

I suspect they'll fold rather than "go" giving into whatever demands are made of them.

But I don't have any inside knowledge about that.

Nope, none at all.

Sorry Drew, explain to me again how I am wrong to be on the opposing side of Scalia when he rules that the people don't have standing to protect the law that the people just passed because their state government refused to pass the law?

Clarence Thomas is the true constitutional genius, Scalia is like the boy wonder and Thomas is the batman.

You notice what else is happening here?   The redefining of what counts as     being "harmed."      As Scalia notes:

As I have observed before, the Constitution does not
forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 599 (2003) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to
say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol.

So there is nothing unConstitutional about DOMA,    anymore than there was anything unConstitutional about Prohibition or its subsequent repeal.     The purpose of DOMA, as Scalia further explains, was to make it very clearcut    that the federal government would follow    one particular definition of marriage   for    federal purposes.    That means    when it comes to joint tax filing status, or spousal benefits, or anything else for which a married couple is eligible (or ineligible)       in a way that differs from an    unmarried individual.

THAT'S the harm SCOTUS has just defined.  It is now    considered   "harm"       to be deprived of    federal benefits   based on marital status.   It doesn't matter that you could still get state benefits in whatever states legalized gay marriage.   No.   State benefits are not enough.   The SCOTUS has just said that federal benefits are a RIGHT,    and  deprivation      of those benefits counts as an unconstitutional     act.

The nation has been Dynamically Equalized...

...without benefit of lubrication.

@KurtSchlicter

The gay marriage fight created an artificial barrier to gay Americans joining with conservatives. The fight is over. Time to fight together

---

I like Schlicter as well, but subsitute "immigration" for "gay marriage" and "gay Americans" with "hispanics" and you have the Rubio position. Screw that.

Posted by: teej at June 26, 2013 12:54 PM (r60DJ)

But I hardly knew ye.

Fairs seas teej

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 26, 2013 12:56 PM (kdS6q)

So now every illegal is going to claim to be queer by tomorrow

I am thinking 'Backwardsboy" and Dr. Spank" should stay out of the gay marriage thread. At least until I finish my lunch 8/

Your wish, my command.  This is all a bit much  so early in  the day.

I'll just be lurking for a while. Over there, in the corner. By myself.

Don't mind me.   Not here. 

Only one wife can immigrate to the US with the husband. He has to choose which one. Of course, the INA is an act passed by Congress and therefore easily amended.

Posted by: Mainah at June 26, 2013 12:51 PM .............................Imagine that conversation the night before leaving. O.K. Listen up ladies. I can only take one of you, the rest sadly have to stay in this third world shithole. So to be fair, we're going to have a little competition. Please go pick out your costumes, and please, no fighting over the French Maid outfit.

I'm not talking about "most people" I'm talking about people who claim to be conservatives but are really just as feckless as liberals. Gabe.

I think this is what Drew is really trying to say. .

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at June 26, 2013 12:49 PM (yAor6)

You are Bob Dole, aren't you?

Posted by: asalto platija at June 26, 2013 12:52 PM (Kkt/i)

I know I get in trouble when I assume Boehner is anything more than a nicotine addicted, emotionally stunted lush, but he has actually stumbled his way into being able to shove massive amounts of the Senate bill's stupidity straight up the poop chutes of the Senate donks and repukes.  Keep in mind that passing anything having to do with immigration is so fucking low on my list of priorities you need the Hubble telescope to view its existence, if he could pass something similar to what Hobojerky has been clamoring for, it could be a major win.

110 Only one wife can immigrate to the US with the husband. ---------------

and if the wife is the husband? I'm so confused....

Posted by: RWC at June 26, 2013 12:59 PM (fWAjv)

It's beautiful thing.

gays will vote against a republican even if he is pro SSM

just like Hispanics, and Blacks

tribes people, tribes

121 Next will be pedophiles. If they want to marry a 10 year old, who is to stop them? ---------------------------------------

I've got my eye on  a sweet 14 yr. old...so she is SO legal.

Did Ace leave for Fire Island early this weekend?

Just ok polygamy, and I'm going to start marrying 16 yo Maronite Lebanese   girls like they are going out of style.

Every single one will be barefoot, pregnant and living in separate, tax payer assisted housing. You want "demographics is destiny"?, bitch? I give that shit to you in spades.

Please don't throw me in that briar patch.

Posted by: Invictus at June 26, 2013 12:45 PM (OQpzc)

----------------------------------------------------

If the  majority popular vote is unconstitutional, no, it doesn't.   It's how the Constitution protects our rights.  I think what has happened here is that societal norms have degenerated to the point that everything is relative now.  

Think about it.  With this  SCOTUS decision, people will no longer have religious freedom, the very first right listed  in the Constitution.  Therefore this decision is unconstitutional at it's very root.  But, again, society (52%, at  the last poll I've seen) has degenerated to the point where the rights of perverts dominate religion. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther)at June 26, 2013 01:00 PM (/PCJa)

Pedos bringing up the rear?

Posted by: Guido 'now with 69% more hate' at June 26, 2013 01:02 PM (8I9hB)

Legal age of consent in Mexico is 12. So, it is coming.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at June 26, 2013 12:45 PM (7ObY1)

Don't know why you felt it necessary to point this out, but yeah, well, many of us thought Rubio was a Tea Party conservative--the founder of this blog included. We--like she--didn't know he is an opportunistic rat bastard turncoat who'd sell out his immigrant mother for GOP Establishment approval in order to broaden his appeal for a shot at the presidency.

Insofar as I know, Palin hasn't announced interest in pursuing an elective office of any sort. Are you just Palin-bashing out of kneejerk habit? You and Parker should start a club.

Unfortunately, nobody is going to take the time  to read Scalia's well-thought out (and correct) reason for dissent.

All this is going to do is make things infinitely more difficult for Federal agencies - how soon people forget that the reason to clearly define something is so that a rule can be applied.

And now the Feds aren't going to have access to all of that sweet, sweet "Death Tax" money from all of those rich gay donors.

One wonders how they are going to square the circle when it comes to Muslim polygamy and Federal benefits - can't be accused of religious intolerance against the  State's favored religious institution, now can we?

So now the Fed is gonna hafta pony up money to support Habibi, Fatima, Jasmine, and Katie (and all of their kids) - Obamacare benefits, Social Security benefits, income tax deductions, etc.

Have fun with that, guys - you got what you thought you wanted; now you get to live with it.

its really a move to make the state central in peoples lives over God

like Henry the VIII

the state as God

"I saw some survey someplace where like half of gay committed relationships are open relationships, so yeah, keep plugging that whole "bring the h0m0s into the responsible fold" canard"

You spelled 'hole' wrong.

The only defensible and serious basis on which to negate any marriage-related law affecting federal benefits/taxation/etc is obviously to (properly, and logically) disallow all the discrimination that takes place already in the tax code.  The preferential treatment of married couples/etc under federal tax law is indefensible discrimination (non-constitutional term:  impermissible social engineering).  Always has been.  Obviously.

But no one is "harmed" by the state "denying dignity and status" or whatever idiotic unconstitutional nonsense the court used in their DOMA decision.  The state does not confer dignity, nor remove/deny it.  The state does tax, and if it taxes in a way that violates equality before the law, then it does so in violation of the most basic constitutional princples.

All the marriage redefinition freaks wrapped around the axle about the underlying "merits" of the issue don't even understand what the issue is.  The issue is process, and law.  Not marriage redefinition.  The emergence of civil unions ended any interesting legal discussions about marriage redefinition. 

What % of any SCOTUS ruling falls within any defensible common sense definition of what that institution has any business even discussing?  The conflation of legislative and judicial functions renders the whole system a disaster.  The additional conflation of legislative and executive functions through the passage of vague laws with de facto legislation by the bureaucracies completes the picture of lawless chaos.

Robert Jackson's dissent in Korematsu is worth reading, given that SCOTUS seems unwilling to consider all the unintended consquences of it's decisions (edits mine):

"But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of  [fill in blank with whatever you wish]. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim [equal protection]. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes."

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 26, 2013 01:05 PM (pgQxn)

It departed for hell early this morning. 

Posted by: AmishDude at June 26, 2013 01:05 PM (FpzZf) ----------------

you confuse AD. I thought there was less promiscuity after AIDs. Or just not "sticking the ass up to the hole in the stall" thing.

Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2013 01:03 PM (i15Z+)

They shitcanned Prop 8 because of "standing" not constitutionality.

This anti-marriage kick only lasts while welfare lasts. And if the Rs would quit killing the country by allowing all this shit with massive debt spending, it would stop tomorrow if people were actually taxed on the cost of their dumbassery.

I read somewhere, ghey is the new black

Have some fun with it, move to change common law marriages to anything over year of shared residence and watch all of the hetero college roomates change their minds on the whole matter.

Reverse Cloward Piven (in leather, fabulously)

so far there have been exactly three (3) alleged conservatives who have not morphed into some sort of RINO chupacabra.

1.  Palin

2. Cruz (so far)

3. Perry

Palin has serious cred in conservative house districts

AHOY!!!

Posted by: John Galt at June 26, 2013 01:09 PM (B5y+v)

There certainly is.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2013 01:06 PM (wsGWu)

If Perry calls another special session, go long mace and handcuff futures.

If he doesn't, he's a fraud.

AIDS is a valid health concern and there is a valid reason for the state to prohibit the acts that spread it.

------------------

Like sitting on public toilet seats?  Or is that pregnancy?

Posted by: DangerGirl, getting angrier by the day at June 26, 2013 01:08 PM (Lo5Rt)

Funny how "evolved" usually means increasing the rate of reproduction of a species.  Kind of like calling a fat person "slim".

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 01:10 PM (/PCJa)

Ehhhhh....I'm not so sure on the bestiality thing.

There's an anthropomorphizing effect happening in the world of animal research, where we dream up that "consent" matters and since animals are incapable of giving it, we can't cut them open to cure diseases. (There's some alter weirdness where we train animals, especially Non human primates to "present" their arms for things like blood draws and injections and declare it "assent.")

So to that end, the animal groups (which are currently clobbering in the research wars) would probably not be a fan of bestiality on those lines.  Assuming they maintain vocal minority status across the issues, it would hold back on that.

Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 01:11 PM (El+h4)

What's to stop gay siblings of the same gender from marrying?

Or what if a brother and sister want to marry, and one or the other goes through a sterilization process to prevent the chance of pregnancy?

What if a    daughter marries her father    because the father is ill  and there's no other way for her to cover his treatment except through her insurance?

And there's always abortion. 

so far there have been exactlythree (3) alleged conservatives who have not morphed into some sort of RINO chupacabra.

What about Gowdy?

My money is on polygamy (polyamoury) next.
Then incest.
Then bestiality.
Finally pedos.

I suspect that pedophilia will come sooner than bestiality (particularly if it comes by increments). Lowering the age of consent to 16 or 14 might come before incest, too.

if the state has a valid reason for forbidding sexual congress of certain people because of the health risk it poses

and AIDS is the worst plague since the plague, according to gay activists

then doesn't Congress have the right to prohibit acts that promote the spread of AIDS

just following the logic

Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2013 01:13 PM (9221z)

It was defined as a mental illness because it has a higher than average suicide rate.  I don't know for sure but I think it's the only group with that characteristic which is not labeled as such.

Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2013 01:13 PM (wsGWu)

Then call it and let them.

MWR thank you for reminding me of the awesomeness that is Gowdy.

yes, so far him.  Don't know enough about Jordan, and after Rubio I like to wait a while

Powerhouse crabs

I saw those guys open for Stone Temple Pilots in '95.

RiverC

nothing is more permanent than death

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 26, 2013 01:17 PM........Yep. Nail meet head. We have to be tolerant of EVERYONE and their beliefs and or lifestyle. They do not have to be tolerant of ours.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 01:19 PM (/PCJa)

Firstly it's really both D&C and D&S, varying degrees of the same thing. (One uses suction the other manual scraping.)

Secondly, don't forgot the other half of the bill that makes Abortion clinics "ambulatory surgery centers"

That's just good medicine honestly.  It should have happened a long time ago.  My mom worked at a laser eye center.  They had to have a plan for any emergency, be X distance from a hospital, etc.

Abortion clinics? They call 911 and laugh out back.

Posted by: Muhammad at June 26, 2013 01:18 PM (659DL)

Pal, you're preaching to the choir here.

ok ok

1.  Palin

2.  Cruz (so far)

3.  Perry

4.  Gowdy (so far)

possibly Jordan

And CAC how is Walker on Amnesty, because his spiritual ally Ryan is allll for it

Posted by: Invictus at June 26, 2013 01:18 PM..........This ^ let them try and pull the same crap the legislators in WI tried to pull. It will backfire on them. Then again, 5 years from now the fucks on the SCOTUS will just decide that states have no rights anyways so.

Posted by: J the Saint at June 26, 2013 01:23 PM (+Awp3)

What about me

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at June 26, 2013 01:24 PM ......................Amen. Oh, sorry. That was a religious term used by the evil inhabitants of Jesus Land. I didn't mean to offend. Oh and can we not have the gay characters close EVERY show kissing?

Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 01:08 PM (nTgAI)

Because remember, back in the good old days, when we had plantations with legions of gheys picking shoes and draperies?

Bestiality: Simply redefine what makes an animal an animal and a human a human.  PETA would gladly give animals all the same rights as humans, including the right to consent (or not consent) to sexual intercourse.

Pedophilia:   Simply redefine what counts as an adult.   The schools have   already begun this.   When you have   elementary school learning materials depicting graphic images of vaginas, penises, sexual intercourse, and everything else along the spectrum, you're already well on your way to turning children into "younger adults."

Gay marriage does pave the way possibly for polygamy, but honestly I don't have an issue with that. Why should I care or enforce my personal moral values on consenting adults that does not harm myself.

Posted by: J the Saint at June 26, 2013 01:23 PM (+Awp3)

Just understand that you'll be paying for Achmed's three wives.  

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at June 26, 2013 01:28 PM (sBruU)

----------------------

Lubricant.

I think the original mistake was made when govt. started licensing a religious sacrament known as marriage. Given that transgression across the lines of seperation of church and state to start with, it cannot now walk back the issue and stop the licensing process. Without that, our society is faced with an inevitable ruling which will offend SOMEONE'S religious/moral  sensibilities.

The solution remains simple to me: Convert all Federal laws regarding marriage to refer to "Civil Unions" which have to conform to "equal protection under the law". Then allow any religious institutions to confer the sacraments of marriage as per their own guidlines. Thus Baptists can remain as homophobic as they choose while Espicipalians can be as liberal as they choose. But the laws for civil unions continue to allow divorce lawyers to feed off the gay community as well as the straight as they argue dissolution of "civil unions".

Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 01:28 PM (El+h4)

----------------------

"Tits  and dragons are entertaining."

Posted by: MrObvious at June 26, 2013 01:29 PM (jgcLl)

-

That was done to forestall miscigenation, and for raising revenue, but mostly for raising revenue.

Posted by: Roberto Luongo at June 26, 2013 01:09 PM (NHNJt)

-----------------------------------------------

One year?  Change it to three days.  I'm serious.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 01:29 PM (CJjw5)

Heh, somewhat ironically it's the 3rd anniversary of my very straight marriage today.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 01:31 PM ..........poop Chutes and ladders?

Batteries.

Fabulous drapes?

Posted by: steevy at June 26, 2013 01:30 PM (9XBK2)

George RR Martin   is a    lardass    regressive douchebag who'd do the world a favor by scarfing down three big helpings of chili cheese fries and    a   2-liter Pepsi      followed   by a six pack Red Bull chaser and then running a fucking marathon.   His would be an excellent physiological specimen for aspiring medical students to ogle.   "And this, boys and girls, is what a heart with four blocked ventricles and a blown aorta looks like."

You're not allowed to lie on the internets. Srslies cmon

“We need to have a way to welcome those who want to come to America for all the right reasons," Walker said.

The Wisconsin governor tried to cast legal immigration as a "conservative" issue and said he has spoken to many immigrants in his state who are not looking to "become dependent on government."

so

Walker.  Pro amnesty, just like Ryan

Posted by: Eaton Cox at June 26, 2013 12:52 PM (q177U)

FIFY, cuz that's where we're going.

Heh, somewhat ironically it's the 3rd anniversary of my very straight marriage today.

--------------

Congrats!

Oh, Game of Thrones.One sentence review:"Fantasy without morality is pornography."
Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 01:28 PM (El+h4)

"Hodor."

no Walker is not the same as Perry on immigration

and I do not trust him

@KurtSchlicter The gay marriage fight created an artificial barrier to gay Americans joining with conservatives. The fight is over. Time to fight together

And exactly what, Kurt, was keeping "gay Americans" joining with conservatives before?  Are you saying that our stands on taxation, limited government and federalism, no matter how artfully explained, were ignored until now because we were insufficiently appreciative of their faaaaaaaaaaabulousness?  That now that they have their binkie, they'll deign to join us?

Fuck.  That.  Shit.

Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 01:33 PM (El+h4)

------------------------------------------------

I think this is the main point of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.  This nation has lost it's way morally.   Without morality, there's chaos.  And that's what we'll be reaping.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 01:31 PM (/PCJa)

Ages of consent are largely artificial constructs, just like age requirements for anything.

Consent itself, not so much.  I'd even argue that the general idea of consent at a broad level (perhaps not at the nitty gritty) are fairly common.  Lack of coercion, knowledge of what is being consented too, etc.

Having said that, one of the hallmarks of consent is that it cannot be merely interfered. (Surrogate consent is an entirely different issue.)

So having said that I'm not sure a "pet psychic" would suffice as it's mere "inference" (charitably it's bullshit.  But assuming it's not.)

As I noted above, there's a weirdness in the Non-human primates world about "assent" right now.  But I'm not sure how much it extends past NHPs (give me another 15 months too, it's on the list of things getting eviscerated in my dissertation, I have to shore up a few things in the argument though*.)

*Of course a crazy person could totally turn my argument on its head since I'm saying all notions of "assent" in animals are the result of unwarranted and excessive anthropomorphication, claim their animal is just "property" and declare...uhh...untoward things acceptable. I think I can hedge against that though with the idea of a "basic respect" due to animals above that of mere objects, but lesser than humans.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 01:34 PM (/PCJa)

I asked the same question about MO State Rep.

Decided that I couldn't. Made Truman North sad.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at June 26, 2013 01:37 PM (zF6Iw)

-

Kurt seems blissfully    unaware that as long as there are Christians left    to attack in this country, homosexuals will keep fighting.  This isn't about marriage, it is about destroying the people who believe it when God says that homosexual behavior is an abomination.

Posted by: Ellen Degenerate at June 26, 2013 01:34 PM ...............Yea but not very good.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 12:45 PM (/PCJa)

This issue is a little convoluted to me.  This ruling allows for already legally married gays to be recognized as married, federally, and receive spousal benefits.  How is that grounds to sue a church?

And while Republicans — including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — have recently been outspoken about the need for immigration reform, Walker said that the issue is the country needs to deal with and not just Republicans.

Walker said that in addition to not having enough visas for immigrants is that the system in general is broken.

“We just have a broken system. And to me, if somebody wants to come in and live the American dream and work hard … we should have a system that works and let’s people in,” Walker told POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin at the event.

He added: “The vast majority of people want to come here for the right reasons. They want to live the American dream.”

Walker dodged questions about whether heÂ’s interested in running for president in 2016 but sized up both the Democratic and Republican field.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows freedom is slavery at June 26, 2013 01:32 PM .........................................Throw in some silica sand.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

What Allen said @ 12.

I'm not surprised, but I wouldn't be truthful if I didn't say I wasn't disappointed. Kennedy, go figure, eh?

The churches are the next target Heralder. Go back and read what you wrote. If a gay couple is now recognized, then the service will be recognized. The 1st amendment be damned. Look what they did with Obamacare.

Actually there's a more fundamental problem here. The founders recognized that the liberties they granted required people to moral and religious for the most part. Thus, if their thesis is correct, society must support religion (at least our society) but cannot rule it or be ruled by a specific religious leader. To remove societal support for religion either through a misguided libertarian impulse or because of out-of-hand pluralism dooms those same liberties supposedly granted

To expand on that, I am increasingly of the opinion that limited government requires a strong sense of morality and strong local communities willing to keep their members in line via non-legal penalties (ostracism, etc.). Basically, to remain functional human society has to have a certain amount of control over its members, and when non-government controls such as religion, local communities, and such-like become feeble, the government steps in and eventually becomes oppressive.

See Edmund Burke's ideas about the role of non-government organizations in maintaining a free society.

Can we please get back to the important shit now? Like immigration and the 127 scandals team fuckface has cooking.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 01:38 PM (/PCJa)

I 2nd that

Arizona's law requires police to ask people about their immigration status if an officer believes they may be in the country illegally

Posted by: PJ at June 26, 2013 01:44 PM (ZWaLo)

Yes, but they could already try that anyway.  I'm just trying to figure out how this ruling is making this possible now where it wasn't before. 

Actually, it's worse than a crapshoot. Dice are random. SCOTUS decisions aren't. They UNDERMINE and USURP the Constitution with extreme regularity.

Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 01:33 PM (nTgAI)

Excellent point. After all, we KNOW that all the targeting of lawful gunowners for onerous restrictions is "because it is motivated by a 'bare . . . desire to harm' individuals practicing a disfavored constitutional right.

Posted by: Paula Deen at June 26, 2013 01:50 PM ......................How's it goin baby?

Sorry.  WSAW.com

By: Associated Press

Yeah, asalta, that reminds me of yet another jaw-dropping thing in the "ruling"

The pathetic SCOTUS is now devining motivations of legislation, to include finding nefarious intent to "harm" certain "classes" of people.  WTF? 

So now we have "hate legislation" along with "hate crimes" and "hate speech"?

Is there ANY point at which the apparently mindless drones who take the SCOTUS and our current version of constitutional process seriously notice how frivolous and orwellian this shit has become?  (oh and yes one must "take the SCOTUS seriously" in the sense you have to pretend to be nice to the Soviet border guard or the drunk Georgian "soldier" asking for cigs at the checkpoint between Gori and Tskhinvali - but that means submission to arbitrary authority, nothing resembling deference to legitimate lawful authority)

Holy damn.  The first part of Scalia's dissent is FAR more important than the second which is more fun to read.  He is entirely correct that the Court has itself violated the Constitution by even hearing this case.  There is no controversy as required by Article III for the judiciary to even be involved.  The U.S. government agreed with both the District and Circuit Court rulings in favor of the plaintiff.  Thus there was no injury to either party to be adjudicated and no jurisdiction for the Supreme Court at all. 

What. The. Living. Hell.