what an amazing effort!
Aaron Diaz @dresdencodak 3m
GOP senator claiming that the vote was taken at 11:59, unaware that we're all recording this **** apparently.
Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?
With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left
The best bit was when a whole bunch of men were debating whether Wendy, a woman, had the right to speak about women's rights.
Sometimes the whole thing is such an obvious joke. you don't need any cartoonists or commentators to parody or point it out.
i just dont get why they are trying to dubiously pass the bill when they could just do another session next month
while we're here
Just two hours after the Supreme Court reasoned that discrimination is not rampant enough in Southern states to warrant restrictions under the Voting Rights Act, Texas is already advancing a voter ID law and a redistricting map blocked last year for discriminating against black and Latino residents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a statement declaring that both measures may go into effect immediately, now that there is no law stopping them from discriminating against minorities.
Yeah that court judgment could reak havoc.
Becca Aaronson @becca_aa 1h
Hinojosa holding up docs showing #txlege changed time stamp on #SB5 vote pic.twitter.com/r7mdQXSu3J
sometimes you change what day the vote took place....
Who is Wendy Davis?
Republicans keep trying to shut her down. Her 2008 victory was a squeaker over the Republican incumbent, and she pulled out another in 2012 after federal courts threw out a Republican gerrymandering plan that would have put her in a much more conservative district. Again, she became the last vote needed to deny Republicans a filibuster-proof majority
SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 3m
DOMA is unconstitutional
In addition to DOMA, Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 as well. Gay marriage is now legal in California. However, they didn't rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage nation-wide, so conservative states can still deny homosexuals the right to marry. I'm confused by this. Why was it not ok for California to do this but ok for others? Need more analysis.
I'm testing my memory, but wasn't gay marriage ruled legal in CA 'naturally', as in, gay marriage was ruled as being legal in the CA constitution, without an amendment or anything being added? And so Prop 8 was the amendment added to make gay marriage illegal, and the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the amendment wasn't constitutional, and now the supreme court is basically saying "yo, we don't want to rule on this" (saying whoever is appealing don't have standing to appeal) and so the Ninth Circuit ruling stands without affecting any other states.
So basically, the supreme court hasn't really done anything here. they've said the people appealing this case don't have a right to and so we're not judging anything else in this case. goodnight. If the court had ruled prop 8 is unconstitutional because of this aspect of the constitution that says gay people can marry blah blah blah it would affect everyone, but they've just said the court shouldn't even be hearing this case.
Prop 8 ruling has led to some really weird collations btw:
Last edited by Spikey; 26-06-2013 at 10:39 AM.
I support gay marriage obviously and I think it ought to be constitutional. I applaud the DOMA ruling but I find the Prop 8 ruling to be a bit troubling. They are saying that a constitutional amendment passed by the people of California cannot be defended by a citizen of California. Only the state can defend the statute - even though the purpose of an amendment is specifically to bypass the state government and have the will of the people become law. So if the state government doesn't like it - they can just ignore it, effectively.
I'm actually not a fan of democratically voted amendments in the first place, so I don't mind it in that sense - but still, if you're GOING to have it - then surely the people who passed it ought to be able to defend it in court. And then the court can rule the amendment unconstitutional if they wish. I think that was the reasoning of Sotomayor.
Last edited by silentstriker; 26-06-2013 at 11:01 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)