The General US Politics Thread

This isn't hyperbolic, by the way. Just a few months ago, North Carolina tried to pass a state religion. Things actually get that extreme in the south.

Well if they live in Alabama that might be true since they decided to go Madagascar and SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING.

"Go Madagascar?"

It's based on a meme from the game Pandemic.

edited 28th Jun '15 12:40:51 PM by Ekuran

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shut-down-everything

(Weekly Sift) While Kennedy DID help legalize SSM, he did so in a way that gives judges and lawyers no legal precedent framework for homosexual discrimination cases.

(EquiBlog) "Chief Justice Roberts' current thinking"

Basically that Roberts may be sick of the court (and him) being politicized, as he gave a solid legal basis for the ACA, and his dissent on Obergefell pretty much more or less says that he's not going to be the conservative messiah on the bench that Republicans are hoping for.

But hey, those brave conservatives on the court stood up for mercury pollution and the right to subject people to potentially painful executions! You have to look on the bright side.

(though seriously, gah. But that decision on non-partisan redistricting was cool).

As I jested on Facebook the other day, send in the Army and give a new meaning to "shotgun wedding." There certainly are. For starters, the massive difficulty in arranging divorce and child care when a polyamorous marriage loses one or all of its participants, would require a massive overhaul of basically every single law regarding divorce and child care. And that's not even touching how the hell you figure out the proper tax bracket and exemptions for a 3 (or 4 or 12) spouse family. I have actually seen the exact opposite argument - that were polyamorous marriages legal, then these cults would likely find that to comply with the law was easier to avoid it, and compliance would curb/eliminate many of the cult problems - such as marrying off drastically underage girls. Then it would be a corporate takeover. Again a topic that I was discussing on Facebook the other day; a friend said that theoretically you take a polygamous marriage and form it as a corporation between those three^note four, five, twelve, thirty-seven - I'll stick to using three from now on for examples as all equal shareholders. Adding a new member just means adjusting the relative 'stock' values. But of course, it's much less romantic to say your vows when it's, "Do you Bob take Dave and Jane to be your employees, in business or in unions, till bankruptcy do you part?" "Screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home!" is exactly this attitude. It's an attempt to stop anyone else from playing because they're not winning. It's flipping the table mid card game.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

While it's true that allowing polygamous marriages would require substantial overhaul of many laws, such as taxation, joint ownership, power of attorney, divorce, survivorship, and the like, it's not an insurmountable burden. How you adjust the vows is quite possibly the most trivial of these.

"Do you, Bob, take Anne and George to be your lawfully wedded spouses..."
"Do you, Anne, take Bob and George to be your lawfully wedded spouses..."
"Do you, George, take Bob and Anne to be your lawfully wedded spouses..."

That one's a serious no-brainer. And yes, I realize you were being tongue-in-cheek.

• Taxation wouldn't be that hard; you'd just have a scaling factor of the base exemption under "filing jointly", and/or you'd designate one partner as "head of household", based on highest income.
• Survivorship is easy: in the absence of a will, the estate would be split evenly among living spouses and/or children.
• Divorce would apportion evenly by person, so if Anne and Carol stay and Bob leaves, Bob gets 1/3 while Anne and Carol get 2/3. There's nothing fundamentally harder here than with two spouses, except perhaps the volume in the lawyer's office.
• Power of attorney is trickier, as what happens if two spouses have a disagreement about a matter having to do with the third? Majority vote doesn't work if the quorum contains an even number of people. Some external party would have to act as tie-breaker.

I mean, really, most of this is extending the basic 50/50 split recognized by existing laws and making the denominator equal to the number of spouses.

edited 29th Jun '15 11:37:32 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

On the upside, big messy families can make for great plots for TV dramas....

Big Love says hello.

edited 29th Jun '15 11:34:34 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges

Or 19 Kids and Counting!

...Too Soon?

Children would be somewhat interesting. If you consider the group marriage as a single legal entity, than a divorced partner would, in the absence of a finding of neglect or abuse, surrender custody to the marriage, with possible visitation rights and owing child support (again, proportional).

Children who had reached their majority while still being dependents (such as college-age kids) would choose which parent to be their custodial one for purposes of taxes and insurance and such.

Implicit in the marriage contract would be the surrender of blood rights to children, in the sense that you'd have any special claim to your genetic progeny.

edited 29th Jun '15 11:53:10 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I want to make sure I'm understanding you right. So for example, Bob and Dave have married Sarah. They collectively have two children, which we'll assume have been confirmed to each be from each father. If Bob leaves the marriage, he gives up child custody rights to his child? He gives up child custody right to both children?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Unless an agreement otherwise were reached by all partners, of course. The presumption is that Dave and Sarah, as a larger family unit, would be better able to care for the children, and separating the children from each other would be more traumatic than losing one of their parents.

Obviously, this is the sort of thing that you'd want to work out ahead of time, as litigating it after the fact would be really tough, but the same sort of thing happens with two-person marriages anyway. At least with a polygamy you'd be able to assign a default that is better than "mommy over daddy".

Robert A. Heinlein put a lot of thought into this, although his idea of a group marriage tended to involve more than three people. It became something of an Author Appeal issue later in his career.

edited 29th Jun '15 12:04:05 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I can't remember if you are referring to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or A Strange Man in a Stranger Land.

Anyway I need to restock my Sci-Fi books.

Inter arma enim silent leges

It was more than those two, if I remember correctly.

Keep Rolling On

Heh. Anyways.

Basically the Think Progress article De Long was referencing pointed these out:

• Roberts made a ton of references to "Lochner v. New York"

Basically among both liberal and conservative judges, Lochner is seen as the standard bearer of why you should at least not be "nakedly" partisan in your decisions. If Republicans and conservatives want things done, they have to so through sane legal theory that doesn't rely on nakedly partisan arguments. (i.e. their logic has to have some sort of precedent on their side.)

• Roberts was raised in the era of Reagan with regards to legal law.

Reagan was pro conservative law making (duh), but even Reagan believed that the Judiciary had to retain some semblance of legal impartiality, and that the chief work of creating a Conservative America had to come via the democratically voted branches: The Legislature and the Executive, that the Legislatures have to give the Justices reasonable footing/framework to draw from.

Basically he's going "Don't look to me if you guys continue going off the rocker because some black guy got elected President, causing you to throw away your principles".

As even the Federalist Society, which IIRC, he owed much of his career to, went of the rails when Obama became president, throwing away their stance of Judicial moderation.

Basically King might of been Roberts' point of "Yeah, no." that he isn't going to stand for nakedly partisan cases like King.

Meanwhile, most of his dissent with the SSM case is that "Marriage is ultimately to the states/federal government, as there's technically no right to marriage. States don't even have to have it if they vote it out."

Which prescribes to the "Show me the legal framework" logic.

My problem with that is that we have a legal framework - decades if not centuries of legal precedent of states and the federal government deciding what marriage means and what legal benefits those with it should have. This decision is just broadening the group of people who can sign up for it, building upon precedent set during the civil rights era and before.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I have to agree - even if I don't like some of the rulings or rationale Roberts has put forth, I'm pleasantly surprised that he's taking the position with as much gravitas as the highest point in the judicial branch merits... unlike, say, "Quiet Thomas" or the bile-filled Scalia. Hell, even Sotomayor is coming across as a bit too partisan from what I've been seeing lately.

I think he means in regards to Constitutional Law - there's nothing from the Federal Government (especially after the downfall of the Defense of Marriage Act) stating that marriage is a guaranteed right.

edited 29th Jun '15 12:56:42 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

NBC has cut it's ties with Trump after his derogatory comments towards latinos and Mexican immigrants.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33321290

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Part of me feels a teensy bit bad for Trump because I know he only said those things to rile up the crowd but the rest of me is just loving this.

Oh really when?

Normally I'd ask for caution on such cases but this one was well deserved.

edited 29th Jun '15 1:10:35 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges

The Supreme Court has put a hold on a Texas law which would have required all abortion clinics to be up to surgical standards by July 1st, of which only 10, all in metropolitan areas, meet.

edited 29th Jun '15 1:20:18 PM by tclittle

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

Also I had no idea that some polls have Trump in second place (behind Jeb Bush). This nomination process is going to be an amazing train wreck.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

It looks with the King decision, Republicans are now being put on the spot to promise that they'll kill the Filibuster if a Republican wins the presidency, in order to kill Obamacare.