Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
A wandering user
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Still, someone telling me that it's because of my social status in the country where I live that I'm an idealist and that I'm unattached to my country is pretty much uncalled for.
edited 26th Jun '17 9:52:31 AM by Luigisan98
The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
Because they aren't the right color, religion, or income bracket. Speaking from experience, albeit with a different draconian system, being in the right income bracket won't save you. There was at least one high-profile case this year of a woman being deported in spite of earning over 5.000 dollars a month, on pure technicality.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Asgore Adopts Noelle
x3 The Money can only be used by Religious Organizations for non-Religious Purposes, such as Schools and Playgrounds. It's not that bad.
x4 In another 6-3 Decision, the Court ruled against Arkansas' Anti-Gay Birth Certificate Law. Of course, Neil Gorsuch was one of the people for the Law, so we can assume he will basically be like Antonin Scalia.
A few points about the SCOTUS travel ban ruling:
- The dissenters were the more conservative justices (including Gorsuch), and they only dissented because they wanted the injunctions lifted entirely - they did not disagree with the main substance of the ruling. When even the liberal wing of the court doesn't buy your argument, there is a problem with your argument.
- Whether or not the travel ban is a good idea, the law is pretty clear that the President can do it. The lower court injunctions were based on the supposed intent of the President rather than the legality of the order itself. The SCOTUS ruling doesn't take the President's campaign rhetoric into account at all, which I think is the correct approach.
- Since the ban is written as only 90 days long, it's rather academic to allow the case to be argued fully in October - the ban itself will have expired by that point.
- So this is pretty clearly a Trump victory.
I imagine this might also motivate enough Republican senators to vote for the wealthcare bill.
They'll want to be on the winning team.
Regarding the religious freedom ruling, it was basically "Churches can't be excluded from benefiting from programs that have a non-religious purpose just because they are themselves religious." In this specific case, making playgrounds safer.
Figure of Hourai
We can guarantee it will be taken into account when they actually rule on it in full, though. To not do so would be completely at odds with including intent in any other area of law.
Avatar Source
Hopefully that will result in it being shot down.
And as much as religion (deservedly) gets a bad rap around here, many churches do provide useful social services. You have to allow at least that much in arguing it. I'm leaning toward agreeing that this doesn't constitute religious endorsement per se.
The ruling was 7-2 with Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissenting.
edited 26th Jun '17 10:16:11 AM by Elle
Depends on what the complaint is, mind you. If it's about the president not having the authority to enact such a ban, it's irrelevant - and the text of the ruling here implies that this was the main thrust. If the complaint is about the order violating the 14th amendment then it'd be relevant, although separation of powers/"political question" doctrine would enter it as well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I would say that thing for funding the church's cause for helping a playground is actually a good thing, because it actually helps children be safe in their environment and of course promotes exercise which this generation really needs.
Also, the 9th Circuit court did not cite campaign rhetoric (the 4th did), instead arguing that the ban had insufficient evidence for existing.
“The Order does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries,” the panel said. “It does not identify these nationals as contributors to active conflict or as those responsible for insecure country conditions. It does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.”[...]
The panel similarly found a lack of justification in the order to support the temporary suspension of the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program. “EO 2 does not reveal any threat or harm to warrant suspension of USRAP for 120 days and does not support the conclusion that the entry of refugees in the interim time period would be harmful,” the panel wrote. “Nor does it provide any indication that present vetting and screening procedures are inadequate.” Accordingly, it upheld the lower court’s decision to suspend that part of the executive order as well.
The Ninth Circuit panel’s focus on statutory language results in a much different ruling against the executive order than the one issued by the Fourth Circuit last month. The panel did not decide whether the ban wrongly discriminated against Muslims, which was a central focus of the Fourth Circuit ruling. Because that court already ruled against the ban on statutory grounds, the judges said Monday it was unnecessary to determine whether the president’s words or deeds violated the First Amendment’s religious-freedom protections. It also did not engage at length or in depth with Trump’s litany of controversial remarks about the ban, which many plaintiffs had cited as evidence of discrimination.
edited 26th Jun '17 10:19:45 AM by Eschaton
Asgore Adopts Noelle
The Supreme Court also turned away two Gun-Related Lawsuits; one was against San Diego denying the right of Gun Owners to Conceal Carry (which is still in effect), one was against allowing those convicted of Misdemeanors in Pennsylvania to own a Gun (which was struck down in the Circuit Court). Neither carry National Precedent.
Dammit, who got to you, Supreme Court?
edited 26th Jun '17 10:26:35 AM by Bense
@Fourth
I would say giving funds to help a playground isn't the same as making a state religion, especially when it comes to with how the children could benefit from it.
Figure of Hourai
Which is an inconsistent argument as it would argue that affecting churches with any spending anywhere is the same as spending on the churches. And to follow that argument through you have to claim that religious institutions are above the law.
edited 26th Jun '17 10:27:54 AM by RainehDaze
Avatar Source
edited 26th Jun '17 10:44:06 AM by Bense
I would like to point out this can not only go for churches but temples, mosques, or other places of worship who could need the grant for good causes. So, it's another strike against saying that this is a bad thing if other religious groups can use it for non-religious causes.
I am inclined to agree that unlike with race issues, it is not proven yet that a "religion-or-the-absence-thereof-blind" approach doesn't work in this case.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
One would think there might be a similar dynamic, given the issue with colorblind policy is that, even when things are made equal under the law, the enforcement of it is such the de facto impact of such policy is disadvantageous to members of non-majority groups, which in this case would be non-Christians.
edited 26th Jun '17 10:40:39 AM by CaptainCapsase
edited 26th Jun '17 9:51:55 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised