Allah:
Via the Free Beacon, it’s a fair question. Even some reporters from outside conservative media ended up wondering yesterday why Clinton rhetorical stink bomb didn’t send more people running for cover.
I'm a little surprised that Clinton comparing GOP candidates to "terrorists" today isn't getting more attention.
— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) August 27, 2015
@MeghanMcCain still amazed people aren't making a bigger deal out of it
— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) August 28, 2015
The simplest explanation is undoubtedly the correct one: When you’re a Democrat and a woman who also happens to represent the best chance of abortion warriors to control the White House for four more years, you simply can’t be too nasty to social conservatives on matters of “choice.” She could run ads photoshopping Marco Rubio into one of those ISIS death-porn videos and the most you’d get out of the wider media is, “Some might consider that offensive.” Interestingly, though, even in conservative media, this hasn’t registered as a truly major story. Our own post on it yesterday drew far fewer comments than the average post on Trump does. Why is that? I think we may have we reached a point where this sort of reeking sleaze is so par for the course in Democratic “war on women” rhetoric that even Republicans don’t get too exercised about it. It’s just something Democrats say, like how every Republican policy, foreign and domestic, can best be understood as part of an unspoken racist plot. It’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to casually compare your opponents to ISIS and have virtually no one, many of those same opponents included, bat an eye.
If we’re going to insist on making terrorist comparisons, though, Kevin Williamson has a question: Isn’t the outfit that’s actually beheading people a better analog to ISIS?
@George Wells:
#1: I never predicted, one way or another, the decision of court, so I would certainly appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I have said.
#2: I have forgotten more about the Constitution, it’s history, and the deliberations surrounding it, than you have ever known. You have proven, on more than one occasion, that you are historically illiterate.
While John Roberts is, in fact, Chief Justice, the court has now become the Kennedy Court. One man, Justice Kennedy, has turned the Constitution on its head with the willing assistance of the three liberal women who set on the court. Issuing decisions based on “penumbras” and “foreign law” shows just how far this court has deviated from the Constitution.
Marriage laws were never the purview of the SCOTUS. You can argue to hell freezes over that it is, but then, why are states allowed to set regulations that mandate age, blood tests, witnesses, waiting time for licenses, cost of license, et al? Because marriage is a 10th Amendment issue and not a 14th Amendment issue. And there is no way anyone, who has read the Congressional record of the 14th Amendment debate can apply it so sexual preferences.
You may think this is settled law. So did the proponents of Dred Scott.
@George Wells:
Not unparalleled at all. There have been persons in legal polygamy marriages where polygamy is now not legal. Who is looking out for those folks. As far as I can figure it’s ‘suck it up’. So it wouldn’t be unparalleled.
However, I don’t expect it will happen either. But as i’ve made the statement before, just because it’s legal this year has nothing to do with whether it’ll be legal next year.
@retire05 #101:
You said that Kennedy wouldn’t vote against states’ rights, and gave a recent vote of his as evidence to that effect. And before you ask for a link to your statement, let me remind you that the FA archive is still not accessible. I can no more supply you with a quote than you can prove that you DIDN’T say it. But that doesn’t mean that you made no such prediction. I’ll just remind anyone who might actually believe you that Retire05 has been aggressively opposing same-sex marriage from the start, and that her opposition would likely have been less audible had she really believed that the courts would have favored it so overwhelmingly. It is logical to suggest that she BELIEVED that her position would be upheld by the courts, not overturned. After her Hobby Lobby victory, she had reason to suggest that a similar liberal defeat was in store for the gay marriage case. She cannot prove otherwise, and she cannot offer a reason why she would think otherwise. She HAS said that she “didn’t have a crystal ball,” but she only made that statement after reputable Court observers publicly suggested – after the Obergefell arguments – that it APPEARED that the Court would decide in Obergefell’s favor.
The congressional record of the 14th amendment debate isn’t the law, the 14th amendment is.
Because those regulations DO NOT INFRINGE upon equal protection guarantees. Within a state, each of them are applied to each and every citizen equally. I know that you have argued that same-sex-marriage prohibitions applied to all citizens equally, but the Court’s majority didn’t see it that way. The Loving case decided that marriage was a fundamental right of all citizens, even though interracial marriage prohibitions applied equally to everyone. In the same-sex-marriage case, if old heterosexual couples have the right to marry because they love each other and no other reason is necessary, then gay couples have the same right. So decided the court.
It must be achingly disappointing to be so consistently wrong. You should move to Uganda, Iran, Russia or North Korea, where your archaic views on homosexuality would be appreciated by repressive regimes. Aside from Uganda, your Christian perspective would be unwelcome, however. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, as it were.
@Redteam #102:
A hand-full of polygamy cases are not parallel to a quarter-million same-sex-marriages. The size of the former is manageable, the size of the latter is not. Additionally, those polygamous marriages were never federally sanctioned and legal, and gay marriages ARE. To be “parallel,” there need to be no significant differences, and there clearly ARE differences between polygamous marriages and gay marriages.
But in spite of this factual error, you reached the right conclusion (“I don’t expect it will happen either”) and I give you credit for that.
@George Wells:
Quite the convenient excuse for you that you can’t locate the actual thread so you could correctly quote me. But your retelling of the conversation doesn’t make it accurate.
I remember the conversation quite well. I said I didn’t know how the case would turn out (I never second guess the SCOTUS due to its construct) but that Kennedy had, in the past, ruled on the side of the 10th Amendment. I never cited the case where Kennedy ruled on the side of the 10th, and your fairy tales are just that.
I see you’ve taken to offering only hypotheticals again.
You have nothing, NOTHING, to base that assumption on.
I don’t believe I ever discussed the Hobby Lobby case. Again, the onus is on you to prove I did. You really should not make specious claims you cannot back up, George.
True. I did say I didn’t have a crystal ball when it comes to the rulings of the SCOTUS. Which, logically, means that I would not have proffered an opinion, one way or the other, on the outcome and completely destroys your position that I did.
You are claiming that construction is moot to completion. Thousands of historians and archeologists would disagree with that concept. Hundreds of legal arguments have been based on the construction of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in order to clarify the true meaning of said documents. Again, your opinion is the polar opposite of reality.
George, I highly recommend you up your dose of Aracept. Making things up, fabrication, does not a fact make.
And why are YOU still debating the subject if you feel like queers have won and the discussion is now ended?
@retire05 #105:
Because I broke a rib about a week and a half ago at a construction site, leaning too aggressively into a drill that was having a difficult time of it. The rib is still articulating, and the resulting pain keeps me from working hard outside – my preferred diversion. So I’m wandering around here, off and on, trying to keep the cobwebs at bay.
What’s YOUR excuse?