Back then, there was something like a 30-40% public approval for gays in the military. Now it's in the 70's. It's only common sense to reopen this discussion given the social climate, especially considering that our all-volunteer military is being stressed heavily right now.

As a veteran who's straight and lived in very close quarters with lots of men and women in strange places and countries, I'm cool with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. All you have to do is say no. If the person can't take no for an answer, it moves into sexual harassment territory.

/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

Does anyone really think there aren't many gays in the military ? Look at how many former military men go into politics in the Republican party.

Hot.

/this is how its done, right? Insert hot chicks and some fatigues

/its like the IDF chick thread thing

New standard issue?

Wally Terzinsky approves.

/dare I ask...
//obscure?

But supporters said repealing the policy would force out many more heterosexual servicemembers whose personal or religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuality.

One, they're already serving with gays. They know this. Everyone knows this. If their religious or personal beliefs truly precluded them from serving with gays, why did they join? Why do they continue to serve? How is it that they somehow manage to serve today without conflict with other service members who are known to be gay?

Two, despite the fact that this argument is nonsense, if it came down to a choice between gays serving vs. batshiat crazy fundamentalists/self loathing latent homosexuals serving, speaking as a heterosexual, tax-paying citizen, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

vossiewulf: But supporters said repealing the policy would force out many more heterosexual servicemembers whose personal or religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuality.

One, they're already serving with gays. They know this. Everyone knows this. If their religious or personal beliefs truly precluded them from serving with gays, why did they join? Why do they continue to serve? How is it that they somehow manage to serve today without conflict with other service members who are known to be gay?

Two, despite the fact that this argument is nonsense, if it came down to a choice between gays serving vs. batshiat crazy fundamentalists/self loathing latent homosexuals serving, speaking as a heterosexual, tax-paying citizen, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

What about "serving" in the real world? You know, the one where there are gays doing regular everyday jobs like computer guy, salesman, fireman, and lawyer? Are they gonna be forced out of that?

/please oh please!

DamnYankees: New standard issue?

Damnit, beat me to it!

/shakes fist

CtrlAltDelete: Hot.

That's why I'm signing up. I want to shower with other guys in the stale heat of Iraq. Or maybe do a naked prisoner pileup or something.

/holds cig in corner of mouth, gives double thumbs-up sign

submitter: Opponents and supporters of the policy vow to wrestle in oil while dressed in loincloths

so... Larry Craig and who else?

Give it a long....long.....rest....

awfulperson: CtrlAltDelete: Hot.

That's why I'm signing up. I want to shower with other guys in the stale heat of Iraq. Or maybe do a naked prisoner pileup or something.

/holds cig in corner of mouth, gives double thumbs-up sign

AirForceVet: As a veteran who's straight and lived in very close quarters with lots of men and women in strange places and countries, I'm cool with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. All you have to do is say no. If the person can't take no for an answer, it moves into sexual harassment territory.

/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

Newsletter, etc...

Perhaps the new policy should be "no need to ask if you can't tell."

I keed, I keed.

doyner, like, wow. I'm on somebody's favorite Farker list.

/Thanks. I'm flattered.
//No, not "fatter."

"If I'm gonna have one of my fellow countrymen covering my ass in the heat of battle, I'd might be helpful if he thought that ass was cute."

AirForceVet: As a veteran who's straight and lived in very close quarters with lots of men and women in strange places and countries, I'm cool with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. All you have to do is say no. If the person can't take no for an answer, it moves into sexual harassment territory.

/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

This, dammit.

AirForceVet: As a veteran who's straight and lived in very close quarters with lots of men and women in strange places and countries, I'm cool with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. All you have to do is say no. If the person can't take no for an answer, it moves into sexual harassment territory.

/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

well said. as a heterosexual veteran who served with openly gay people (trust me, some of them didn't try very hard to hide it), i have absolutely no problem with it. to be perfectly honest, i preferred knowing some of them were gay instead of just wondering

"So uhm, are you done with your meal?"

What, no "FABULOUS" tag?

/I notice the tag is pink.

PROUD

*dons loincloth, oils loins, fetches wakazashi* Standing forth to do battle!

I just came in to say.. Give it a rest.

/and a funeral

liberalish

vossiewulf: But supporters said repealing the policy would force out many more heterosexual servicemembers whose personal or religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuality.

One, they're already serving with gays. They know this. Everyone knows this. If their religious or personal beliefs truly precluded them from serving with gays, why did they join? Why do they continue to serve? How is it that they somehow manage to serve today without conflict with other service members who are known to be gay?

Two, despite the fact that this argument is nonsense, if it came down to a choice between gays serving vs. batshiat crazy fundamentalists/self loathing latent homosexuals serving, speaking as a heterosexual, tax-paying citizen, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

What about "serving" in the real world? You know, the one where there are gays doing regular everyday jobs like computer guy, salesman, fireman, and lawyer? Are [fundies] gonna be forced out of that?

Ditto Liberalish.....

AirForceVet: doyner, like, wow. I'm on somebody's favorite Farker list.

/Thanks. I'm flattered.
//No, not "fatter."

You've been there for a while. If you check, my favorites tend to be folks who actually debate as opposed to being shrill parrots for partisan ideological talking points.

As for TFA, I must say that the only real issue I'd have with open gayness in the military is where you'd put them on ships. As it stands men and women are separated for the whole sex thing. Will they get their own quarters? If not, will you put them with women? If you put them with women, then you'll have straight guys claiming to be gay. The only solution (for the sake of fairness) would be give everyone a private room, and that's just not feasible.

I don't know the answer...

It's the ones who are Crying Moar who actually have Something To Hide.

/snerk

PROUD

Boxed-Up Boysex: It's the ones who are Crying Moar who actually have Something To Hide.

/snerk

I need to know if that's an original, or if you grabbed that from somewhere else.

/and from where

Mad_Radhu: PROUD

Must have been cold that day, eh?

Yep keep those gays out. Straight troops don't need the competition.

panzerfaustbob: Must have been cold that day, eh?

Nope, just reeeaaallly small.

The military has always been one of those institutions that's a haven for gays. I don't see what the problem is, let them serve openly.

Love Boat: I think that the democrat party should make gays in the military a major issue at the national convention (seriously). The Clinton co-presidency started it all (and right after the co-swearing in!) but it ended in unfair discrimination.

Now is the time for Change!

Now is the time for Barack Hussein Obama to re-make the United States armed forces into the gay-friendly institutions that they should have been all along!

THIS is a winning issue!

/GO FOR IT dems

Thank you Sean Hannity!

There is no reason whatsoever that the armed forces can not or should not be gay-friendly. That doesn't mean anything different that just allowing gays to work and live like regular people. Why the US military should be any different than the rest of the country is beyond me.

/this won't be an issue unless it comes up at a debate, which will make McCain look stupid and out of touch--not that he needs help with that.

Nothing to do with regular infantry, but:


If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of death praying for war. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human, farking beings. You are nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shiat. Because I am hard you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on attractive and successful African-Americans, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless. And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. Do you maggots understand that?

Newbaca: The military has always been one of those institutions that's a haven for gays. I don't see what the problem is, let them serve openly.

*quizzical german shepherd pic*

PROUD

I saw that stat about how 70% of Americans favor gays in the military -- and that it was more like 45% just 15 years ago.

My only question is: what changed for these people? Was the Greatest Generation that homophobic (and are dying off) or are people just changing their minds?

Hmmm...

Suck a prong or...

Shoot a stranger in the face...

Or both?

Decisions, decisions.

MrGumboPants: My only question is: what changed for these people? Was the Greatest Generation that homophobic (and are dying off)...

Yup.

Love Boat: Why not MAKE it an issue at the democrat convention, where the issue can get national exposure again? Isn't the idea to make McCain look 'stupid and out of touch', afterall?

Why do you change usernames so often?

MrGumboPants: My only question is: what changed for these people? Was the Greatest Generation that homophobic (and are dying off) or are people just changing their minds?

It's people starting to realize just how many gay people they know, and starting to think about how bigoted legislation affects real lives.

Hey, can I make a general shout-out to all of FARKISTAN here?:

Well done on ignoring Love Boat (for the most part). I hadn't seen him before today (Account created: 2008-06-30...yeah, you're not fooling anyone, chief), and so far I've only see a few bites on his nonsense.

Is it me, or are we starting to see the tide turned against the chronic and hateful trolls on Fark?

AirForceVet:
/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

If it applies to everybody, why exactly is this a problem?

Why doesn't Congress just wait 5 months to have this hearing until a more friendly president occupies the White House?

HitInTheJunk: Is it me, or are we starting to see the tide turned against the chronic and hateful trolls on Fark?

A well-utilized favorites list is a great thing. It helps one identify people you respect (not necessarily agree with) who in turn respond to people worth responding to. I honestly never even noticed that guy.

And I DO hope that the tide is turning. It just might be.

IonBeam2: If it applies to everybody, why exactly is this a problem?

Um, because the UCMJ is applied by the legislative and executive branches, both of which have had plenty of members on both sides who would face serious federal prison time for their behavior if held to the same standard.

If Larry Craig only gets busted for soliciting, and Bill Clinton only gets busted for perjury, etc etc, why should some troop get busted for a blowjob?

IonBeam2: AirForceVet:
/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

If it applies to everybody, why exactly is this a problem?

Cause sodomy is actually pretty vague. It can be applied to any non-vaginal sex. I don't know about you, but if your putting your life on the line, why does the government care if you get a hummer or your doing your wife down the Hershey highway.

vossiewulf: Two, despite the fact that this argument is nonsense, if it came down to a choice between gays serving vs. batshiat crazy fundamentalists/self loathing latent homosexuals serving, speaking as a heterosexual, tax-paying citizen, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

Here here!

Two Cats One Bowl: Why doesn't Congress just wait 5 months to have this hearing until a more friendly president occupies the White House?

Because "The military is stretched tighter than a drumhead, and Republicans won't let willing volunteers serve. They're bigots AND liars" is too good a talking point in an election year to pass up.

Stinky McButt: Back then, there was something like a 30-40% public approval for gays in the military. Now it's in the 70's. It's only common sense to reopen this discussion given the social climate, especially considering that our all-volunteer military is being stressed heavily right now.

Gas is over $4.00 per gallon right now and this is the kind of shiat Congress focuses on? No wonder they have a single digit approval rating.

And where did you get that 70% number from? I can guarantee you that 70% of the people in the military don't want that.

Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said of gays in the military, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight"?

I swear I'm turning more and more into a Goldwater Conservative everyday...at least on personal freedom grounds...

HitInTheJunk

Is it me, or are we starting to see the tide turned against the chronic and hateful trolls on Fark?

Shine on you crazy diamond.

doyner

And I DO hope that the tide is turning. It just might be.

That was the point of TF accounts. It succeeded for a while. The problem isn't the 80 IQ trolls. It's the myriad of 120 IQ posters who engage them readily.

/worst post evar
//IQ stands for Inebriated Quaff

Sucks for the people who plan on using the "I'm gay" excuse to get out of the Army

Having joined the Marine Corps in 1993, right after this had passed, this was a huge joke to the DI's in boot camp. When a DI grabs you by your back pocket and yanks you down behind the burm to prevent you from getting hit from grenade frags because you're too dumb and want to see just how far you threw that thing, the LAST thing on your mind is, "This guy just grabbed my ass, I wonder if he's gay?"

/never cared one way or the other

Wait..wait.. They want to do rear echelon work, right? You know, because gays love working in the rear.

I say let them join. Create an all gay brigade complete with transvestite infantry with gucci SAWs. Paint the tanks pink and give them a symbol to die for. The Hello Kitty symbol. Then back them up with the Fairy Air Force. Planes in the color of rainbows.

Our enemies would laugh themselves to death and we could win a war with almost zero casualties.

Damn skippy openly gay people should be able to serve openly. That way when the next draft comes, my gay buddies won't be able to saunter into the reporting station and limp-wrist their way out while I'm stuck going to Iran or Canada or wherever.

boobsrgood:
And I DO hope that the tide is turning. It just might be.

That was the point of TF accounts. It succeeded for a while. The problem isn't the 80 IQ trolls. It's the myriad of 120 IQ posters who engage them readily.

/worst post evar
//IQ stands for Inebriated Quaff

Oh com'on, ya gotta throw them a bone every now and then. They will eventually say something so outrageous and ridiculous that will make it all worthwhile because you will have no response but:


/what about 80 IQ posters, we count too!

Triaxis: And where did you get that 70% number from? I can guarantee you that 70% of the people in the military don't want that.

I'm currently in the military. You're wrong. Sure, there are some asshole bigots serving, but most of the military personnel honestly don't give a fark who you fark (unless it's their wife)

FTFA: But supporters said repealing the policy would force out many more heterosexual servicemembers whose personal or religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuality.

Their religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuals, but not with killing people. Interesting.

Hiymenator: Damn skippy openly gay people should be able to serve openly. That way when the next draft comes, my gay buddies won't be able to saunter into the reporting station and limp-wrist their way out while I'm stuck going to Iran or Canada or wherever.

I thought they sent the limp wristers to Canada?

liberalish: Hiymenator: Damn skippy openly gay people should be able to serve openly. That way when the next draft comes, my gay buddies won't be able to saunter into the reporting station and limp-wrist their way out while I'm stuck going to Iran or Canada or wherever.

I thought they sent the limp wristers to Canada?

No..no..no...the limp wristers are the ones who signed up, then realized they may actually get killed, then they go AWOL to Canada. They only wanted to join the military for the free college money because liberal arts degrees in Art History and Philosophy are so damn expensive these days.

Judges make laws not voters: liberalish: Hiymenator: Damn skippy openly gay people should be able to serve openly. That way when the next draft comes, my gay buddies won't be able to saunter into the reporting station and limp-wrist their way out while I'm stuck going to Iran or Canada or wherever.

I thought they sent the limp wristers to Canada?

No..no..no...the limp wristers are the ones who signed up, then realized they may actually get killed, then they go AWOL to Canada. They only wanted to join the military for the free college money because liberal arts degrees in Art History and Philosophy are so damn expensive these days.

Hey, law school is expensive. Might as well get the undergrad paid for.

/out of curiosity, what laws/rulings are you angry at?

liberalish: Judges make laws not voters: liberalish: Hiymenator: Damn skippy openly gay people should be able to serve openly. That way when the next draft comes, my gay buddies won't be able to saunter into the reporting station and limp-wrist their way out while I'm stuck going to Iran or Canada or wherever.

I thought they sent the limp wristers to Canada?

No..no..no...the limp wristers are the ones who signed up, then realized they may actually get killed, then they go AWOL to Canada. They only wanted to join the military for the free college money because liberal arts degrees in Art History and Philosophy are so damn expensive these days.

Hey, law school is expensive. Might as well get the undergrad paid for.

/out of curiosity, what laws/rulings are you angry at?

The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

HitInTheJunk: Hey, can I make a general shout-out to all of FARKISTAN here?:

Well done on ignoring Love Boat (for the most part). I hadn't seen him before today (Account created: 2008-06-30...yeah, you're not fooling anyone, chief), and so far I've only see a few bites on his nonsense.

Is it me, or are we starting to see the tide turned against the chronic and hateful trolls on Fark?

He's most likely a michael making a moron of himself.

Heh.

There are only two things that come out of Arizona. They are steers and queers

liberalish

what about 80 IQ posters, we count too!

Another elitist Obama suppoter.

HitInTheJunk: Is it me, or are we starting to see the tide turned against the chronic and hateful trolls on Fark?

Let me give this trolling thing a try:

The Homosexual Agenda™, in conjunction with the Liberal media and the secret Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, wants to turn our brave soldiers into a bunch of effeminate Obama-voting metrosexuals.

How was that?

See what I did there? I do

Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

boobsrgood: liberalish

what about 80 IQ posters, we count too!

Another elitist Obama suppoter.

But I AM an elitist. I'm just not better than anyone.

liberalish: Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

But who checks the courts? The voters do. If the general public doesn't want it, then 7 people shouldn't have the right to piss on their democratic process. Giving the Supreme court the power to do whatever the fark they please is not a good separation of powers. Democracies must serve the people, then Judges must be voted in during an election. That way they share the views of the general public, and not those of whoever is in charge

liberalish: Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

Wasn't that. Read Judge Baxter's dissent and you will understand what happened. Ready for some strangeness? When Prop 8 was created to counter the judges and amend the Constitution, the majority who ruled against Prop 22 declined to hear a challenge against Prop 8 but the 3 who dissented in favor of Prop 22 voted to hear the challenge to Prop 8.

liberalish: Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

yeah... the screen name sort of gives away the lack of knowledge on how the law actually works

liberalish: Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

To put Baxter's dissent into a short a summary:

What was said was that if you find a law unconstitutional under the State Constitution that is fine and dandy. What the court cannot do and they did was take the authority of the legislative branch and use it against the legislature in order to cancel out or invalidate a law in order to create a new meaning or new law. They in fact went beyond the reach of judicial boundaries and by fiat enacted a new law by a wrapping a legislative definition. Hence the term: legal jujitsu.

Ace Attorney: But who checks the courts? The voters do. If the general public doesn't want it, then 7 people shouldn't have the right to piss on their democratic process.

I don't really give a rat's ass what the majority wants when it comes to the equal rights of minority groups. Most Californians don't want the gays to have equal access to marriage? Fark 'em. Civil rights should not be subject to majority rule.

Don't ask, get UFIA.

Judges make laws not voters: They in fact went beyond the reach of judicial boundaries.

They have no boundaries. If you look, there is no real system of checks and balances when it comes to the Judaical branch. They need to have something where a majority of voters/congress can put the Supreme courts decisions up for a vote. That way, if the public/elected officials don't agree with the courts decision, then the court has had its power checked and balanced by the Legislative branch

AirForceVet
As a veteran who's straight and lived in very close quarters with lots of men and women in strange places and countries, I'm cool with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals serving openly in the military. All you have to do is say no. If the person can't take no for an answer, it moves into sexual harassment territory.

This. BUT...I would add that if, for example, gay men are allowed to shower with straight men, then straight men should be allowed to shower with straight women, under the argument that both groups get to see what they want but don't get to touch. Otherwise, four separate shower facilities are needed to keep it fair.

Ace Attorney: But who checks the courts? The voters do. If the general public doesn't want it, then 7 people shouldn't have the right to piss on their democratic process. Giving the Supreme court the power to do whatever the fark they please is not a good separation of powers. Democracies must serve the people, then Judges must be voted in during an election. That way they share the views of the general public, and not those of whoever is in charge

Well, you're the lawyer not me, but isn't the point of giving the SC lifetime appointments the ability to decide things without the pressures of political reprisals or electoral whims? I'd rather have our thinly-veiled political court compared to one where judges campaigned on a regular basis TTVM. Voting for judges, if not for long terms, would just leave us with a bunch of "tough on crime" assholes and a happy prison industrial complex.

Judges make laws not voters: Wasn't that. Read Judge Baxter's dissent and you will understand what happened. Ready for some strangeness? When Prop 8 was created to counter the judges and amend the Constitution, the majority who ruled against Prop 22 declined to hear a challenge against Prop 8 but the 3 who dissented in favor of Prop 22 voted to hear the challenge to Prop 8.

And your second post. Wow, I really have no idea what you said, I'd have to go read the story and since I don't feel like it than I have no idea if we would agree or not. I'm drinking XX amber, this is the point where I buy you one and we talk sports.

Megain:
yeah... the screen name sort of gives away the lack of knowledge on how the law actually works

Not sure if your mocking me or Judges, but I resent personal attacks, and I just bought him a beer so lay off.

Great Metal Jesus: Ace Attorney: But who checks the courts? The voters do. If the general public doesn't want it, then 7 people shouldn't have the right to piss on their democratic process.

I don't really give a rat's ass what the majority wants when it comes to the equal rights of minority groups. Most Californians don't want the gays to have equal access to marriage? Fark 'em. Civil rights should not be subject to majority rule.

THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WAS FOUNDED. Democracy is of the people, by the people, for the people and what not, so why do we constantly remove the peoples power? it would be one thing if the court had its power checked by the Legislative branch or the Executive branch, but when the courts can go and rub their dicks in your face and all you can do is sit back and take it, then we need to rethink our Separation of Powers

Ace Attorney

Now, it's been a good while since American Government class, but I believe the argument is that the Supreme Court really has no power to enforce their rulings. From wiki:

The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!";[24] however, this quotation is likely apocryphal.[citation needed] State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Not the best source I know, but it's quick and easy and I'm tired.

liberalish:

Judges make laws not voters:
The recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

I'm not a lawyer so I had to google that, but are you talking about the court striking down the gay marriage ban?

If that's the case (which makes sense by the thread we're in), you either got some: 1) god issues 2) hate issues 3) personal issues. Guess what hot-shot, voters, and their elected proxies, can pass non-constitutional laws, courts can put a check on that. It's the process.

My vote would be the girl Judges make laws not voters was stalking turned out to be a lesbian and told him to get lost. I hope I win a prize.

liberalish: Well, you're the lawyer not me, but isn't the point of giving the SC lifetime appointments the ability to decide things without the pressures of political reprisals or electoral whims? I'd rather have our thinly-veiled political court compared to one where judges campaigned on a regular basis TTVM. Voting for judges, if not for long terms, would just leave us with a bunch of "tough on crime" assholes and a happy prison industrial complex.

How about giving Judges 6-10 year terms? Long enough that we can go a while without having them campaign, but short enough that we can get them out once the view of the nation changes. Or add something where the Congress has to approve of the Supreme Courts decision.

On second thought, that might just be giving Congress too much power, but its the best I can think of right now

Great Metal Jesus: Now, it's been a good while since American Government class, but I believe the argument is that the Supreme Court really has no power to enforce their rulings.

Most recently, of course, you have the big fat "fark you" D.C. gave the Supreme Court over Heller.

Apparently it is not possible to be held in contempt of the USSC.

Ace Attorney: THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WAS FOUNDED. Democracy is of the people, by the people, for the people and what not, so why do we constantly remove the peoples power?

I suggest you go read the Federalist Papers. While not explicitly stated as such, the founding fathers weren't so keen on absolute majority rule. Which would be why America isn't a true one person one vote democracy.

but when the courts can go and rub their dicks in your face and all you can do is sit back and take it, then we need to rethink our Separation of Powers

See my previous post for the general argument.

Ace Attorney: Judges make laws not voters: They in fact went beyond the reach of judicial boundaries.

They have no boundaries. If you look, there is no real system of checks and balances when it comes to the Judaical branch. They need to have something where a majority of voters/congress can put the Supreme courts decisions up for a vote. That way, if the public/elected officials don't agree with the courts decision, then the court has had its power checked and balanced by the Legislative branch

Well it is on the ballot now. The same S.C. decline review and allow it to proceed. Makes for an interesting November.

Boojum2k

I must've had my head in the sand, but if the Wikipedia article (Christ I feel like a dunce for citing them twice in one thread) is accurate then I don't know how they get away with that kind of bullshiat. I'm pretty liberal but I'm siding with the supreme court on this one.

liberalish: Ace Attorney: But who checks the courts? The voters do. If the general public doesn't want it, then 7 people shouldn't have the right to piss on their democratic process. Giving the Supreme court the power to do whatever the fark they please is not a good separation of powers. Democracies must serve the people, then Judges must be voted in during an election. That way they share the views of the general public, and not those of whoever is in charge

Well, you're the lawyer not me, but isn't the point of giving the SC lifetime appointments the ability to decide things without the pressures of political reprisals or electoral whims? I'd rather have our thinly-veiled political court compared to one where judges campaigned on a regular basis TTVM. Voting for judges, if not for long terms, would just leave us with a bunch of "tough on crime" assholes and a happy prison industrial complex.

Judges make laws not voters: Wasn't that. Read Judge Baxter's dissent and you will understand what happened. Ready for some strangeness? When Prop 8 was created to counter the judges and amend the Constitution, the majority who ruled against Prop 22 declined to hear a challenge against Prop 8 but the 3 who dissented in favor of Prop 22 voted to hear the challenge to Prop 8.

And your second post. Wow, I really have no idea what you said, I'd have to go read the story and since I don't feel like it than I have no idea if we would agree or not. I'm drinking XX amber, this is the point where I buy you one and we talk sports.

Megain:
yeah... the screen name sort of gives away the lack of knowledge on how the law actually works

Not sure if your mocking me or Judges, but I resent personal attacks, and I just bought him a beer so lay off.

Thank you for the beer (raises bottle)

Great Metal Jesus: Boojum2k

I must've had my head in the sand, but if the Wikipedia article (Christ I feel like a dunce for citing them twice in one thread) is accurate then I don't know how they get away with that kind of bullshiat. I'm pretty liberal but I'm siding with the supreme court on this one.

Assuming you're referring to DC's behavior post-Heller: Because nobody's had a chance to get it before a federal judge yet. When they do, expect DC to get an epic smackdown.

Great Metal Jesus: I suggest you go read the Federalist Papers. While not explicitly stated as such, the founding fathers weren't so keen on absolute majority rule. Which would be why America isn't a true one person one vote democracy.

Sorry, don't have a copy on me, but I remember discussing how Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights *CHECKS* yep, here we go, No. 84

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Sure, they cant enforce their decisions, but when people who supposedly are experts (like me) come out and call a law unconstitutional, then it starts to influence the public's opinion. Its basically like using a Jedi mind trick on a Storm Trooper. You think you know whats right, but only because the SC told you it was the right way to think, and that is when we become no better than the CCCP

Ace Attorney: How about giving Judges 6-10 year terms? Long enough that we can go a while without having them campaign, but short enough that we can get them out once the view of the nation changes. Or add something where the Congress has to approve of the Supreme Courts decision.

On second thought, that might just be giving Congress too much power, but its the best I can think of right now

I could hear that jazz. US Supreme 14yr State supreme and US federal courts 10 yrs, move on down the line, lowest level 4 yrs? I actually don't know the hierarchy, thats why we have you guys.

Actually, one of the things I get all pissed at now is elected prosecutors. My lawyer/law school friends gave me a real reading on why that system sucks and I have to agree.

/to bed folks, g'nite.

Occam's Chainsaw: When they do, expect DC to get an epic smackdown.

It shouldn't even have to come up in a case again. It's clearly contempt, and should be faced with immediate reprisal.

But it won't be, and even if another case is filed, it takes years to make it back up to the Supreme Court. At which point, nothing stops them from ignoring a ruling against them again.

I just want to take this time to thank you guys. We're 100 posts in and managed to continue a rational discussion.

Enjoy it while it lasts, because once the light of dawn breaks across America, this thread as we know it shall end

Ace Attorney

It's possible I'm being quite dense tonight, but I'm not sure what the opposition to the bill of rights (though I think I understand his reasoning and to some extent even agree with him) has to do with an aversion to majority rule as enumerated in Federalist #10. I'm taking my own advice and re-reading it now.

Great Metal Jesus:

Thanks to the Library of Congress, so am I

Maybe tomorrow I'll drop by the ol' book depository and pick up an honest to goodness copy

Ace Attorney

I believe this is the passage I was thinking of:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And rock on with your bad self. I love hitting threads between waves of trolls, I feel like I actually get a chance to learn something.

I kinda like don't ask, don't tell. It not only keeps the government out of the private affairs of people, it keeps people from bringing their private affairs up in an inappropriate public forum and biatching about needing extra benefits like the damned Cali gay lobby. Everyone's a winner, so far as I see. I mean, it's not like someone's going to go creeping into your bedroom when you're off-duty to see what your sex life is like, that's the whole 'don't ask' part.

Ace Attorney: How about giving Judges 6-10 year terms? Long enough that we can go a while without having them campaign, but short enough that we can get them out once the view of the nation changes. Or add something where the Congress has to approve of the Supreme Courts decision.

I'm not opposed to the idea of finite judicial terms, but I don't think 6-10 years is long enough. Senators already have 6 year terms, but that doesn't prevent them from pandering to the whims of the current political climate. In order to ensure the ideal of a politically independent judiciary, I think you would need really long terms (like 15+ years).

Rainbow Warrior

olderbudnoweiser: Rainbow Warrior

But that's teh GAY one! The purple one is teh GAY!!

When I was in the service (under the don't ask, don't tell policy), it was still obvious that there were gays in the military, quite a few in some places. Changing the policy may give them more legal protection for the lifestyle but it won't immediately change the way the military views homosexuality. The truth is that the types of people who would actually lose their mind and do something stupid if they learned a fellow serviceman were gay are a pretty small minority in the military. Often the more fervently religious types. The other gay-haters, of which there are many, may be insensitive and ignorant towards gays, but they also tend to tolerate the gays they know and encounter. Not that they have to wear pink triangles or anything, but sometimes it is all too obvious and widely known (or assumed). They just don't want to see actual homosexual behavior.

The reason that "don't ask, don't tell" made sense, was that the vast majority of even unsympathetic and closed-minded servicemen don't have a problem working with gays in the military as long as they don't have to see two guys kissing, or hear gay sexually oriented conversations, and the minority that would cause a problem if they knew a gay was working with them, are too ignorant to think any normal person is gay (they assume all gays are all flaming all the time).

In reality, it may be nearly time to phase out DADT, but I would not think that it would really change the military culture overnight. Gays will know that its best to keep it on the down low, (even if they are the oppressed party, maintaining unit cohesion is in their interest too) although in the future they will be more accepted for who they are. PDA (Public Displays of Affection) in uniform aren't permitted for anybody, gay or straight, and the regs governing sexual harassment seem strict enough already to protect homophobic servicemen from having to hear about the gay sex stuff, so I think the rules are already good enough to let homophobes serve with gays without being made to freak out.

Of course, the military is not exactly the most progressive place. A good portion of our fighting forces really are made up of the bottom 10% of last year's redneck high school graduates. Not to generalize, of course because there are plenty of more impressive individuals, but overall, I was never impressed by the intellectual level of my fellow servicemen. Maybe Americans (70%) want gays to be able to serve equally in the military, but the population of the military isn't quite there. Hell, when I was in, I still heard all these old salty dogs biatching about women being allowed to serve along side men, so lets not pretend that we are there yet.

Ace Attorney:
THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY WAS FOUNDED.

Actually, democracy was founded by a couple of gay lovers. See the sculpture above for reference.

And also this Link (new window)

liberalish: vossiewulf: But supporters said repealing the policy would force out many more heterosexual servicemembers whose personal or religious beliefs conflict with accepting homosexuality.

One, they're already serving with gays. They know this. Everyone knows this. If their religious or personal beliefs truly precluded them from serving with gays, why did they join? Why do they continue to serve? How is it that they somehow manage to serve today without conflict with other service members who are known to be gay?

Two, despite the fact that this argument is nonsense, if it came down to a choice between gays serving vs. batshiat crazy fundamentalists/self loathing latent homosexuals serving, speaking as a heterosexual, tax-paying citizen, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

What about "serving" in the real world? You know, the one where there are gays doing regular everyday jobs like computer guy, salesman, fireman, and lawyer? Are they gonna be forced out of that?

/please oh please!

Wait, wait, there are gay salesmen ?

Why bring this up now?

To Engergize the Religious Right so they actually turn out to vote for McCain even though his isn't very religious or even very right.

Look for the gay marriage issue for the same reason.

A landslide makes for a poor news cycle so the media will keep this crap up unless the race gets closer.

olderbudnoweiser: Rainbow Warrior

The kid in red looks like he's happy to be there. I imagine he's waiting for the chance to biatchslap the girl in green. Cleanest flight deck gear I've ever seen!

And where's the cranial tape. You're all out of regs! And tell that guy in the flight suit to put his damn helmet on, it's the flight deck for cryin' out loud!

We might yet become a civilized nation. My beloved openly gay son approves and so do I. Freedom is not free and the people who are willing to defend it are our best. God bless our productive gay brothers and sisters.
billyboyxoxox

Ace Attorney:
Bear Cavalry
Bears with Guns

The only people who give a damn about gays in the military are people outside of the military. Sure, we have a few chest-thumpin' "We don't need no queers here!" types, but for the most part, nobody really cares.

If you show up on time in the right uniform, can do your job, follow the orders you are given, and don't get in trouble on your off time, then I consider you a blessing. I have to spend enough time dealing with mommy and daddy's little errors in reproduction without worry about who you're screwing.

Judges make laws not voters: he recent 4-3 ruling in Cali.

Hence the username that demonstrates lack of any knowledge about how our government works. A court making a decision isn't "legislating from the bench". The judicial branch is well within its authority to overturn a law on constitutional grounds, no matter how popular it might be, because the majority can be wrong.

And, Ace Attourney, you make Lionel Hutz look competent. Judges have few boundaries because they're supposed to make rulings based on the law and what's right, not whether a decision will get them reelected.

Democracy is rule by the majority with respect for the minority.

doyner: As for TFA, I must say that the only real issue I'd have with open gayness in the military is where you'd put them on ships. As it stands men and women are separated for the whole sex thing. Will they get their own quarters?

Have you seen the bunks on most combat ships? There's just enough room for a single fairly slim person to lie down flat and get out sideways. Nobody's screwing around on those things.

IonBeam2: AirForceVet:
/And dump that stupid UCMJ article on sodomy.
//Heterosexual acts are also punishable under that article as well.

If it applies to everybody, why exactly is this a problem?

I'm straight (married 25 yrs) but I find it repulsive that any arm of the government can limit personal expression between consenting adults. Where none are harmed, and normally limited to performing those expressions in privacy where is it the government's business at all?