American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[American Legionaries]

Ok fine. They could say that same sex marriage can be made illegal in states because it applies to straight people as well. Neither gay or straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

Why does that matter?

[San Lumen]

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

Why does that matter?

Because it’s an utterly absurd legal argument that would make the court look foolish and lose legitimacy.

[Arlenton]

Ok fine. They could say that same sex marriage can be made illegal in states because it applies to straight people as well. Neither gay or straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

I don't know why. Nor is it relevant to my point that a conservative majority on the SCOTUS could overturn the gay marriage ruling if they wanted to.

[The Black Forrest]

If I was a democratic candidate here is some of what I would fight tooth and nail for:
Bismarck Model Universal Healthcare
Universal Education and universal private school vouchers along with school choice
Maternity and Paternity Leave
Financial Security
Minimum Wage adjusted with inflation
Voting Rights
Gun Rights
Electoral Process Reform

As the Republican nomination, I would have but a few words to say...

"BETTER DEAD THAN RED!"

Wait aren’t you guys calling yourself the red party working to establish red states?

[Comerciante]

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

Tax credits maybe. Getting married has quite a few benefits.

So we just have to wait until say 2048 then we can resell those ideas.

Probably longer. Republicans call Democrats Necromancers but look at how long those guys can push it...

[Arlenton]

Why does that matter?

Because it’s an utterly absurd legal argument that would make the court look foolish and lose legitimacy.

I mean, it could possibly hypothetically meet the threshold for equal though from a legal standpoint.

[American Legionaries]

Why does that matter?

Because it’s an utterly absurd legal argument that would make the court look foolish and lose legitimacy.

Good thing the constitution prevents the Supreme Court from making rulings you disagree with.

[Picairn]

Well you see that's the thing, American's already had all of these things. They had access to Universal Healthcare and Education.

But we gave them up because they came into close relations with our premier enemy the USSR and we bought the hyper-capitalist narrative that these things are closely related to Communism, you can't remove that stigma without a campaign of rebranding that won't be resolved in a single lifetime.

Heck, it's likely several lifetimes before you convince a public so enamored with being temporarily embarrassed millionaires instead of a struggling middle class that those things are one and the same..

IIRC the US has never had universal healthcare in its history. Medicare and Medicaid were originally compromises to UHC because the American Medical Association kept lobbying and putting attack ads against any form of UHC as communism. They even hired Reagan to speak out against socialized medicine when he was an actor.

[Hemakral]

Ok fine. They could say that same sex marriage can be made illegal in states because it applies to straight people as well. Neither gay or straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

That's not the point, Lu. The point is that the law can be ignored and/or altered by the people in charge regardless of things like "valid reasons for doing so" and "logic". At this very moment, the president could issue an executive order demanding that all men named Todd wear striped shirts for one day. Although this is a stupid thing to do, it can still be done, because the law is malleable and bends to the will of those in power.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why does that matter?

Because it’s an utterly absurd legal argument that would make the court look foolish and lose legitimacy.

Isn't SCOTUS approval ratings going down anyway? Consider that this unelected parliament doesn't give a shit about legitimacy.

[San Lumen]

That’s a stupid argument. Why would a heterosexual person marry someone of the same sex?

I don't know why. Nor is it relevant to my point that a conservative majority on the SCOTUS could overturn the gay marriage ruling if they wanted to.

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

[The Black Forrest]

If I was a democratic candidate here is some of what I would fight tooth and nail for:
Bismarck Model Universal Healthcare
Universal Education and universal private school vouchers along with school choice
Maternity and Paternity Leave
Financial Security
Minimum Wage adjusted with inflation
Voting Rights
Gun Rights
Electoral Process Reform

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Laborites, Democrat Socialists, Socialists, Communists and whatevers all want the same things, but we strongly disagree on the details.

Not really.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I don't know why. Nor is it relevant to my point that a conservative majority on the SCOTUS could overturn the gay marriage ruling if they wanted to.

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Consider that this unelected parliament doesn't give a shit about legitimacy.

[Comerciante]

Well you see that's the thing, American's already had all of these things. They had access to Universal Healthcare and Education.

But we gave them up because they came into close relations with our premier enemy the USSR and we bought the hyper-capitalist narrative that these things are closely related to Communism, you can't remove that stigma without a campaign of rebranding that won't be resolved in a single lifetime.

Heck, it's likely several lifetimes before you convince a public so enamored with being temporarily embarrassed millionaires instead of a struggling middle class that those things are one and the same..

IIRC the US has never had universal healthcare in its history. Medicare and Medicaid were originally compromises to UHC because the American Medical Association kept lobbying and putting attack ads against any form of UHC as communism. They even hired Reagan to speak out against socialized medicine when he was an actor.

Well... that both hurts and proves my point so it kind of negates each other... so I lose nothing but gain nothing!

Is... Is this what it feels like to adult?

[San Lumen]

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Consider that this unelected parliament doesn't give a shit about legitimacy.

What are you talking about?

[Corrian]

So MA GOP took a swipe at Charlie Baker AND praised Trump

Yeah, they're trying to guarantee the state goes Democrat on all levels.

[American Legionaries]

I don't know why. Nor is it relevant to my point that a conservative majority on the SCOTUS could overturn the gay marriage ruling if they wanted to.

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Legitimacy isn't a relevant thing, the Supreme Court doesn't have authority because people like them.

I'm sure we could find a few that'd pass that if they thought it would fly.

[The Black Forrest]

Such as? You can’t claim the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to every person.

Ok fine. They could say that same sex marriage can be made illegal in states because it applies to straight people as well. Neither gay or straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

Ok. I am looking for the argument in there……what is it?

[Arlenton]

I don't know why. Nor is it relevant to my point that a conservative majority on the SCOTUS could overturn the gay marriage ruling if they wanted to.

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

[Arlenton]

Ok fine. They could say that same sex marriage can be made illegal in states because it applies to straight people as well. Neither gay or straight people can marry someone of the same sex.

Ok. I am looking for the argument in there……what is it?

San Lumen and my argument? Or the hypothetical?

The hypothetical is some reasoning that a SCOTUS majority could use to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges I just made up off the top of my head because Lumen wanted me to.

[San Lumen]

Your saying the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to all. There is no way to spin that to make a solid legal argument that doesn’t undermine their legitimacy.

On what grounds could they do it? A state would have to ban same sex marriage first.

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

Personal incredulity...

[Arlenton]

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

You could limit the definition of person. Is a fetus a person? A Supreme Court justice could certainly rule that way if they wanted to.

[Comerciante]

Like I said. I don't know what grounds. But I do know that they could do it if they wanted to if a case were to be brought up. The same way the could make a solid legal argument for ending Roe v. Wade.

I don’t see how you can argue the 14th amendment does not apply to all persons.

It's easy you just need to take away the personhood of whomever you need to expediently shove to the side. You don't do it blatantly, of course, you just excuse away their civil rights piecemeal so people don't catch on to what you're doing at first until it's too late.

Like their right to vote for example.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If scotus decided tomorrow that abortion is banned because the sun orbits earth y'all have to wait for like 50 years before this nonsense "precedent" gets overturned. Welcome to reality.