Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

For a politician who had obvious statewide and national ambitions? Bullshit. At the time, people were wondering if taking that stand would kill his career. No one expected so much progress to happen so quickly. Just a couple of years beforehand, California voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay marriage initiative. A couple of years later, they passed another one (the first was kicked as unconstitutional, the second amended the constitution).

Those who called Newsom's actions a political move had to assume that the end of his political ambitions was the job he already had, as mayor.

our governor, a normal R, just vetoed a concealed carry law. he just got re-elected, so he has a few years before it can be held against him, but that was some brave shit (although the level of insanity of the law was pretty high).

• Senate Bill 789, sponsored by Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, would have eliminated county gun boards, which now issue concealed pistol licenses, and turn that function over to county clerks and the Michigan State Police. Proponents said the main point of the legislation was to make Michigan a true "shall issue" state for concealed weapons licenses and eliminate what they say are variations among counties in what's required to obtain a permit.
  
  The Free Press reported Jan. 6 that the bill included a provision that said concealed weapons permits must be issued, even to persons subject to personal protection orders for domestic violence or stalking, provided they would otherwise be eligible for a permit and a ban on obtaining a gun is not a condition of their personal protection orders.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Gay > San Francisco > Boston > Massachusetts > California > most everywhere else > Not Gay

the thing that surprised me about SF is how many people are walking around with a cigarette- I was expecting more evolved people.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

For a politician who had obvious statewide and national ambitions? Bullshit. At the time, people were wondering if taking that stand would kill his career. No one expected so much progress to happen so quickly. Just a couple of years beforehand, California voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gay marriage initiative. A couple of years later, they passed another one (the first was kicked as unconstitutional, the second amended the constitution).

Those who called Newsom's actions a political move had to assume that the end of his political ambitions was the job he already had, as mayor.

You are correct that Newsom’s actions were widely interpreted at the time as career-suicidal. Some wag remarked that he had done a great job in securing the post of HHS secretary in the first Jon Stewart administration. It is only in retrospect that we can see Newsom was going the way the country would head. So, I say it was a principled stance on his part, and self-sacrificial. I thought he’d not get a statewide office for 20 years, but that’s because I’ve consistently underestimated the silliness of the state GOP in candidate selection.

I also think he was without legal authority to do what he did, and that the Cal Supremes were right to issue a stay until there was a judicial determination. I’m glad the good guys ultimately won, but I do a lot of hand-wringing about the good guys using the wrong tools, and I don’t think you can engage in civil disobedience when cloaked in government power. But all the finger-wagging that needed to be done was accomplished by the SCOCA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the thing that surprised me about SF is how many people are walking around with a cigarette- I was expecting more evolved people.

Did you notice the Glassholes?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

our governor, a normal R, just vetoed a concealed carry law. he just got re-elected, so he has a few years before it can be held against him, but that was some brave shit (although the level of insanity of the law was pretty high).

• Senate Bill 789, sponsored by Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, would have eliminated county gun boards, which now issue concealed pistol licenses, and turn that function over to county clerks and the Michigan State Police. Proponents said the main point of the legislation was to make Michigan a true "shall issue" state for concealed weapons licenses and eliminate what they say are variations among counties in what's required to obtain a permit.
  
  The Free Press reported Jan. 6 that the bill included a provision that said concealed weapons permits must be issued, even to persons subject to personal protection orders for domestic violence or stalking, provided they would otherwise be eligible for a permit and a ban on obtaining a gun is not a condition of their personal protection orders.

Good for him. I mean that -- the NRA will hammer it no matter how long it is until his next campaign.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You are correct that Newsom’s actions were widely interpreted at the time as career-suicidal. Some wag remarked that he had done a great job in securing the post of HHS secretary in the first Jon Stewart administration. It is only in retrospect that we can see Newsom was going the way the country would head. So, I say it was a principled stance on his part, and self-sacrificial. I thought he’d not get a statewide office for 20 years, but that’s because I’ve consistently underestimated the silliness of the state GOP in candidate selection.

I also think he was without legal authority to do what he did, and that the Cal Supremes were right to issue a stay until there was a judicial determination. I’m glad the good guys ultimately won, but I do a lot of hand-wringing about the good guys using the wrong tools, and I don’t think you can engage in civil disobedience when cloaked in government power. But all the finger-wagging that needed to be done was accomplished by the SCOCA.

Rosa Parks was without legal authority to keep her seat. That bitch.

Or, would you say that she was okay, but if a county supervisor had told everyone to leave her alone then he was abusing power?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You are correct that Newsom’s actions were widely interpreted at the time as career-suicidal. Some wag remarked that he had done a great job in securing the post of HHS secretary in the first Jon Stewart administration. It is only in retrospect that we can see Newsom was going the way the country would head. So, I say it was a principled stance on his part, and self-sacrificial. I thought he’d not get a statewide office for 20 years, but that’s because I’ve consistently underestimated the silliness of the state GOP in candidate selection.

I also think he was without legal authority to do what he did, and that the Cal Supremes were right to issue a stay until there was a judicial determination. I’m glad the good guys ultimately won, but I do a lot of hand-wringing about the good guys using the wrong tools, and I don’t think you can engage in civil disobedience when cloaked in government power. But all the finger-wagging that needed to be done was accomplished by the SCOCA.

We now know that stopping him from marrying people, though, violated the constitution (at least according to most courts, and soon, knock on wood, the supremes, too), and he really had full authority to do so under the supreme law of the land.

Maybe he was just smarter than everyone else.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

our governor, a normal R, just vetoed a concealed carry law. he just got re-elected, so he has a few years before it can be held against him, but that was some brave shit (although the level of insanity of the law was pretty high).

• Senate Bill 789, sponsored by Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, would have eliminated county gun boards, which now issue concealed pistol licenses, and turn that function over to county clerks and the Michigan State Police. Proponents said the main point of the legislation was to make Michigan a true "shall issue" state for concealed weapons licenses and eliminate what they say are variations among counties in what's required to obtain a permit.
  
  The Free Press reported Jan. 6 that the bill included a provision that said concealed weapons permits must be issued, even to persons subject to personal protection orders for domestic violence or stalking, provided they would otherwise be eligible for a permit and a ban on obtaining a gun is not a condition of their personal protection orders.

Let's hope he's as smart as that Gavin guy.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Rosa Parks was without legal authority to keep her seat. That bitch.

Or, would you say that she was okay, but if a county supervisor had told everyone to leave her alone then he was abusing power?

{sigh} Now I remember why I hate this place. Rosa Parks wasn't exercising government power. Neither is a county supervisor engaging in a speech act. A government official using his powers to effectuate the pure dictates of his conscience looks a particular way. You’ll probably only notice it when you disagree with it, you lucky bastard.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We now know that stopping him from marrying people, though, violated the constitution (at least according to most courts, and soon, knock on wood, the supremes, too), and he really had full authority to do so under the supreme law of the land.

I’ll be sure to tell everybody that their power isn’t limited by what the cases say, but by their good faith belief in what the cases WILL say.

I swear, y’all act all surprised at how powerful the bad guys always seem to get, but you’re so quick to destroy all conceptual limitations on government power when you think a good guy is wielding it (for the next couple years). How the fuck do you think you’re going to feel when it’s Joe Arpaio reading your well-considered briefs on the dictates of conscience WRT what the Constitution says? I’ll bet he thinks the SCOTUS will go his way any day now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You’ll probably only notice it when you disagree with it, you lucky bastard.

oh-oh. when i say this sidd always says he knows I'm not a dick but that I always end acting like one I'm leaving this board again cuz it's about to get ugly

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I’ll be sure to tell everybody that their power isn’t limited by what the cases say, but by their good faith belief in what the cases WILL say.

I swear, y’all act all surprised at how powerful the bad guys always seem to get, but you’re so quick to destroy all conceptual limitations on government power when you think a good guy is wielding it (for the next couple years). How the fuck do you think you’re going to feel when it’s Joe Arpaio reading your well-considered briefs on the dictates of conscience WRT what the Constitution says? I’ll bet he thinks the SCOTUS will go his way any day now.

John Yoo will be seen as a visionary someday?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I’ll be sure to tell everybody that their power isn’t limited by what the cases say, but by their good faith belief in what the cases WILL say.

I swear, y’all act all surprised at how powerful the bad guys always seem to get, but you’re so quick to destroy all conceptual limitations on government power when you think a good guy is wielding it (for the next couple years). How the fuck do you think you’re going to feel when it’s Joe Arpaio reading your well-considered briefs on the dictates of conscience WRT what the Constitution says? I’ll bet he thinks the SCOTUS will go his way any day now.

This is the jurisprudential equivalent of "you kids get off my lawn."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I’ll be sure to tell everybody that their power isn’t limited by what the cases say, but by their good faith belief in what the cases WILL say.

I swear, y’all act all surprised at how powerful the bad guys always seem to get, but you’re so quick to destroy all conceptual limitations on government power when you think a good guy is wielding it (for the next couple years). How the fuck do you think you’re going to feel when it’s Joe Arpaio reading your well-considered briefs on the dictates of conscience WRT what the Constitution says? I’ll bet he thinks the SCOTUS will go his way any day now.

Perhaps the difference here is the conviction that what Newsom did didn't harm anyone -- which (as you say) is completely tied up in one's views of the merits of the underlying issue. If gay marriage had been legal, and Newsom had decided to stop performing marriages, that seems worse because of the interests of the particular couples who couldn't wed. In your hypo, it's a little hard to imagine Joe Arpaio doing anything according to his conscience that wouldn't fall very heavily on some people, most likely including those with darker skin and/or names ending with "z".

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

This is the jurisprudential equivalent of "you kids get off my lawn."

I’m okay with that.