Everyday now there is 1 or 2 major decisions coming out of the Supreme Court. I am not sure what case(s) the readers are interested in. So I will just give a quick agree or not agree with a few of the decisions and if anyone is interesting in further discussion of any of the cases, please say so and I will oblige.
I agree with the majority in the generic drug case, the DOMA case, the Prop.8 case and I would have gone further than the Court and struck down race based affirmative action. I disagree with the majority in the civil right case. Any opinion or discussion?
This Wimbledon is dangerous to the favorites with Nadal, Federer and Sharipova all gone within 2 rounds! Ultimately Murray and Djokovic will still meet in the finals and Serena will win. Anyone knows why the Angels, one of the most disappointing team in baseball, keeps beating the Tigers?
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
2 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know we talked about Grace Lee Boggs awhile back. I just found out that they are honoring her at the Detroit Institute of Arts this Saturday. I will not be able to attend. Apparently, there is a film about her (or that centers around her) that they will show. Here's a link to the trailer. Maybe you can see it when it comes out on Netflix.
ReplyDeletehttp://americanrevolutionaryfilm.com/
She looks really good for being 97. I think she gets around better than some 78 year olds I know!
As far as the Supreme Court stuff goes, I only heard about the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. I'm still a little confused on them. All I know is that my gay and lesbian friends are happy.
I don't have much opinion on either case except that I support the right for two people to have some sort of union. I don't care if it's called marriage or not.
As far as generic drug and affirmative action, I didn't realize they were discussing things about either subject.
I am torn about affirmative action. I've had to fight for it during my time in politics. I would love that things were different and that we didn't need it. And in all honesty, I wish we didn't need it.
Until someone comes up with a better solution, I think affirmative action is needed.
As far as Wimbledon goes, this is one crazy year. No one is safe. It'll be interesting to see who is there at the end. Anything can happen.
Any trips to the midwest this year?
-LBOAYM
DOMA is the federal law which denies legally married gays benefits that would be given to heterosexual married couples. So for example if a gay person works for the federal government, his married partner is not eligible for health insurance from the government job. This is obvious discrimination in my opinion. The vote on that ran straight down party line with Kennedy being the swing vote as is most of the time.
ReplyDeleteProp. 8 was passed in California a few years ago which banned same sex marriage in California. This was in response to California state supreme court granting marriage rights to gays. The measure was declared unconstitutional by federal court. It was appealed by backers of the measure. But California officials refused to appeal. So the U.S. Supreme court ruled that it cannot take up appeal by private parties if the state does not wish to appeal the lower court ruling. This is an obvious attempt by Roberts to make a consensus ruling without making a broad ruling on the subject. It does not say that the prop was unconstitutional but only that the court cannot rule on it. Sotomayer actually dissented and Scalia sided with Roberts. I don't understand Scalia except maybe he is going by the letter of the law. Sotomayor probably wants to have a broader ruling so that other states cannot come up with such measures. In reality gay marriage will resume in California because with the passage of time any effort to put gay marriage ban on the ballot will fail as opinions here have swing way to the sides of gays.
I agree with both rulings as I don't see how you can deny people the right to be together. If I had total power I would have say gays can have a civil union which has the exact rights of traditional marriage. But since gays and their supporters will not accept that, I don't think society should waste effort fighting over semantics. So give gays marriage rights. As I said before, it will be an economic boon for flower shops, reception halls, even churches and unfortunately, divorce lawyers.
I do have a jab at liberal advocates who always say that if 2 people in love do not need to get married because a piece of paper does not verify true love. OK, so why the big huff over a piece of paper for gays? I know that being denied of a right is not the same as not using that right. But if you fight very hard for that right, should you not treasure it?
We will make a trip sometimes to the midwest but don't know exactly when yet.