Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

OTP 2018 May 28: Don’t turn down WH invitation: Former Nats manager on Powerhouse Politics podcast

“Baseball is not about politics, it’s just about going out and enjoying the game,” Johnson says of his experience managing a team in the nation’s capital in comparison with managing teams elsewhere, such as the New York Mets, Cincinnati Reds and the Philadelphia Phillies.

Games at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., are often a “who’s who” of the political world, including Supreme Court justices, leading Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and high-profile media figures. Johnson says when they come to the game, they put aside politics.

“You don’t think about politics you just think about baseball,” Johnson says about the unifying nature of professional baseball in the nation’s capital.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 29, 2018 at 07:50 AM | 1257 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, old man yells at cloud, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 13 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13
   1201. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:18 AM (#5685408)
I did no so such thing. After all, the posting of this interview is barely 12 hours old. Now that it's out, though, reporters should surround Cuomo and ask him whether he still wants Bill to campaign with him.

You did no such thing... then you repeat such thing?
   1202. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5685418)
If Lester Maddox was still alive he'd re-litigate his chicken shack's discrimination case. This court would probably rule for him.

Cake & Hobby Lobby cases will be remembered as the Plessy/Ferguson of our time.
   1203. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5685420)
The Opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop: The line-up:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J.,and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN,and GORSUCH,JJ., joined. KAGAN,J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Looks like 7-2 on the result.
   1204. BDC Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5685426)
Ellen Wilson

Eheh, that would be bad :)

   1205. -- Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5685429)
Cake & Hobby Lobby cases will be remembered as the Plessy/Ferguson of our time.


LOL.
   1206. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5685432)
Cake & Hobby Lobby cases will be remembered as the Plessy/Ferguson of our time.

You might want to read the opinions - several concurrences - or at least wait for the reporters & pundits to, before embarrassing yourself further.
   1207. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5685433)
Gay cake ruling is 7-2:
Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch join Kennedy's opinion; Kagan concurs, joined by Breyer; Gorsuch concurs, joined by Alito. Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment. Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent.

SCOTUSblog hot take makes it sound like the Court kicked the can:
The Court writes that "the delicate question of when the free exercise" of the baker's religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."

The decision here looks intentionally factbound to me: This is more about how the Colorado Commission considered Phillips' particular case, and substantially less about whether there might or might not be a right under the constitution to refuse compliance with a neutral law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. In that respect, this holding is not going to resolve the underlying politically charged controversy.

The gist of the holding seems to be that the baker did not get a fair and impartial hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission (not that the Commission was prohibited from rejecting his arguments after a fair hearing).

The intro to the opinion thus concludes, "Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

The Breyer/Kagan join suggests that the opinion is relatively narrow.

This is a narrow win for the baker, in that they basically say the commission erred in being biased towards him and need to give him another shot. But doesn't require them to rule in Masterpiece's favor.

The only nuance is that I don't know if the baker in this case will have to go through another hearing in front of the commission (the commission might just drop the matter and try to fight another day).
   1208. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5685435)
Now THIS is whataboutism.

Your statement was nothing more than a distraction and or blissful ignorance which is what whataboutism is all about.

You fail to understand JE's Ground Rules 101: Asking him to address Trump's racism, misogyny, serial lying, ignorance and corruption in a non-diversionary manner is hitting below the belt, but demanding that every liberal immediately denounce every comedian or past president for every transgression should be the job the job of every fair minded minded person.
   1209. BDC Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5685439)
Yes, glancing at the Cake decision with my non-lawerly eye, it seems to be about the hostility of the Colorado folks toward the religion of the bakers.

From the decision itself (thanks for the link, Clapper!):

the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.


IOW I don't think the left should start foaming at the mouth, or the right … baking a cake to celebrate?
   1210. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5685440)
A SCOTUSblog reader floats an interesting question about this decision, written by Kennedy:
Anyone see significance for the travel ban case in the Court's reliance on the Commissioners' individual statements that were hostile to the baker's religion?
   1211. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5685441)
glancing at the Cake decision with my non-lawerly eye, it seems to be about the hostility of the Colorado folks toward the religion of the bakers


We must always respect the hate filled superstitions of others if they have an old book.
   1212. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5685442)
You might want to read the opinions - several concurrences - or at least wait for the reporters & pundits to, before embarrassing yourself further.


Whatever procedural grounds cited, the decision explicitly upholds bigotry. I'm not particularly interested in thinly veiled justifications for bigotry, so I'll save that effort.

   1213. McCoy Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5685447)
In a lawful society we need fair and just laws and a fair and just system to implement them. I can understand the decision while not being happy with the end result.
   1214. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5685448)
From the syllabus of the opinion linked in #1203:
Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant en- forcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin- ing to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commis- sion’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs moti- vating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol- ocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impar- tiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay mes- sages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the re- quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell oth- er products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not an- swer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the re- ligious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.

(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free ex- ercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious be- liefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neu- trality include “the historical background of the decision under chal- lenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, in- cluding contemporaneous statements made by members of the deci- sionmaking body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even sug- gesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that re- quirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Pp. 16–18.
   1215. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5685450)
In a lawful society we need fair and just laws and a fair and just system to implement them. I can understand the decision while not being happy with the end result.


And said fair & just laws are at odds with and should not countenance laws that promote or permit unequal treatment in public accomodations that are based on ancient fairy tales.
   1216. Stormy JE Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:42 AM (#5685453)
Cake & Hobby Lobby cases will be remembered as the Plessy/Ferguson of our time.
Remember when?
480. Traderdave Posted: May 31, 2018 at 12:16 AM (#5682816) ... OK, #### face, you're on. Find ANY post I've ever made in almost 2 decades of wasting time on BTF that are "lefty" other than harsh & hateful disdain for Trump. Fine even one that's left of Andy.
Wanna keep playing?
   1217. BDC Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5685454)
We must always respect the hate filled superstitions of others if they have an old book

Works both ways, though. If it's OK for a liberal commission to be hostile toward Christians, it's OK for Judge Roy Moore and his ilk to be hostile towards atheists.

   1218. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5685458)
Works both ways, though.


So do scopes.
   1219. McCoy Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5685460)
And said fair & just laws are at odds with and should not countenance laws that promote or permit unequal treatment in public accomodations that are based on ancient fairy tales.

We do not live under a monarchy. There is a system to create, implement, and interpret laws.
   1220. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:47 AM (#5685461)
Remember when?

480. Traderdave Posted: May 31, 2018 at 12:16 AM (#5682816) ... OK, #### face, you're on. Find ANY post I've ever made in almost 2 decades of wasting time on BTF that are "lefty" other than harsh & hateful disdain for Trump. Fine even one that's left of Andy.

Wanna keep playing?


I am flattered by your rote knowledge of my posting history, but I do have a couple of quibbles with the above. First, I don't think it's to the left of Andy. Second, my belief is based on justice and rule of law being superior to people's private superstitions, which is exactly what religion is. Are you saying that such things as reason, evidence, facts and equal protection of the law are lefty ideas?





   1221. Stormy JE Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5685466)
Are you saying that such things as reason, evidence, facts and equal protection of the law are lefty ideas?
Come on, Dave, you just claimed a 7-2 decision, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined the majority, is in the same ballpark as Plessy.
   1222. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5685467)
Are you saying that such things as reason, evidence, facts and equal protection of the law are lefty ideas?


Seems like the strongest rhetoric against homophobia in recent months has come from the Daily Caller. :-)

What does capitalism have to say about this? Does offending homosexuals really help you in the wedding planning industry? This must be some pretty good cake!
   1223. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5685469)
If it's OK for a liberal commission to be hostile toward Christians, it's OK for Judge Roy Moore and his ilk to be hostile towards atheists.


Atheism isn't a religion.
   1224. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:52 AM (#5685470)
Come on, Dave, you just claimed a 7-2 decision, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined the majority, is in the same ballpark as Plessy.



Plessy was 7-1. Does a lopsided score make it right?
   1225. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:52 AM (#5685471)

We must always respect the hate filled superstitions of others if they have an old book.


Mein Kampf is only 7 years short of being 100.
   1226. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:52 AM (#5685472)
#1211: We must always respect the hate filled superstitions of others if they have an old book.

#1215: And said fair & just laws are at odds with and should not countenance laws that promote or permit unequal treatment in public accomodations that are based on ancient fairy tales.

These two "legal scholars" seem to believe that the Constitution incorporates their own hostility to religion. Quite the opposite, actually, under the Free Exercise Clause. Again, folks denouncing the decision might want to consider that it was written by Justice Kennedy, with Breyer & Kagan joining the opinion.
   1227. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5685475)
Again, folks denouncing the decision might want to consider that it was written by Justice Kennedy, with Breyer & Kagan joining the opinion.


Again, Plessy was 7-1. Does a lopsided score make it right?

I'm not a legal scholar, I'm just an ordinary believer in equality, fairness, and other such lefty notions.


   1228. Shredder Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5685476)
The market values of these home are roughly equivalent, at most 200M difference between highest and lowest and probably less than that. It's the equivalent of one's income tax rate being based not on income but on length of tenure in one's job. Not only is that a major issue of fairness, it's also an obvious disincentive to changing jobs, preventing younger workers from entering the job market.
Of course, while property taxes are based on market values, the real problem isn't so much that owners with equivalent values are being taxed differently, but rather that owners to whom equivalent services are delivered are being taxed differently, though that may be splitting hairs. My parents were very anti Prop 13, and would be again today, despite the fact that my mom lives in a $800k-$1MM home (depending on when and where you look) that they purchased for $27k in 1969 (she still owes a not insignificant amount because they borrowed against the house to pay for our college and make some home improvements, but there's plenty of equity). But she's not staying because Prop 13 is a disincentive to sell. She's staying because Prop 13 is doing what it was supposed to do, keep widows in their homes when the market booms.

Thanks to Prop 58, my siblings and I will inherit that tax treatment, but that probably won't keep the home from going on the market in one way or another. I doubt any of us will move back there, so we'll either sell, where Prop 13 won't have an impact, or we'll decide take advantage of the tax break and rent it out. That said, I'm still pretty staunchly opposed to Prop 13. There's no legitimate reason I should get that benefit. And quite frankly, taking pity on someone and lowering their taxes because they had the gross misfortune of.....seeing their single largest investment skyrocket in value seems pretty ludicrous to me. Either cash in or take out a HELOC.
   1229. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5685477)
Looks like we'll get the Court's real gay cake ruling in 2020 or so.
   1230. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:58 AM (#5685480)
These two "legal scholars" seem to believe that the Constitution incorporates their own hostility to religion.


I have never claimed to be a "legal scholar." I don't care what you think, and I look forward to your eventual death and replacement by someone who isn't a ########## shitheel.
   1231. Stormy JE Posted: June 04, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5685481)
Plessy was 7-1. Does a lopsided score make it right?
So Elana Kagan strikes you as a hater?
   1232. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5685484)
I'm not a legal scholar, I'm just an ordinary believer in equality, fairness, and other such lefty notions.

Just not in free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, the latter of which used to be a notion more protected by lefties than it currently is.

Even the Colorado Court of Appeals, which ruled against Phillips, acknowledged that Phillips was asked to *design* a cake not merely sell a cake. They just didn't believe that designing a cake was expressive. It takes about fifteen minutes on Food Network to see artistic expression in cakemaking.
   1233. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5685485)
Another interesting wrinkle: the decision recognizes that it would be more acceptable to deny services to a same-sex couple in 2012 than it is today in 2018.
   1234. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5685486)
The Supreme Court issued 3 other opinions today: a bankruptcy case & 2 dealing with the sentencing guidelines. Relatively small potatoes. That leaves 25 cases awaiting decisions, with opinions expected to be released over the next 3 Mondays (with the possibility of other dates being added). Kennedy writing the opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop also adds to the evidence that Roberts has the Wisconsin redistricting case, and possibly the one on warrantless usage of cell phone tower data, the only cases remaining from the October and December sittings of the Court.
   1235. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5685490)
Just not in free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, the latter of which used to be a notion more protected by lefties than it currently is.


So should Lester Maddox have been allowed to exclude blacks from his chicken shack?

The Colorado ruling IN NO WAY curtailed the baker's exercise of religion. It curtailed his ability to discriminate in a public accomodation based on said superstition.
   1236. Lassus Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5685492)
or freedom of speech

In the cake case?
   1237. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5685493)
A bunch more cake comments from SCOTUSblog:
It is absolutely critical in this instance to distinguish between the HOLDING (which is 7-2) on what happens next, and the opinion, which is divided in a lot more ways. Still, the 7-2 vote seems to derive from the very narrow nature of the Court's decision.

Other cases are going to need to play themselves out, and in a different context could turn out differently. The court indicates that courts should recognize that "these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

[Whether this specific case is revisited] will turn entirely on state law, i.e., under what circumstances Colorado law allows a new complaint. One take-away from the opinion, however, is that the Court recognizes that back in 2012, it probably would have been more acceptable to deny services to a same-sex couple than it is now. So if the Commission prospectively seeks to enforce against bakers based on the same conduct going forward, I think it will have a much better chance. In light of all that, I would be surprised if the Commission wanted to take another bite at this particular apple (or cake, or whatever). But whether they legally can do so depends on state law.

Kagan's concurring opinion is helpful for what it suggests the court's holding is: Colorado can protect gay people, and therefore "can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not" -- but only if the state's decisions "are not infected by religious hostility or bias."

Kagan wanted to underline that the proposition the Court endorsed (Colorado could protect gay couples against discrimination, but not by singling out this baker for different treatment) is different from the one the baker's main defenders were seeking (Colorado cannot prohibit refusals of services to gay couples in the face of a genuine religious objection).

[Future religious bakers] are "protected" in the sense that the First Amendment applies to them. But the First Amendment yields in the face of strong state interests. And the decision makes it pretty clear that in future cases, states may well be able to show that their interest in protecting gay people from discrimination takes priority. So yes, they are protected by the First Amendment. No, that doesn't mean they will prevail.

I would be shocked if the Court grants certiorari in another one of these cases any time soon. They set forth a rule that largely favors the states, and gave the states a roadmap for how to enforce the laws (don't betray anti-religious bias, don't be too mean, etc.). I don't think there's anything else for the Court really to do, here.

This case is narrow because it turns on the peculiar facts of this case (e.g., that the relevant conduct occurred in 2012, that the civil rights commission betrayed bias, etc.), and not on sweeping legal rules that would apply in a large number of cases.

It is not only safe but clearly correct to say that this decision was based more on the Commission's bias against religion than it was the constitutionality of refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Regarding the issue of Trump's comments in the travel ban case, Justice Kennedy seems to go out of his way to say the commissioners' comments are different because they were made by members an adjudicatory body during proceedings for a specific case: "Members of the court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers may properly be taken into account in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion. In this case, however, the remarks were made in a very different context-by an adjudicatory body deciding a particular case." That might foreshadow a distinction Justice Kennedy (or others who joined this opinion, and not Justice Kennedy) will insist upon in the travel case.

One version of the question presented in Masterpiece is: "Does the Constitution give wedding cake bakers a right to refuse service to homosexual couples on the basis of a religious objection, even if a State generally prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation." That is the "Right not to bake a cake" version. The Court does not answer that question. Instead it holds that the way the Colorado commission considered Mr. Phillips' case showed substantial hostility toward religion. That preserves the possibility that a State could enact a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples and constitutionally apply it to a baker who refused service to a gay couple.

For me the big take-away is that Kennedy is sending a clear message that he's going to be on the side of the states and couples in a future case that's handled properly.

Sometimes, the Court's HOLDING is what really matters -- i.e., what happens in this case (think Obamacare). Sometimes, the case itself really isn't a huge deal, and what matters is the OPINION -- that is, the rule the Court lays down. In the latter cases, the mass media inevitably overreacts to the vote count on the holding, and misses the nuances of why the Justices voted for the outcome that they did. This is distinctly the latter kind of case.
   1238. Lassus Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5685499)
From an actual legal scholar formerly frequenting the site (unlike Clapper's usual passive-aggressive twaddle about people on the board):
In a very narrow ruling, the Court (per Kennedy) rules that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause rights of Masterpiece Cakeshop because it based its ruling in favor of Charlie Craig and David Mullins on open anti-religious hostility, instead of on their fundamental right under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to be free from anti-gay discrimination. You know the ruling was narrow from this simple point: both Breyer and Kagan joined it, and wrote a separate concurrence making clear that nothing in the ruling forecloses application of state civil rights laws when state officials don't cross the line into anti-religious hostility.

The moral of the story: if you're litigating on behalf of LGBTQ clients facing discrimination, make sure that you just argue to apply the law, and keep your personal views of people's religious beliefs out of the case.
   1239. -- Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5685506)
It really wasn't that narrow. The primary reasoning was what I noted a bunch of times before -- that if administrative bodies say someone has to create a special cake for a gay wedding, it would mean that secular objectors would have to create them for things like KKK events. The Commission had already let three secular objectors not bake cakes and so it was effectively doomed when it said the religious guy had to bake. Hard to see how that Humpty Dumpty is going to be put back together.

The statements by the Commissioner likening the guy not wanting to bake a cake to the Holocaust and slavery were appalling, representing the type of extremism that is running amok in the current era. Unbalanced and simply absurd. As for that matter is the comparison between this, where a couple has to walk down the street to get a wedding cake, with the completely affirmatively de jure segregated state upheld in Plessy.

Get a grip, people, get a grip. Social media and message boards are doing this to you.
   1240. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:24 AM (#5685508)
No, I must disagree with Jason; you're being characteristically simple-minded. Primaries are contests between candidates for the nomination; they are not "intraparty battles."

I'm not sure how else you'd describe an ideological battle within the the set of Democratic voters, but nitpick away.
Well, I wouldn't describe a contest between Hillary and Biden as an ideological battle at all. And I would describe a primary as two different candidates vying for a nomination.

And there's no evidence that they are disasters for parties.

Ideological intraparty battles don't produce disasters unless they reflect irreconcilable divisions, and in a close election it doesn't take much for the losers to take out their frustrations in the general election by not voting or defecting to third parties. Other than 1968, it's true that we haven't seen much evidence of this in the past, but in an age of identity politics** it's far more likely to occur, especially when in this case one of the candidates was a woman who'd already lost a close battle for the nomination to a president who'd now (under the alternate history hypothetical) have tried to muscle her aside once again.
[Citation needed.]
And of course we've already established that the notion that women vote for women candidates in the way that blacks vote for black candidates is wrong. You're just repeating silly cliches.

It's hardly a cliche to suppose that many women who'd patiently waited 8 years for Hillary to become an historic "first" might not have gone along with Obama trying to tip the scales in favor of a 73 year old white man who'd never shown any previous signs of being a viable national candidate.
No, it is a cliché. One pretty well undermined by the 2016 election, when the same silly idea that women voters were desperate for a woman candidate was not reflected in the vote.
   1241. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:25 AM (#5685510)
#1239:
It really wasn't that narrow.


Actually, the decision is very narrow, it offers very limited application going forward, and the statements by the Commissioner gave the Court an out on not making a major "speech vs religion" ruling.
   1242. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5685511)
So should Lester Maddox have been allowed to exclude blacks from his chicken shack?

The Colorado ruling IN NO WAY curtailed the baker's exercise of religion. It curtailed his ability to discriminate in a public accomodation based on said superstition.


This argument is literally retarded. Every single person, based on race, color, or creed, was equally unable to get Phillips to *design* a cake with a particular expressive message. Suburban House in Baltimore won't design me a sandwich with bacon either based on their sincerely held religous beliefs either, I NEED TO CALL THE HURT FEELINGS POLICE STUPID JEWS!!!!!!!1111111111111oneoneone.

No wonder many religious people think of agnostics/atheists as smug ########.

And, of course, they didn't even rule on this part in the decision. They just said that Colorado couldn't act like asocial ######### when dealing with religous objections. So your objection to the case isn't standing up against Plessy, it's standing up against the notion that government has to treat parties fairly. You're literally standing up against people being treated equally by government. How stunning and brave you are!
   1243. -- Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5685512)
And of course forcing the cake baker to create does force him to speak, thereby also violating his fundamental free speech rights (*) but the Court didn't need to get to that issue given the clear religious bias of the Colorado commission at issue. It's a fundamental precept of constitutional interpretation that narrow rulings are preferred to unnecessary wider ones.

(*) As Thomas and Gorsuch correctly noted:

Accordingly, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes
is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a
well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a
marriage clearly communicates a message—certainly
more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.,
501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991), or flying a plain red flag,
Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).


This is unquestionably correct. To see the mental hoops that the nutty left tries to jump through to deny the obviously expressive conduct behind creating a custom wedding cake just shows the type of hackery that has unfortunately beset the proceedings.
   1244. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:30 AM (#5685513)
#1240:
No, it is a cliché. One pretty well undermined by the 2016 election, when the same silly idea that women voters were desperate for a woman candidate was not reflected in the vote.


Eppur si muove towards her. Hillary Clinton's margin over Trump among female voters was larger than Obama's over Romney.
   1245. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5685517)
Get a grip, people, get a grip. Social media and message boards are doing this to you.


One hopes melanoma will eventually do something to you.
   1246. Traderdave Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5685523)
Cake seems to have, ahem, trumped the other big political news: POTUS says he can pardon himself.
   1247. Lassus Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5685526)
This is unquestionably correct.

Were the cases referred to in #1243 1A cases? Maybe if someone other than the poster could answer.
   1248. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5685534)
In addition to self pardon the fascists also assert that Dear Leader can begin or end any investigation at any level by his personal whim. It’s what fascists do. Undermine systems. Make the man the state. Declare themselves the only arbiter of state power. You either defend America or support this regime.
   1249. zenbitz Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5685542)
That is literally the opposite of capitalist.


Ah I was mixing my examples. You are correct here. Zoning regulations and nimbyism is not capitalism. But it is the result of upper middle class democracy.

What I was (badly) trying to imply was that the democratic power of the UMC in California is directly attributable to accumulated capital.
   1250. zenbitz Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5685544)
@1152 there were multiple issues discussed in the article and follow up. Including education spending disparity which is directed related to prop 13.

   1251. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5685546)
other big political news: POTUS says he can pardon himself.

That got floated last summer too.

At this point Trump is just trolling. Nothing anyone can do until he tries it. Preet Bharara's tweet-reply this morning simply said "Do it"
   1252. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 04, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5685548)
and insane anti-eviction laws (which have a similar effect on discouraging people from moving

I see you're going for the Euphemism of the Year award. Keep up the good work.
My statement was not the most artfully phrased because I was splicing two thoughts into one for brevity (though the phrasing was made worse by the fact that you cut the first part of the sentence out). But I wasn't using it as a euphemism; I was saying that if you make it harder to evict someone who has become a tenant, then you disincentivize them from moving voluntarily, too.
   1253. Stormy JE Posted: June 04, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5685557)
   1254. dlf Posted: June 04, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5685561)
The Supreme Court issued 3 other opinions today: a bankruptcy case & 2 dealing with the sentencing guidelines. Relatively small potatoes.


Well, I wouldn't go that far. The Court held unanimously in the Lamar case, that people who try to avoid paying their attorneys are pond scum who deserve a period in the pillory. Or at least a finding of 523 non-dischargablity. For the very small number of posters here who aren't lawyers, beware!
   1255. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 04, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5685573)
   1256. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 04, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5685607)
[Moved to new thread]
   1257. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 05, 2018 at 05:31 PM (#5686457)
[Whoops. Wrong tab.]
Page 13 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 11 12 13

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1926 - 8:31am, Sep 22)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(54 - 8:05am, Sep 22)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(86 - 7:50am, Sep 22)
Last: Chip

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(10 - 7:49am, Sep 22)
Last: Dolf Lucky

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(69 - 7:43am, Sep 22)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogJoe Maddon is angry with MLB over Cubs weather-impacted schedule
(62 - 3:38am, Sep 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(158 - 3:32am, Sep 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogHearing WFAN’s John Sterling home run call on WEEI was a weird juxtaposition
(13 - 2:18am, Sep 22)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(86 - 12:58am, Sep 22)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

NewsblogRed Sox Fan Dies Climbing On Top of Train Leaving Yankee Stadium
(17 - 12:56am, Sep 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(509 - 12:36am, Sep 22)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(9 - 11:39pm, Sep 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMarlins CEO Derek Jeter: Don Mattingly 'under contract' for 2019
(13 - 10:49pm, Sep 21)
Last: Ziggy's screen name

Sox TherapyIT’S OVER
(5 - 10:29pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-21-2018
(22 - 8:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball

Page rendered in 0.5094 seconds
48 querie(s) executed