Politics And Current Events

Postby **columbia** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:34 pm

Trump, Cruz, Bush and Christie.... all in Los Angeles today. Yahoo.

That explains the terrorism alert.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:38 pm

I rate this thread a perfect 5/7.

So ITT, who is Brendan and who is Rob?

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:39 pm

Did Tif's woman just say that Fiorina has "extensive foreign policy experience"?

Well, she ruined HP and off-shored 30,000 jobs, so..... I'm sure that took some doing.

Postby **NTP66** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:39 pm

I rate this thread a perfect 5/7.
So ITT, who is Brendan and who is Rob?

lol, I'm not going there...

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:40 pm

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/1 ... eam=social
Speaking to Chuck Todd on Sunday's Meet the Press, Florida senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he's still interested in reversing this year's Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized marriage equality nationwide.

Hey - if you can talk about overturning other supreme court decisions, then this one is just as much in the same boat. In this case, it simply goes back to the states, not the end of the world.

The point, of course, being that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:45 pm

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/1 ... eam=social
Speaking to Chuck Todd on Sunday's Meet the Press, Florida senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he's still interested in reversing this year's Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized marriage equality nationwide.

Hey - if you can talk about overturning other supreme court decisions, then this one is just as much in the same boat. In this case, it simply goes back to the states, not the end of the world.
The point, of course, being that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Honest question, if an amendment is added that specifically tries to rectify the SCOTUS decision. That wouldn't technically be "reversing" a decision, but the net effect would be to make legal what SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional, would it not?

Serious question.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:51 pm

No it would not be reversing the decision, but it would have the same effect. In practice, it would really just be a semantic difference. But the point is reversing a judicial ruling (up to the SCOTUS level) isn't necessarily a difficult thing to have happen. Passing a constitutional amendment is rather more tedious. So the idea that you could just 'reverse' a SCOTUS opinion is, imo, not useful discourse.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:53 pm

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/1 ... eam=social
Speaking to Chuck Todd on Sunday's Meet the Press, Florida senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he's still interested in reversing this year's Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized marriage equality nationwide.

Hey - if you can talk about overturning other supreme court decisions, then this one is just as much in the same boat. In this case, it simply goes back to the states, not the end of the world.
The point, of course, being that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Unless the Supreme Court itself does it...

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:54 pm

Hmmm...

Sen. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has instructed his staff to review if Sen. Ted Cruz revealed classified information about the NSA's phone surveillance program during Tuesday night's

Postby **columbia** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:56 pm

Hmmm...

Sen. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has instructed his staff to review if Sen. Ted Cruz revealed classified information about the NSA's phone surveillance program during Tuesday night's

Rubio basically accused him of doing so.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:57 pm

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/1 ... eam=social
Speaking to Chuck Todd on Sunday's Meet the Press, Florida senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he's still interested in reversing this year's Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized marriage equality nationwide.

Hey - if you can talk about overturning other supreme court decisions, then this one is just as much in the same boat. In this case, it simply goes back to the states, not the end of the world.
The point, of course, being that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Unless the Supreme Court itself does it...

True enough....... and in its 230-odd year, SCOTUS has done this, I think, 70 or 80 times.

However, I don't think they've ever done it a year removed from the original decision. There's usually, like, some time in there.

Postby **count2infinity** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:57 pm

It's incredible to me that someone is still campaigning on making same sex marriage illegal.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:59 pm

Hmmm...

Sen. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has instructed his staff to review if Sen. Ted Cruz revealed classified information about the NSA's phone surveillance program during Tuesday night's
Rubio basically accused him of doing so.

Cruz is fine. His numbers he was referring to were reported by the Washington post earlier. He isn't on the intelligence committee, so he would only have gotten them through the media, not classified means.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:00 pm

It's incredible to me that someone is still campaigning on making same sex marriage illegal.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:03 pm

It's incredible to me that someone is still campaigning on making same sex marriage illegal.

Would you please spoiler that picture. I damn near lost my lunch.

Postby **Gaucho** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:04 pm

Now you'll lose it twice.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:06 pm

Now you'll lose it twice.

Took me four tries, but I fixed it.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:09 pm

He isn't on the intelligence committee, so he would only have gotten them through the media, not classified means.

Do you really think that only committee members are privy to classified information?

Postby **grunthy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:31 pm

He isn't on the intelligence committee, so he would only have gotten them through the media, not classified means.
Do you really think that only committee members are privy to classified information?

He is only privy to it unless he is required to know about it. Just because one has top secret clearance doesn't mean that you can look at or be shared with all top secret information.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:45 pm

The focus of the question was the assertion that the only way he could have gotten the information was through the media. And that's untrue.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:52 pm

Noted. I'll change it to most likely. If he isn't on the committee he most likely wouldn't be told specifics of numbers. Just about the overall program itself.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:21 pm

https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status ... 8135953408

Postby **count2infinity** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:25 pm

This can only end well... if any of the incidents seemed to me (obviously I don't have all the fact and whatnot) to be clear cut police brutality, Freddie Gray was it.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:51 pm

Freddy Gray and the youngster in the Cleveland park that had the toy gun and the call came into dispatch that it was a toy gun and they still pulled up and immediately shot him.

...That and the recent one in Chicago where the cop pulled up and shot the dude 16 times, although at least there he had a knife and had slashed tires...

Postby **Troy Loney** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:54 pm

Walter Scott in Charleston.