The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

[AZ_]

Trumps is mean.
Trump is racist.
Trumps is stupid.
Trump is sexist.
Trump is a pathological liar.
Trump is mentally ill.
Trump is a narcissist.
He is a Nazi who loves Russia, a smooth bullshitter who can't talk, and an election winner who nobody likes.
He wants to screw his daughter with his syphilitic pecker while millions of emancipated Americans trudge across the Mexican border in search of birth control pills.

This pretty much sums up the disaffected's arguments in this non-partisan thread.

Mmm

Very good.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

Not sure if this is the best thread, but didn't see any other recent thread that was a better fit. There is a reason most LGBTQ folks still worry about losing / not getting equal rights in so many areas (insurance benefits for spouses, hospital privileges, testimonial privileges, etc.). And that's because there are still many people fighting against it, in and out of government:

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/06/30/texas-supreme-court-ruling-houston-same-sex-marriage-benefits/?utm_source=Texas Tribune Master&utm_campaign=b5ca4bda87-trib-newsletters-breaking-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9a68d8efc-b5ca4bda87-101212001&mc_cid=b5ca4bda87&mc_eid=c847b3d839

Texas Supreme Court throws out ruling that favored same-sex marriage benefits
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized same-sex marriage benefits.

BY ALEXA URA JUNE 30, 2017 5 HOURS AGO
28

Couples embrace at the conclusion of the "Big Gay Wedding" ceremony on the south lawn of the Texas Capitol on July 4 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June. Tamir Kalifa

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.
Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout.

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized same-sex marriage benefits. The state's highest civil court unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider the case.

As part of a case challenging Houston’s benefits policy, the Supreme Court suggested a landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not fully address the right to marriage benefits. Justice Jeffrey Boyd, writing on behalf of the court in a 24-page opinion, said there’s still room for state courts to explore the “reach and ramifications” of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“We agree with the Mayor [of Houston] that any effort to resolve whether and the extent to which the Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples without considering Obergefell would simply be erroneous,” Boyd wrote.“On the other hand, we agree… that the Supreme Court did not address and resolve that specific issue in Obergefell.”

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The case was part of Texas Republicans’ ongoing fight against the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and led to the enactment of benefits policies for married same-sex couples.

At the center of the Houston case is whether that ruling — known as Obergefell v. Hodges — requires city and other governmental agencies to extend those taxpayer-subsidized benefits to same-sex spouses of government employees. Following that ruling, public employers in Texas, including state agencies and public universities — quickly extended such benefits.

But in an attempt to re-litigate the high court’s decision, two taxpayers — represented by same-sex marriage opponents — are suing Houston over its policy.

They’ve argued that the interpretation of Obergefell is too broad and that the right to marry does not “entail any particular package of tax benefits, employee fringe benefits or testimonial privileges.” (In a separate case against the state’s now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage, the Texas attorney general’s office actually argued that marriage is a right that comes with benefits the state is entitled to control.)

Lawyers for the city of Houston argued, in part, that opponents are without a legal avenue to even pursue their claims because the city’s policy is protected under Obergefell, which they pointed out explicitly addressed “marriage-related benefits.

During a March hearing, Douglas Alexander, the lawyer who defended Houston’s benefits policy, told the court that the case was moot under Obergefell’s guarantee that all marriages be equally regarded.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Jonathan Mitchell, the former solicitor general for the state and the lawyer representing opponents of the Houston policy, argued that marriage benefits are not a fundamental right and that Obergefell did not resolve questions surrounding such policies.

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with that argument, noting that Obergefell requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages in the same manner as opposite-sex marriages but did not hold that “states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”

That does not mean Houston can “constitutionally deny benefits to its employees’ same-sex spouses,” the court added, but the issue must now be resolved “in light of Obergefell.”

The Texas Supreme Court also made note of two moves by the U.S. Supreme Court this week as proof that courts are still weighing Obergefell’s impact.

The high court on Monday reversed a ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court that kept married same-sex couples from being treated the same as opposite-sex couples on their children’s birth certificates. In that case, the court said it reversed the ruling because the "differential treatment infringes Obergefell’s commitment to provide same-sex couples 'the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.'"The court also decided they would take up a case involving whether a Colorado baker can legally refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of religious objections.

The decision by the Texas Supreme Court to take up the case was regarded as an unusual move because it had previously declined to take it up last year. That allowed the lower court decision to stand.

But the state’s highest civil court reversed course in January after receiving an outpouring of letters opposing the decision. They also faced pressure from Texas GOP leadership — spearheaded by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who asked the court to clarify that Obergefell does not include a “command” to public employers regarding employee benefits.

That request to the court came more than a year after state agencies moved to extend benefits to spouses of married gay and lesbian employees just days after the high court’s ruling. As of Aug. 31, 584 same-sex spouses had enrolled in insurance plans — including health, dental or life insurance — subsidized by the state, according to a spokeswoman for the Employees Retirement System, which oversees benefits for state employees.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Attorneys challenging the same-sex marriage benefits policy deferred to Texas Values — a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage — for comment on Friday's ruling.

“Today’s unanimous ruling from the state supreme court is a huge win for Houston taxpayers and for those who support the state’s marriage laws," Jonathan Saenz, the group's president, said in a statement.

Paxton also applauded the court's ruling, saying he was "extremely pleased that the Texas Supreme Court recognized that Texas law is still important when it comes to marriage."

LGBT advocates on Friday were enraged by the Texas court's ruling. Equality Texas called it "patently indefensible," and Lambda Legal said it "defies all logic and reason."

"The Texas Supreme Court’s decision this morning is a warning shot to all LGBTQ Americans that the war on marriage equality is ever-evolving, and anti-LGBTQ activists will do anything possible to discriminate against our families," Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said in a statement.

Advocates are likely to push for the case to be appealed to federal courts. A spokesman for Houston mayor Sylvester Turner did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the possibility of an appeal.

 

[Tornicade]

Trumps is mean.
Trump is racist.
Trumps is stupid.
Trump is sexist.
Trump is a pathological liar.
Trump is mentally ill.
Trump is a narcissist.
He is a Nazi who loves Russia, a smooth bullshitter who can't talk, and an election winner who nobody likes.
He wants to screw his daughter with his syphilitic pecker while millions of emancipated Americans trudge across the Mexican border in search of birth control pills.

This pretty much sums up the disaffected's arguments in this non-partisan thread.

I have never said any of these things.

 

[Whittaker]

I have never said any of these things.

Not directed at you.
Just a general observation...of how those top seven things are typical partisan mudslinging, proven by the fact that most of these slurs have been directed at every prominent Republican from Reagan to Gingrich to Bork to Clarence Thomas to Sarah Palin to Bush to Ted Cruz and on and on.
It is nothing but a political narrative, grossly out of place in any thread with non-partisan in it's title.

The last couple of paragraphs I added partly to show how shrill and illogical the attacks have become, and partly to showcase my writing talent.

 

[Tornicade]

Not directed at you.
Just a general observation...of how those top seven things are typical partisan mudslinging, proven by the fact that most of these slurs have been directed at every prominent Republican from Reagan to Gingrich to Bork to Clarence Thomas to Sarah Palin to Bush to Ted Cruz and on and on.
It is nothing but a political narrative, grossly out of place in any thread with non-partisan in it's title.

The last couple of paragraphs I added partly to show how shrill and illogical the attacks have become, and partly to showcase my writing talent.

I am disaffected
but the list of things you stated can be found in trumps own party since he has been elected.

 

[Whittaker]

I am disaffected
but the list of things you stated can be found in trumps own party since he has been elected.

Exactly.
A partisan extremist nut must believe that.
If a nut believes his views are right, thus moral, thus Holy....then all opposing views must be wrong, thus immoral, thus evil.
That's why he is a nut...he has become his own God.

People who aren't nuts understand that half of the country isn't evil just because they have a different opinion of the proper relationship between the government and the governed

 

[Tornicade]

Exactly.
A partisan extremist nut must believe that.
If a nut believes his views are right, thus moral, thus Holy....then all opposing views must be wrong, thus immoral, thus evil.
That's why he is a nut...he has become his own God.

People who aren't nuts understand that half of the country isn't evil just because they have a different opinion of the proper relationship between the government and the governed

Is that your take? that only the republican party nut extremist are having issues with the president and how he conducts himself?


Meanwhile your responded is to engage is the same behavior and name calling that you were initially criticizing.

 

[Whittaker]

Is that your take? that only the republican party nut extremist are having issues with the president and how he conducts himself?

No.
I don't know how you got that from what I said.
My post that you quoted didn't say anything about the republican party.
Nor did it say anything about anyone having issues with how the president conducts himself.
Maybe you meant to quote someone else's post?

 

[Tornicade]

No.
I don't know how you got that from what I said.
My post that you quoted didn't say anything about the republican party.
Nor did it say anything about anyone having issues with how the president conducts himself.
Maybe you meant to quote someone else's post?

I said tht Trumps party was doing the very same things on your list and you responded about Extremist nuts? you were replying to my post.

Trumps party is the republican party. maybe you don't know what your talking about?

I am disaffected
but the list of things you stated can be found in trumps own party since he has been elected.

Exactly.
A partisan extremist nut must believe that.
If a nut believes his views are right, thus moral, thus Holy....then all opposing views must be wrong, thus immoral, thus evil.
That's why he is a nut...he has become his own God.

People who aren't nuts understand that half of the country isn't evil just because they have a different opinion of the proper relationship between the government and the governed

Is that your take? that only the republican party nut extremist are having issues with the president and how he conducts himself?


Meanwhile your responded is to engage is the same behavior and name calling that you were initially criticizing.

No.
I don't know how you got that from what I said.
My post that you quoted didn't say anything about the republican party.
Nor did it say anything about anyone having issues with how the president conducts himself.
Maybe you meant to quote someone else's post?

 

[Tornicade]

double

 

[Sebastian]

Anyone who believes that it is bogus to make DSM diagnoses without having actually met the person in question could dismiss it quite easily.

You didn't even look at the link did you.

You should. It makes defending his increasingly poor behavior easier.

 

[czvo]

View: https://twitter.com/TPM_dk/status/880827603652923394



This administration really is setting us back decades in a matter of months. What's happening because of Trump and his cronies is just so damn sad.

 

[Tornicade]

View: https://twitter.com/TPM_dk/status/880827603652923394



This administration really is setting us back decades in a matter of months. What's happening because of Trump and his cronies is just so damn sad.

Hey Pruitt is just following the direction of his top Scientist.

 

[Sebastian]

Not sure if this is the best thread, but didn't see any other recent thread that was a better fit. There is a reason most LGBTQ folks still worry about losing / not getting equal rights in so many areas (insurance benefits for spouses, hospital privileges, testimonial privileges, etc.). And that's because there are still many people fighting against it, in and out of government:

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/06/30/texas-supreme-court-ruling-houston-same-sex-marriage-benefits/?utm_source=Texas Tribune Master&utm_campaign=b5ca4bda87-trib-newsletters-breaking-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9a68d8efc-b5ca4bda87-101212001&mc_cid=b5ca4bda87&mc_eid=c847b3d839

One wonders, why the fuck do people care so much about what other people do, or who they do it with?

Life is too short to be gripped with anger and hate toward people who aren't doing anything to anyone. The GOP has really just turned into a one issue party: Anger. Angry over everything. Angry at a changing world.

 

[Whittaker]

I said tht Trumps party was doing the very same things on your list and you responded about Extremist nuts? you were replying to my post.

Trumps party is the republican party. maybe you don't know what your talking about?

There are extremist nuts in both parties and outside those parties.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except that you posted this...

Is that your take? that only the republican party nut extremist are having issues with the president and how he conducts himself?

Which portrays me as asserting that only republican nuts have issues with the president.
THAT is out of left field. I never said anything remotely like that.
Stick to what I said, not what you imagine my "take" is.