it's all about interpretation. Interpretation has huge ramifications. When SCOTUS rule that gay marriage was legal, it was under the premise that gay marriage fell under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they just interpreted existing ones.

Same thing with the 2nd amendment. It hasn't changed at all, since it was put into effect, but legal battles over interpretation rage today and will continue to rage probably long after we're all dead.

Interpretation tends to fall along the lines of whatever your politics and personal biases are.

If everything was settled, we wouldn't need courts and majority opinions change all the time. It's a rather pesky aspect of this thing we call humanity and civilization.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

Porn is, as per Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, a thing that you know when you see it. An interesting thing for a SCOTUS justice to say in the 60's, seeing as it implies a certain... familiarity with the subject matter.

Any tax that is paid to the "government" directly is a "direct tax". According to the US Constitution, a "direct tax" has to be apportioned to the states. The 16th Amendment supposedly changed that. It moved the income tax from a direct tax to an "indirect" tax, and both the Brushaber and the Stanton case, the SCOTUS said that the "income tax" was an indirect tax on "gains and profits from labor or other corporate activity." That's is the meaning of "income" in the income tax". It is supposed to apply only to "gain" from corporate activity. Your wages or receipts for your personal labor is not "taxable income" unless you work directly for the Federal Government, live in a Federal Zone, receive overseas income, or live overseas and receive income". These are activities that are under the direct jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Be fair now. Fox doesn't -just- do editorializing. Sometimes they make stuff up out of whole cloth. Other times they magically manage to confuse years-old video of a well attended rally with yesterday's video of a rally with virtually no turnout.

They also go to the SCOTUS for the right to spout whatever lies they want, and the right to fire any reporter who objects to the re-editing of a report to completely change the meaning.

Now, those two examples -should- be news, in and of themselves...but you only seem to hear about them on comedy shows.

Yesterday, SCOTUS said that the ruling applies to "Catholic" entities, too.

So absolutely ZERO birth control if you work for a corporation owned by a couple of devout Roman Catholics.

I knew this was coming. I thought it would take a lawsuit to get it extended to the Catholics.

Instead, SCOTUS wrote a letter yesterday.

"Progressives are the ones who want to control everyone's speech."

Said absolutely zero of the liberals on SCOTUS today.

What a maroon.

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

Since it is a domestic violence call, the judge would have to look at precedent cases. There are countless state level cases that uphold a warrant-less entry in the case of possible violence to someone in the home, visible or not. Brigham City v. Stuart is one that went to SCOTUS and further cemented the situation.

Based on the that sadly broad ruling, if a 911 call is made claiming even possible domestic violence, police can force entry into a residence to see if everyone is ok. I don't like it or agree with it, but they will walk on any charges from the entry.

I do think they could call the immediate use of a taser into question, however.

An interesting discussion on both sides. I am in no way an Obama apologist [dft is not either], but I have to take exception to one statement.

@NobleOne: "I don't vote for the lesser evil."
Does that mean that you are okay with the Greater evil winning?

We already know that the GOP is using every dirty trick in the book; voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, voter registration fraud, and downright voter fraud. If the election is even close they will take it to the United States Supreme Court (brought to you by Koch Ind.). The only way we can avoid this type of crap winning is if Obama wins by a very substantial margin.

If Obama wins--and you didn't vote for him--you can say, "I didn't vote for him--I stayed idealogically pure." What will you say--if Romney wins--as we watch him dismantle SS and Medicare, women are forced into back-alley, coathanger abortions, the disparity between rich and poor is more firmly entrenched and codified, the SCOTUS is even more packed with justices bought and payed for by big money, equal rights for LBGT and minorities are rescinded, and another war of distraction is waged?

A vote for Obama means that we may be able to force him into better positions and acts. Not voting means you are fine with the GOP stealing elections and running this country into the hell of a right-wing, Christianist theocracy.

I really wish we could have an election where I didn't have to hope against one side simply because they're trying to buy the election. Thanks, SCOTUS. Thanks a lot.

Remember, the SCOTUS upheld this atrocious provision of the Patriot Act in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. "Material support for terrorism" is what got others into jail for considerably less than what these open advocates of MEK are doing.

This guy, for instance, was sentenced to 69 months in prison for "providing satellite television services to Hezbollah’s television station, Al Manar".

But hey, if the Israelis are working with them, they can't be terrorists, right? Israel and state-sponsored terrorism? Nah, never.

Besides, members of MEK were trained by JSOC at the Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site. So if they were terrorists, the US would be equally guilty of state-sponsored terrorism. Luckily though, being on the State Department's terrorist watch list doesn't make you a terrorist by US definition.

Opposition to US interests makes you a terrorist. Support of WikiLeaks makes you a terrorist.

Apparently he's made a half-hearted apology:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-apologizes-after-incorrectly-predicting-scotus-would-strike-down-mandate/

"I’m not really sorry, but I am a man of my word, so I apologize for not factoring in the John Roberts situation. Truthfully, I never in a million years would thought the chief justice would go beyond the scope of the commerce clause to date and into taxation. I may be an idiot for not considering that."

Dude, they're not gonna hear repeated challenges to the same law. It's over. Go cry yourself to sleep if you have to, but it's time to accept reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.
>> ^heropsycho:
Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.

>> ^heropsycho:

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.