+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: This should make for an interesting circus (/Thread-This-should-make-for-an-interesting-circus)
This should make for an interesting circus - Griever - 05-09-2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/north-carolina-hb2-justice-department-deadline/index.html
good job gov, waste more time and money
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - fredtoast - 05-09-2016
Fewderal Government may be overstepping here. Under the law, transgender identity is not a protected class.
I look for the law to be changed, but right nw I think NC is within its rights to pass this law.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Belsnickel - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Fewderal Government may be overstepping here. Under the law, transgender identity is not a protected class.
I look for the law to be changed, but right nw I think NC is within its rights to pass this law.
Haven't there been court cases where they have said that the trans community was protected, though, because of the discrimination based on sex? I can't remember if that was an actual case or if it was just an opinion I had read from some legal scholar.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Griever - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 04:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Haven't there been court cases where they have said that the trans community was protected, though, because of the discrimination based on sex? I can't remember if that was an actual case or if it was just an opinion I had read from some legal scholar.
yeah i think the 4th circuit ruled it was protected technically
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Belsnickel - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 05:01 PM)Griever Wrote: yeah i think the 4th circuit ruled it was protected technically
That's right, it was last month. Forgot all about that. The crux of it being that discrimination of the trans community is discrimination based on sex and so they are protected. 4th Circuit covers NC, so this will be interesting for sure. Since their law applies outside of just education situations this will be a test of how the previous ruling is applied in a more broad setting.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - StLucieBengal - 05-09-2016
Dear lord. Get out of NC's business.
Feds have no reason to meddle. This is beyond stupid and a waste of time and money.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Griever - 05-10-2016
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/09/477316001/deadline-approaches-for-north-carolinas-response-on-lgbt-law
not shocking but the DOJ counter-sued
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Benton - 05-10-2016
(05-10-2016, 10:33 AM)Griever Wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/09/477316001/deadline-approaches-for-north-carolinas-response-on-lgbt-law
not shocking but the DOJ counter-sued
Soooo... we're going to spend millions (hundreds of millions?) suing ourselves and potentially costing that state billions in federal money, all because they needed a bogus bill they could get enough support on to pass the law preventing local districts from increasing minimum wages.
This is a golden example of why we need to completely do away with riders. An issue that didn't need "fixing," inspires hollow outrage among all the people completely unaffected by other people's bathroom habits, all so that the state and business owners could keep paying people $7.25.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Griever - 05-10-2016
(05-10-2016, 10:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Soooo... we're going to spend millions (hundreds of millions?) suing ourselves and potentially costing that state billions in federal money, all because they needed a bogus bill they could get enough support on to pass the law preventing local districts from increasing minimum wages.
This is a golden example of why we need to completely do away with riders. An issue that didn't need "fixing," inspires hollow outrage among all the people completely unaffected by other people's bathroom habits, all so that the state and business owners could keep paying people $7.25.
bingo
they added the bathroom stuff to take the brunt of the attention, so no one focuses on the really shitty stuff that is in the bill
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - bfine32 - 05-10-2016
What I have been told about this is sort of a combination of what Fred and matt have both said. Congress is not doing it's job. We are working of of legislation that is 52 years old and allowing the courts to determine the law, but in essiance they are making law. Congress needs to address the law.
That was thc basis of the decent on the SSM stance by SCOTUS
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - StLucieBengal - 05-11-2016
(05-10-2016, 12:13 PM)Ibfine32 Wrote: What I have been told about this is sort of a combination of what Fred and matt have both said. Congress is not doing it's job. We are working of of legislation that is 52 years old and allowing the courts to determine the law, but in essiance they are making law. Congress needs to address the law.
That was thc basis of the decent on the SSM stance by SCOTUS
We have a serious issue in the courts. This needs to be stopped as a way to work around congress.
Term limits for the Supreme Court is appropriate. 16-20 years is long enough.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Griever - 05-17-2016
HB 1078
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015&DocNum=7158&SeqNum=0
if pat is smart, he'll sign this, but i doubt he will
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - BengalHawk62 - 05-17-2016
(05-11-2016, 01:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have a serious issue in the courts. This needs to be stopped as a way to work around congress.
Term limits for the Supreme Court is appropriate. 16-20 years is long enough.
Why stop with the Supreme Court? Every member in Congress should have term limits. 8 years is long enough.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - PhilHos - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 01:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Why stop with the Supreme Court? Every member in Congress should have term limits. 8 years is long enough.
Agreed, but how about making the Supreme Court be an elected position? Considering that it's politicized and everyone already worries about the biases of those appointed, let's just add their positions to our elections (when necessary). I'm not gung ho in favor of this, but I do not like how politicized the SC has become. Instead of just focusing on the law and the constitutionality of enacted laws, now it's about liberal or conservative ideologies being enacted or maintained.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - fredtoast - 05-19-2016
(05-11-2016, 01:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have a serious issue in the courts. This needs to be stopped as a way to work around congress.
Actually the checks and balances in our system is what makes it work so well.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - fredtoast - 05-19-2016
Term limits does nothing to solve any of the problems we have in our government right now. The system would still be messed up even with a higher turnover rate.
And if you do finally find a good elected official in public service she would be forced out by term limits.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Benton - 05-19-2016
(05-17-2016, 01:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Agreed, but how about making the Supreme Court be an elected position?
Because you could end up with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as your presumptive Supreme Court Justice.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - PhilHos - 05-19-2016
(05-19-2016, 11:04 AM)Benton Wrote: Because you could end up with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as your presumptive Supreme Court Justice.
And who says we haven't already?
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - Benton - 05-19-2016
(05-19-2016, 11:31 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And who says we haven't already?
As far as I know, every justice studied the law (I think you could say they all had law degrees as one of them received his later because he graduated early). There is no Constitutional requirement that a justice be a judge or a lawyer, but so far they have been. Which excludes Trumps.
If they were elected, it would be much easier to have someone with no legal experience, provided they can raise enough money to run for office.
RE: This should make for an interesting circus - PhilHos - 05-19-2016
(05-19-2016, 12:10 PM)Benton Wrote: As far as I know, every justice studied the law (I think you could say they all had law degrees as one of them received his later because he graduated early). There is no Constitutional requirement that a justice be a judge or a lawyer, but so far they have been. Which excludes Trumps.
If they were elected, it would be much easier to have someone with no legal experience, provided they can raise enough money to run for office.
You know there ARE stipulations for people running for elected office, right? For example, the president has to be a natural-born US citizen over the age of 35 (I think). Well, just add stipulations of having a law degree and/or have practiced law for so many years before being able to run for an open SC Justice position.