livendive 8 #26 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn the absence of a will, the state inherits everything. Huh?? Not to my recollection...although it's been quite a while since Mom died. The state WAS involved, but did NOT inherit - again, at least not to my recollection. I was referring to my theoretical situation, not the actual current state of affairs. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn the absence of a will, the state inherits everything. Huh?? Not to my recollection...although it's been quite a while since Mom died. The state WAS involved, but did NOT inherit - again, at least not to my recollection. I was referring to my theoretical situation, not the actual current state of affairs. Blues, Dave Gotcha...that makes more sense.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 November 9, 2006 QuoteNo, you don't...but if you want to be able to exercise the legal aspects of that commitment, you're going to have to jump through the hoops. Ok so you jump thru all the hoops.... and yet when your significant other dies... even though you did all the right things.. and you still can not get the benefits???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #29 November 9, 2006 QuoteIn the absence of a will, the state inherits everything. ARRGHH!! STOP!! WRONG!! No offense, Dave, but this is an oft-repeated MYTH that's like nails down a blackborad to me every time I hear it. If you have a will, your stuff passes to the beneficiaries named in your will. If you don't have a will, it's called dying "intestate", and your stuff passes to whoever your nearest surviving relatives may happen to be, in accordance with a specific formula as set by the particular state's inheritance and intestacy statutes. Only in those very rare cases where a person dies intestate and doesn't have a single living relative, no matter how remote, that can be located do the decedent's assets go to the state. And believe me, those instances are very rare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #30 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out? 7 out of 8 states told them to stick it up their ass. By them are you talking about proponents of gay marriage or those intolerant, bigotted, narrow-minded, uptight, fascist baaahstads? Yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn the absence of a will, the state inherits everything. ARRGHH!! STOP!! WRONG!! No offense, Dave, but this is an oft-repeated MYTH that's like nails down a blackborad to me every time I hear it. If you have a will, your stuff passes to the beneficiaries named in your will. If you don't have a will, it's called dying "intestate", and your stuff passes to whoever your nearest surviving relatives may happen to be, in accordance with a specific formula as set by the particular state's inheritance and intestacy statutes. Only in those very rare cases where a person dies intestate and doesn't have a single living relative, no matter how remote, that can be located do the decedent's assets go to the state. And believe me, those instances are very rare. Again, I didn't say that's how things ARE, I proposed it as a "how things could be". Per your post above, it sounds like things are already fine and don't need fixing, minus the references to marriage. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo, you don't...but if you want to be able to exercise the legal aspects of that commitment, you're going to have to jump through the hoops. Ok so you jump thru all the hoops.... and yet when your significant other dies... even though you did all the right things.. and you still can not get the benefits???? I'm sorry, Jeanne, but I'm not following - can you re-state and I'll pick it up tomorrow? I'm off shift, now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 November 10, 2006 QuoteI didn't say that's how things ARE, I proposed it as a "how things could be". Oh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 November 10, 2006 QuoteMCRI passed in Michigan...racial discrimination by the state has become illegal, despite the best efforts of many leftists! Whoohoooo! Now if only the rest of the nation would follow the lead of MI and CA... Also, several states voted to curb eminent domain abuses...very nice...again, I hope the rest of the nation follows suit. Oh well. Truth be told, racial discrimination for collegiate admission or employment doesn't really affect too many people, but it is quite infuriating when it does occur. Kudos for MI for making it unconstitutional. Don't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" QuoteOh well. Truth be told, racial discrimination for collegiate admission or employment doesn't really affect too many people, but it is quite infuriating when it does occur. Kudos for MI for making it unconstitutional. I haven't read the text of the law, so does it quash AA or support it? Furthermore, the states can enact all the laws they want, the Supreme Court ultimately wins. W8ith that, I am for the abolition of the current AA and for the quashing of eminent domain as the SCOTUS has ruled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteI heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out? 7 out of 8 states told them to stick it up their ass. ....isn't that fitting? My state told em to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBesides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too. And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs? The same as those couples who have the blessing of a church on their relationship. Marriage is a relious institution, and therefore should remain outside the domain of governmental intrusion. Blues, Dave Oh contrare, look at your local superior court and tell me how religious it is. You have to get a marriage license and when you inevitably divorce, a government court handles it. Benefits from a corp or rights of survivorship come via a court, so the marriage being a churchy thing is only limited to the nuptuals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteReligious institution? When did judges, justices of the peace and ship captains become members of the clergy? Like it or not, marriage IS a legal concept. As it is right now, I see people wanting the advantages (tax breaks, insurance, inheritance) without having to risk the disadvantages (divorce). Take away those advantages and watch the uproar over it suddenly die. OK, I'll compromise and say that marriage is a religious institution that's become entwined in our legal system. But it is still primarily religious in nature...why else would the majority of them happen in churches and/or be presided over by clergy? I *totally* agree with the sentence I bolded. I think the best thing would be for our government to step completely out of marriage. No recognition of what is or isn't a marriage, no tax breaks, inheritance breaks, divorce procedures...no MENTION of "marriage" in federal law. Make it so those people who wish to enter into marriage can enter into a legally binding contract that can be adjudicated by the courts just like business contracts. Similarly, people could go through a marriage ceremony without such a contract. Blues, Dave I would say it was 99% religious and has now morphed into 99% governmental. Since the corps use it as a barometer as to who gets how much benefit, they have overtaken with force the institution of marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 November 10, 2006 QuoteDon't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" Where do you get this stuff? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" Where do you get this stuff? I read the paper, watch the news, play on the net. Again, you haven't stated which way the law reads. At first it sounded as if you were saying they uphelp AA, then it sounded the other way - you posted no citation. I can provide the SCOTUS decision or an article about it, it was quite huge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" Where do you get this stuff? I read the paper, watch the news, play on the net. Again, you haven't stated which way the law reads. At first it sounded as if you were saying they uphelp AA, then it sounded the other way - you posted no citation. I think you have me confused with another poster. QuoteI can provide the SCOTUS decision or an article about it, it was quite huge. Please do. I'm aware of the 2003 AA cases, but your claims sound quite different than their outcome. Regarding the SCOTUS make up. Prior to the changes last year, it was generally thought the leanings of the Justices was four conservatives, four liberals and O'Connor in the middle. Souter and Stevens (both appointed by Republicans) are considered to lean left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" Where do you get this stuff? http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html QuoteWhen the Law School denied admission to petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U. S. C. §1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. The District Court found the Law School's use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a "potential 'plus' factor" and because the Law School's program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion. 3.8 and 161 is huge. QuoteThe Court also holds that racial discrimination in admissions should be given another 25 years before it is deemed no longer narrowly tailored to the Law School's fabricated compelling state interest. Ante, at 30. While I agree that in 25 years the practices of the Law School will be illegal, they are, for the reasons I have given, illegal now. The majority does not and cannot rest its time limitation on any evidence that the gap in credentials between black and white students is shrinking or will be gone in that timeframe.13 And then this: QuoteIn recent years there has been virtually no change, for example, in the proportion of law school applicants with LSAT scores of 165 and higher who are black. In 1993 blacks constituted 1.1% of law school applicants in that score range, though they represented 11.1% of all applicants. Being black in leiu of being smart???? WTF? I'm liberal, do you think I support AA? Calling me a supporter of AA as we know all liberals are is like calling you a sexual deviant, as we know all Republicans are. All I'm saying is that this mentality that all or most libs are for AA is whack. It is YOUR SCOTUS that made that decision. Now if it were a 1960's SCOTUS under Warren, would it be different? No. This is rich whitey making sure that dessention is maintained amongst the masses. It's not about brotha love or any of that, it's simply rich whitey trying to keep some level of peace without really addressing the real problems, and the dessention is a bonus that way you and me can fight over race rather than class, which is the real issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDon't make it a leftist thing, there slick, this probably stemmed from the U of M case about 6 years ago where the SCOTUS on a 7-2 decision upheld the lower courts for their rubber stamping of AA. And they also threw in a 25 year rubber stamp in the language. BTW, the composition of the SCOTUS is 7 Repub and 2 Dem., so how is it the fault of the libbies? They had 2 votes which were for AA in that case, but the other 5 who voted for it, including the Chief Justice at that time went for it too. Can you say, "out of gas?" Where do you get this stuff? I read the paper, watch the news, play on the net. Again, you haven't stated which way the law reads. At first it sounded as if you were saying they uphelp AA, then it sounded the other way - you posted no citation. I think you have me confused with another poster. QuoteI can provide the SCOTUS decision or an article about it, it was quite huge. Please do. I'm aware of the 2003 AA cases, but your claims sound quite different than their outcome. Regarding the SCOTUS make up. Prior to the changes last year, it was generally thought the leanings of the Justices was four conservatives, four liberals and O'Connor in the middle. Souter and Stevens (both appointed by Republicans) are considered to lean left. Conservatives will try to water-down the conservatism of the SCOTUS, but the truth is that 7 of the 9 are Republican appointees and that has been the construction for probably 2 decades, certainly 1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 November 10, 2006 QuoteBeing black in leiu of being smart???? WTF? I'm liberal, do you think I support AA? Calling me a supporter of AA as we know all liberals are is like calling you a sexual deviant, as we know all Republicans are. What is all this about? QuoteAgain, you haven't stated which way the law reads. At first it sounded as if you were saying they uphelp AA, then it sounded the other way - you posted no citation. And this? WTF? What 7-2 decision are you talking about? There were 2 UM cases I know about. In one they voted against "points based on race" AA practices, by a vote of 6-3. In another, they allowed some level of AA, by a vote of 5-4. Lastly, do really think many legal scholars consider Souter and Stevens to be conservative? Appointed by Republicans? Yes. Conservative? Let's look at their records. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #44 November 10, 2006 You guys have much too much time on your hands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 November 10, 2006 QuoteYou guys have much too much time on your hands. I don't think I like your tone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #46 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou guys have much too much time on your hands. I don't think I like your tone. Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting the obligatory Besides, I didn't say what I think you guys really have in your hands. Oh, yeah: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 November 10, 2006 Andy, I was being completely sarcastic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
