Andy9o8

Canadian men with girlie names.

Frankly, my personal answer is Yes.

Gibralter? Malvinas, anyone? Northern Ireland? gee, this is fun. no wait, it's dumb. or is that "daft"? whatever In the last referendum out of the entire population only one person in the Falkands wanted to become part of Argentina everyone else voted to be British. As for Northern Ireland they also have a democratic process where if the majority voted to leave the UK (Much like Scotland will be voting on later this year) they can do so. So both British. Yes, the Brits have used that talking point before. On paper, it's a successful strategy: colonize or occupy someplace, move as many Brits (or Protestants, as the case may be) in as possible, hang on long enough to let The Loyalists reproduce a couple of generations, and then hold a "referendum" in which The Loyalists will numerically prevail. How clever.

IMPO, the court's ruling was legally correct; and if I was an appellate court judge, I would vote to sustain the ruling. See the language I highlighted in bold above. Ms. Cohen states the correct perspective of the law. Anyone versed in family law knows that "the best interests of the child" is the first and foremost consideration, before and above anything else. A child is legally entitled to support from his parents. The Kansas statute is designed to protect children from their parents trying to contract-away their legal obligation of support without adequate evidence. This is not, as the donor's lawyers capably argue, a mere case of the state relying on a narrow construction of semantics. It is a matter of a statutorily-prescribed minimum threshold of evidence (procedure performed & documented by a physician) to absolve the donor of his legal obligation of support; and that threshold is designed to protect the welfare of children who have no say in the deal. Thus, the statute really MUST be adhered to strictly. The court appropriately ruled as such. A cautionary tale indeed: do your homework first, and do things the right way, or bear the harsh consequences of your lack of due diligence.

Gibralter? Malvinas, anyone? Northern Ireland? gee, this is fun. no wait, it's dumb. or is that "daft"? whatever

Technically, a bit more freedom of speech and press (under both civil and criminal law) in the US (aside from porno laws in the US) than in the UK; though as a practical matter the difference is so little the average person would probably never notice it.

Hmph. Curling.

Dangling participles.

Nice Dodge

Hey, I get it! In the UK, they don't spank monkeys, they spank squirrels! It actually does make sense.

To state the obvious, semantics plays a leading role in that case because there's a written statute to consider; and Rule #1 of basic statutory construction (interpretation) is: first and foremost, look at the plain language of the statute. So everyone has to examine whether this specific scenario does or does not fall within the scope of the statute; and I really can't imagine how that can be done in that case without resorting to some amount of definitional semantics. Tragic case, all around.

This whole discussion puts the cart before the horse. Can the existence of gays be scientifically proven? You can't answer that, can you?

I think too much emphasis is being devoted by each side re: whether abortion is or is not a health care issue. The debate is being bogged down on definitional semantics, to the detriment of the policy discussion. As a professional advocate, I can think of several persuasive arguments on each side of that sub-debate over definition. But to my view, it doesn't advance the discussion; it just sets the parameters of each side's intransigence.

Some people have had thumbs amputated in accidents. Why do you hate the disabled?

LOL, you really think we didn't already Google the story to see that for ourselves? All of the dozens of mainstream news sources reported it, including the perp's name, but not a single one used "Muslim" in either the headline or story text. As the Google results reflect, the "Muslim" headlines were only used, and repeated, in the Whackosphere pieces spread around by racist motherfuckers. That they have infected this Forum, too, is sad, but not surprising.

Because, for some, it really is. In part, it's because many poorer people living in inner-urban areas who don't drive and rely on public transportation are part of an economic sub-group who often don't have any need for a government-issued photo ID. Oftentimes, by the time they're adults, the raised-stamp birth certificate that had been given to their mother when they were born has long since been lost; and frequently they don't have, for example, utility bills in their own names. So first (to get a govt photo ID) they have to jump through hoops to get the "acceptable" documents to support their identification and place of residence. Next, they have to take the time to take public transportation well out of their neighborhood down to (usually) a DMV or similar office. So even if the govt photo IDs are offered for free, the hassles to get one are sufficient to make a lot of folks in this sub-group to say the hell with it and not bother. The end result is their effective disenfranchisement. And, not coincidentally, most of this sub-group historically tends to trend Democratic. Cry me a river. Going to the DMV or other govt office is a pain in the rear for everyone. To me, saying it's not worth it to get an ID to vote is no different than saying it's not worth it to vote. Choosing not to register, not to get an absentee ballot, not to get an ID (if required), or any other choice is NOT the same as disenfranchisement. I didn't vote in the last election because I chose to travel on short notice just before election day and hadn't gotten an absentee in advance. I wasn't disenfranchised; I chose not to participate. Big difference. Having your registration morph into a non-registration, or having the process of registering so user-unfriendly that it acts as a practical deterrent, most definitely IS disenfranchisement. In large part, that's the essence of the federal court's ruling. As I said above, since you don't agree, by all means seek leave to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the appellate court. "Cry me a river" didn't work with the trial court judge, maybe it will work with the appellate court.

I agree that going the standard route - writing to the office-holders - doesn't seem like it would have much effect. But still contact ALL of them, and not just with a generic e0mail or snail mail. Put a group together, and get your butts down to their local branch offices. FWIW, both of your US Senators and one of your House Representatives are Democrats, so some of their staffers might be sympathetic to you. You should also lobby every state senator and state House representative your state has, as well as every local politician you can think of. "Big Money" tends to be less pervasive at the local politics level (so local pols might be a bit more independent); and local pols love to be big fish in small ponds, so you never know in whom you might find an ally. Also, Social media is not an end, it is one of many means. Put together a grass-roots organization, but move from the social media to the in-person involvement. Pound the pavement and work the PHONES (not just electronic communications; talk to people LIVE) to put together your organization. Finally, get the news media involved - both local and national. For example, once you've got a sizeable group of people together, organize a good ol' fashioned demonstration. Hold a news conference at the event. Give the news media advance notice of the demonstration so that they will cover it (but not too far in advance, or someone might drop a dime to the cops, who will try to squelch the demonstration "to preserve public order", etc.). In this day of 24-hour news cycles, where "Feed me!" is their Job Number One, you'd be surprised how much outlets like CNN and NBCnews (the former MSNBC) love to pick up local or state-wide stories like this and take them national. (Don't waste your time with FoxNews. They're not just in bed with the enemy, they ARE the enemy, and they at first will ignore you, and later they will try to demonize you.) Blessings and good luck.

No, you don't. If anything, you're cherry-picking to try to score a debate point. Weak.

That's a pity. Keeping it optional allows parents to decline the vaccination for their children on the rationalization that such vaccinations either are unnecessary because their kids would never be sexually active before marriage, and/or that administering the vaccination might promote premarital promiscuity. The end result would be an increase in cancer in women and genital warts in men. Making it mandatory drastically reduces the opportunity for this sad dynamic. Sometimes, as in the example of public health, it really is proper for government to step in and protect juveniles from the ignorance of their parents.

You're 100% right, as to all points. The longer version would take this to Speaker's Corner.

Ha - - No . . . she's reading it over my shoulder. Then she's a keeper.

Is Obama "Obamacare" it seems he is pretty far removed from it, or at least wants to be. I should have said ACA . . . would that make you feel better about your messiah? No. The thread has nothing to do with ACA except in your zeal to play Six Degrees of Separation so you can rationalize getting a bash in.

Seriously, Clint, not every thread subject is an opportunity to invoke "Obama". You really dislike him; we get it. But look at the rest of the thread. Nobody's going to pay attention.

Because, for some, it really is. In part, it's because many poorer people living in inner-urban areas who don't drive and rely on public transportation are part of an economic sub-group who often don't have any need for a government-issued photo ID. Oftentimes, by the time they're adults, the raised-stamp birth certificate that had been given to their mother when they were born has long since been lost; and frequently they don't have, for example, utility bills in their own names. So first (to get a govt photo ID) they have to jump through hoops to get the "acceptable" documents to support their identification and place of residence. Next, they have to take the time to take public transportation well out of their neighborhood down to (usually) a DMV or similar office. So even if the govt photo IDs are offered for free, the hassles to get one are sufficient to make a lot of folks in this sub-group to say the hell with it and not bother. The end result is their effective disenfranchisement. And, not coincidentally, most of this sub-group historically tends to trend Democratic. The Republicans know all this; this is the REAL reason why they're doing it, and the REAL effect of having such laws in place IN THIS CONTEXT. The rationalization for it is quite logical - as you've reasonably pointed out - but in truth it's simply a facade. (In Legalese, it's often referred-to as a "pretext".) Well, this judge is saying, "I know it, too, and I'm not letting you get away with it."

As said above a few times now, there was no genuine problem to be solved. It was a political ploy, solely a political ploy, with genuine consequences to the electorate. The reason, even if supportable in logic is but an after-the-fact rationalization. That's essentially the reason why some judges, such as the Federal judge in PA, see fit to overturn such laws: because the judges are willing to cut through the bullshit. Likely this ruling will be appealed, at least partly based on the argument you state. By all means, seek leave to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the appellate court.