Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
A tangent, but I can't help myself - Elizabeth II was the greatest public servant ever? Seriously?
I think you are right, she wasn’t.
Worthy of a thread in its own right, I suspect. First, one must evaluate and define what are the qualities of a 'great' public servant?
Anyway, the latest rants on Truth Social just show him increasingly unhinged. And this is an archetypal example of the genre. I am sure there will be 22nd century PhD's written on his ramblings and what they say about our time period.
In terms of this election, a couple of things are clear. It will have no meaningful effect on his supporters. They agree with him and worship him anyway. In terms of anyone who sees him, they will organise and vote against him as they did in 2000. So one could conclude that his descent into further madness* is of no consequence. But I don't think that's true. Because of turnout.
The USA has been a struggling democracy for a long time. Trump is the natural endpoint of that struggle. We can talk about politicization of the judiciary, the power of big (BIG!) money, etc. etc. but the lack of turnout is shocking and long-standing. In this context, it's not so much about convincing people who previously voted for the other guy to vote for you, it's about convincing your voters to come out and convincing independents and undecideds to support you too. And bother to vote. Biden remains (unfairly**) unpopular. This is a problem. He does not generally excite voters and simplistic voting decisions based on only i.e. gas prices don't favour him. However, if people are scared enough of the other guy then they will turn out. If the Democrats can frame the election as saving America from Trump - Biden himself can't say that but surrogates can - then the independent turnout shoots up. This is not political hyperbole, it's objective reality. There is some good evidence this happened in 2020 and in multiple special-elections since where the Dems consistently out-perform their polling and other data.*** In this context, Trump showing himself to be what he really is, is a big deal for the election. His 'Truths' are not vote-losers but they are vote-winners for the other guy.
AFZ
*By madness, I mean petulance, childishness and a detachment from reality. Whether it is mental illness is not for me to say but his narcissism and disinterest in truth and facts is laid bare by his own words and actions
**By any objective measure, Biden has done incredibly well despite a hostile House and the slimmest majority in the Senate which means that the Repubs can and have blocked almost everything by the weird modern incarnation of the Filibuster
***Overturning of Roe is a factor here too.
A tangent, but I can't help myself - Elizabeth II was the greatest public servant ever? Seriously?
I think you are right, she wasn’t.
Worthy of a thread in its own right, I suspect. First, one must evaluate and define what are the qualities of a 'great' public servant?
And even then, I don’t know of any way to determine the “greatest public servant ever.” Surely that can never be more than a matter of personal opinion.
A tangent, but I can't help myself - Elizabeth II was the greatest public servant ever? Seriously?
I think you are right, she wasn’t.
Worthy of a thread in its own right, I suspect. First, one must evaluate and define what are the qualities of a 'great' public servant?
I think it's clear that her late Majesty spent her whole life doggedly doing her duty, as she saw it, to her people. That certainly makes her a devoted public servant.
Greatest? I'm not really sure how to define or quantify greatness.
Biden remains (unfairly**) unpopular. This is a problem. He does not generally excite voters and simplistic voting decisions based on only i.e. gas prices don't favour him.
It is difficult for an observer to know how much of Biden's achievements as president are attributable to him as an individual vs how much would have been achieved by any generic Democrat given the same conditions. In the speeches he gives, Biden comes over as rather doddering and past it. Perhaps Biden is uniquely qualified to do deals and make things happen behind closed doors, but it's hard to show actual evidence of that.
Commentators in the Guardian imply that Biden has shown a remarkable talent for making a left wing political agenda look dull and centrist. Whether that is true or not I wouldn't know; if it is true I don't know whether it's a good thing.
More so than - to take some random examples - Ghandi, MLK, Edward Jenner, Stanislav Petrov or Alfred the Great ?
In her way as they were in theirs. If one broadens the definition. I see public service defined more narrowly. There's no comparison really. Gandhi, Dr. King, Lincoln and all the others were all more than and other than mere public servants. But she was the greatest in that narrow even shallow definition. The most dutiful. Trump proudly wears his bowels on the outside, dragging in the gutter.
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Commentators in the Guardian imply that Biden has shown a remarkable talent for making a left wing political agenda look dull and centrist. Whether that is true or not I wouldn't know; if it is true I don't know whether it's a good thing.
I would say that Biden is centre left. He is left wing because of the way politics is done in the US. Over here he would not be left wing. That said some of the right of the Conservative Party have called Rishi Sunak Socialist.
It's true that mainstream politics in the States are somewhere to the right of UK politics, although one can't do a straight comparison. Obamacare gives a far greater role to the private sector than anything the current Tory Party are publically proposing for the NHS but I wouldn't say that therefore Obama was to the right of Sunak.
Biden's policies have as I understand it been somewhere to the left of both Clinton and Obama - the left wing of his party such as Ocasio-Cortez seem to be not displeased with him.
It's true that mainstream politics in the States are somewhere to the right of UK politics, although one can't do a straight comparison. Obamacare gives a far greater role to the private sector than anything the current Tory Party are publically proposing for the NHS but I wouldn't say that therefore Obama was to the right of Sunak.
Biden's policies have as I understand it been somewhere to the left of both Clinton and Obama - the left wing of his party such as Ocasio-Cortez seem to be not displeased with him.
Obama had to work within the system that exists. The Cons do too. They are eating the NHS from the inside.
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Turnout, turnout, turnout.
Well, in this case, I think the arguments against the likelihood of vote-switching apply also apply to turnout. I'm not seeing alot of Category 2 people who are still sanguine enough about Trump's vulgarity, but will be jolted to the polls by "ROT IN HELL MERRY CHRISTMAS".
(And all this is assuming that people a) interpret "ROT IN HELL" as actual blasphemy, rather than just an expression, and b) are still thinking about the issue by next November.)
Trump's 'Christmas Message': how can anyone read this atuff and fail to see the ravings of a madman? (Sorry, forgot to post this, a bit late now.)
Remember Rob Ford, the ranting-cokehead mayor of Toronto? In the build-up to his victory, Canadian progressives were gleefully posting videos of his unhinged rantings to YouTube etc.
After he won, I remember one progressive saying that maybe it wasn't such a great idea to draw attention to Ford's maniacal babbling, because some people apparently like that sort of thing.
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Turnout, turnout, turnout.
Well, in this case, I think the arguments against the likelihood of vote-switching apply also apply to turnout. I'm not seeing alot of Category 2 people who are still sanguine enough about Trump's vulgarity, but will be jolted to the polls by "ROT IN HELL MERRY CHRISTMAS".
(And all this is assuming that people a) interpret "ROT IN HELL" as actual blasphemy, rather than just an expression, and b) are still thinking about the issue by next November.)
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Turnout, turnout, turnout.
Well, in this case, I think the arguments against the likelihood of vote-switching apply also apply to turnout. I'm not seeing alot of Category 2 people who are still sanguine enough about Trump's vulgarity, but will be jolted to the polls by "ROT IN HELL MERRY CHRISTMAS".
(And all this is assuming that people a) interpret "ROT IN HELL" as actual blasphemy, rather than just an expression, and b) are still thinking about the issue by next November.)
Not perceived as blasphemy but as mad rantings.
Oh, sure. But I was specifically commenting on the interview with the Democratic strategist who predicted Christians would turn against Trump over his "blasphemy".
Though the strategist qualified himself by saying "I'll probably be disappointed", which strikes me as a more passive way of saying "What I just predicted actually won't happen."
Well, at least one talking head is calling the rant blasphemy. But what does he know? He is a Democratic strategist.
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Turnout, turnout, turnout.
Well, in this case, I think the arguments against the likelihood of vote-switching apply also apply to turnout. I'm not seeing alot of Category 2 people who are still sanguine enough about Trump's vulgarity, but will be jolted to the polls by "ROT IN HELL MERRY CHRISTMAS".
(And all this is assuming that people a) interpret "ROT IN HELL" as actual blasphemy, rather than just an expression, and b) are still thinking about the issue by next November.)
Not perceived as blasphemy but as mad rantings.
Oh, sure. But I was specifically commenting on the interview with the Democratic strategist who predicted Christians would turn against Trump over his "blasphemy".
Though the strategist qualified himself by saying "I'll probably be disappointed", which strikes me as a more passive way of saying "What I just predicted actually won't happen."
Fair enough.
I think the strategist is mistaken. That section of 'Christianity' sold its soul a long time ago.
They are quite prepared to overlook any and all of Trump's horrendousness.
Yeah, Berlusconi correctly gambled that you cannot go too low. How should one engage with such evil clowns? Or compete with them in the marketplace? With compassion I suspect. By agreeing with their concerns, and the concerns of their base more like, demonstrating that you have far more to offer - the vast mountain of misappropriated commons treasure - the base. 'Hard working Americans' and citizens of other democracies. That the foul mouthed populists, sorry outspoken billionaire men of the people, don't go far enough by far. Apologize for them, on their behalf. They can't help it. They're all scared sick. Identify with their natural fear in their ignorance. And give them all the good news. There is more than enough to go round. And it doesn't have to come from income and purchase and excise and duty tax at all. Not just for 'Hard Working Americans' et al, but for their kids schools, for their elderly parents care, every frail family member in between. That they can have public luxury and private sufficiency.
Now, the Maine Secretary of State has decided to bar Trump from that state's primary ballot because of his involvement in the insurrection of 1/6/2021. Her decision here.
Time for the Supreme Court to reverse Colorado & Maine.
On what grounds?
They are strict textualists*
They have been extremely aggressive in protecting the States right to run elections**
AFZ
*hence the ridiculous defence of gun rights and overturning Roe v Wade
**on this basis they have gutted ghe Voting Rights Act and Chief Justice Roberts thinks that the answer to rigged votes is for voters to vote...
Time for the Supreme Court to reverse Colorado & Maine.
On what grounds?
They are strict textualists*
They have been extremely aggressive in protecting the States right to run elections**
AFZ
*hence the ridiculous defence of gun rights and overturning Roe v Wade
**on this basis they have gutted ghe Voting Rights Act and Chief Justice Roberts thinks that the answer to rigged votes is for voters to vote...
I mean, of course they will. But it's the how that's both fascinating and deeply worrying.
The decision of the Maine Secretary of State can’t be directly appealed to SCOTUS. The Trump campaign will have to challenge the decision in court, and then it’ll need to work its way up.
It’s likely SCOTUS will deal with the Colorado case, and maybe the Michigan case if those plaintiffs try to take it up, while the Maine case is still working its way through the lower courts.
Just as an aside, the Maine Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, was the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Maine for eight years.
Yeah, Berlusconi correctly gambled that you cannot go too low. How should one engage with such evil clowns? Or compete with them in the marketplace? With compassion I suspect. By agreeing with their concerns, and the concerns of their base more like, demonstrating that you have far more to offer - the vast mountain of misappropriated commons treasure - the base. 'Hard working Americans' and citizens of other democracies. That the foul mouthed populists, sorry outspoken billionaire men of the people, don't go far enough by far. Apologize for them, on their behalf. They can't help it. They're all scared sick. Identify with their natural fear in their ignorance. And give them all the good news. There is more than enough to go round. And it doesn't have to come from income and purchase and excise and duty tax at all. Not just for 'Hard Working Americans' et al, but for their kids schools, for their elderly parents care, every frail family member in between. That they can have public luxury and private sufficiency.
There's no "concerns" of the modern Republican base that Democrats can ethically satisfy. The only issues that energize the Republican base are white supremacy and misogyny/homophobia. They've been voting down improvements to schools, eldercare, and so forth since Reagan, because those things would also benefit Black people.
Also, Trump's people aren't the poorest of the poor. They're white non-college grads, but they tend to be small business owners like car dealers and plumbers. I'm sure they're feeling the economic pinch like everybody else right now, but their main issue is they want to keep feeling superior to Black people and immigrants.
I more than fear that you are right @Antisocial Alto. It's the same here. The politically active poor are more socialist. It occurred to me when trying to formulate that to which you responded that we need to be The Scarlet Pimpernel to Citizen Chauvelin, deliberately speak as if they had the best of intentions. But that won't work either. What about telling the truth objectively? Seriously. Telling the key electorate that they are racist, without judgement, without condemnation, as a fact, that they've been made complicit in that by the ruling class. You never hear that in the mainstream. And that it's not their fault, they are victims.
Some time ago, I think it was on an NPR News Roundup show, someone was asked why he thought the United States did not have a government sponsored universal health care plan like most other countries, he replied, essentially saying white Americans did not want their hard-earned tax money going to support the health care needs of the minorities in the country,
I think there is a lot of truth to how Trump won the 2016 election because of racist reactions to having the first black president for the previous eight years combined with the homophobic reaction to the same sex decision by a more progressive SCOTUS
It's a fundamental axiom of conservatism that the social order is just, natural, and reasonable. Those at the top of the heap deserve their privilege because of their innate superiority; it follows that those at the bottom must be the cause of their own suffering.
Most conservatives would agree with your first sentence @Timothy the Obscure. Many the first half of the second; less the second. Looks like one o' them 'irregular verbs'.
I would suggest that one factor which sets the US apart fom the UK and other countries os Europe is that for Americans WWII did not engage the country in a shared existential struggle in which all participated, willy-nilly. It was that, I think, that led to the election of a moderately socialist government in 1945 and led to the setting up of the NHS, overriding the BMA (which has been fighting back ever since - but that is a subject for another thread.)
Sorry to pstt again so quickly, but who would relish a renewed 'apecial relationship with a purged Trumpian, MAGA United States? An case of 'Dogs, know your Masfer!
Comments
Perfectly.[/quote]
Ah, we've found a being at last that Martin worships .....
I'm not sure if it'll lose him many votes(as the guy speculates), because the kind of theists who have stuck with Team MAGA through all the insanity prob'ly think that any politician or activist who opposes Trump IS, in fact, doomed to damnation.
What makes you think that?
I think you are right, she wasn’t.
Worthy of a thread in its own right, I suspect. First, one must evaluate and define what are the qualities of a 'great' public servant?
Anyway, the latest rants on Truth Social just show him increasingly unhinged. And this is an archetypal example of the genre. I am sure there will be 22nd century PhD's written on his ramblings and what they say about our time period.
In terms of this election, a couple of things are clear. It will have no meaningful effect on his supporters. They agree with him and worship him anyway. In terms of anyone who sees him, they will organise and vote against him as they did in 2000. So one could conclude that his descent into further madness* is of no consequence. But I don't think that's true. Because of turnout.
The USA has been a struggling democracy for a long time. Trump is the natural endpoint of that struggle. We can talk about politicization of the judiciary, the power of big (BIG!) money, etc. etc. but the lack of turnout is shocking and long-standing. In this context, it's not so much about convincing people who previously voted for the other guy to vote for you, it's about convincing your voters to come out and convincing independents and undecideds to support you too. And bother to vote. Biden remains (unfairly**) unpopular. This is a problem. He does not generally excite voters and simplistic voting decisions based on only i.e. gas prices don't favour him. However, if people are scared enough of the other guy then they will turn out. If the Democrats can frame the election as saving America from Trump - Biden himself can't say that but surrogates can - then the independent turnout shoots up. This is not political hyperbole, it's objective reality. There is some good evidence this happened in 2020 and in multiple special-elections since where the Dems consistently out-perform their polling and other data.*** In this context, Trump showing himself to be what he really is, is a big deal for the election. His 'Truths' are not vote-losers but they are vote-winners for the other guy.
AFZ
*By madness, I mean petulance, childishness and a detachment from reality. Whether it is mental illness is not for me to say but his narcissism and disinterest in truth and facts is laid bare by his own words and actions
**By any objective measure, Biden has done incredibly well despite a hostile House and the slimmest majority in the Senate which means that the Repubs can and have blocked almost everything by the weird modern incarnation of the Filibuster
***Overturning of Roe is a factor here too.
I think it's clear that her late Majesty spent her whole life doggedly doing her duty, as she saw it, to her people. That certainly makes her a devoted public servant.
Greatest? I'm not really sure how to define or quantify greatness.
It is difficult for an observer to know how much of Biden's achievements as president are attributable to him as an individual vs how much would have been achieved by any generic Democrat given the same conditions. In the speeches he gives, Biden comes over as rather doddering and past it. Perhaps Biden is uniquely qualified to do deals and make things happen behind closed doors, but it's hard to show actual evidence of that.
Her reign.
Her presidency.
My beholder's share of it.
A work of consummate duty.
YMMV.
In her way as they were in theirs. If one broadens the definition. I see public service defined more narrowly. There's no comparison really. Gandhi, Dr. King, Lincoln and all the others were all more than and other than mere public servants. But she was the greatest in that narrow even shallow definition. The most dutiful. Trump proudly wears his bowels on the outside, dragging in the gutter.
Huh?
In the quiet, unheroic, perennial way, yes. But they are true heroes all. Men... of the hour. Therefore Lincoln. And even Churchill...
I think it's meant to be a scatological metaphor. Trump's shit is on full display for all to see.
And among potential swing voters, I would guess that the gamut runs from...
- conservatives who think blasphemy is a sin, but wouldn't think Trump's comments qualify, because he doesn't directly insult sacred figures...
- moderates who think blasphemy is really just rude and offensive, like a zillion other rude and offensive things...
- a smattering of social liberals who think blasphemy is basically okay.
For obvious reasons, there's not likely to be many undecideds in the first and third group. And anyone inclined to abandon Trump over rude and offensive rhetoric already left years ago.
Turnout, turnout, turnout.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Biden's policies have as I understand it been somewhere to the left of both Clinton and Obama - the left wing of his party such as Ocasio-Cortez seem to be not displeased with him.
Obama had to work within the system that exists. The Cons do too. They are eating the NHS from the inside.
Removed duplicate quote. BroJames, Purgatory Host.
Well, in this case, I think the arguments against the likelihood of vote-switching apply also apply to turnout. I'm not seeing alot of Category 2 people who are still sanguine enough about Trump's vulgarity, but will be jolted to the polls by "ROT IN HELL MERRY CHRISTMAS".
(And all this is assuming that people a) interpret "ROT IN HELL" as actual blasphemy, rather than just an expression, and b) are still thinking about the issue by next November.)
Remember Rob Ford, the ranting-cokehead mayor of Toronto? In the build-up to his victory, Canadian progressives were gleefully posting videos of his unhinged rantings to YouTube etc.
After he won, I remember one progressive saying that maybe it wasn't such a great idea to draw attention to Ford's maniacal babbling, because some people apparently like that sort of thing.
Not perceived as blasphemy but as mad rantings.
Oh, sure. But I was specifically commenting on the interview with the Democratic strategist who predicted Christians would turn against Trump over his "blasphemy".
Though the strategist qualified himself by saying "I'll probably be disappointed", which strikes me as a more passive way of saying "What I just predicted actually won't happen."
Fair enough.
I think the strategist is mistaken. That section of 'Christianity' sold its soul a long time ago.
They are quite prepared to overlook any and all of Trump's horrendousness.
AFZ
On what grounds?
They are strict textualists*
They have been extremely aggressive in protecting the States right to run elections**
AFZ
*hence the ridiculous defence of gun rights and overturning Roe v Wade
**on this basis they have gutted ghe Voting Rights Act and Chief Justice Roberts thinks that the answer to rigged votes is for voters to vote...
I mean, of course they will. But it's the how that's both fascinating and deeply worrying.
AFZ
It’s likely SCOTUS will deal with the Colorado case, and maybe the Michigan case if those plaintiffs try to take it up, while the Maine case is still working its way through the lower courts.
There's no "concerns" of the modern Republican base that Democrats can ethically satisfy. The only issues that energize the Republican base are white supremacy and misogyny/homophobia. They've been voting down improvements to schools, eldercare, and so forth since Reagan, because those things would also benefit Black people.
Also, Trump's people aren't the poorest of the poor. They're white non-college grads, but they tend to be small business owners like car dealers and plumbers. I'm sure they're feeling the economic pinch like everybody else right now, but their main issue is they want to keep feeling superior to Black people and immigrants.
I think there is a lot of truth to how Trump won the 2016 election because of racist reactions to having the first black president for the previous eight years combined with the homophobic reaction to the same sex decision by a more progressive SCOTUS