It is also very sad if those people at the hotel lose their jobs. That is not going to help Tunisia avoid the fate of other countries in the benighted Middle East.
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Holiday refund spend options narrowing.
Is Skeg Vegas safe?
May I suggest Cumbria? Glorious countryside, fantastic food, beautiful beaches on the West Coast and who needs all that sun, anyway?!
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Holiday refund spend options narrowing.
Is Skeg Vegas safe?
May I suggest Cumbria? Glorious countryside, fantastic food, beautiful beaches on the West Coast and who needs all that sun, anyway?!
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.
At the heart of LIAMT's legal philosophy, I think, is a very strong objection to the idea of judges overriding the sovereignty of democratic States, be they SCOTUS, the ECHR, or the ECJ.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.
Yes it's a particularly specious argument given the amount of debate about the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. If that's your position then you can't simultaneously argue about the historical standing of gay marriage.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
The issue is whether gay marriage is objectively, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. The majority do not argue that it is.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What Loving decides is that a state cannot restrict the ambit of marriage at common law and/or attach criminal penalties for entering into such a marriage. Obergefell is not concerned with a restriction adopted by a state, since the majority accept that for the entirety of human history, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman. There is of course a strong political argument for changing that, but it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment. The majority's argument leads to the conclusion, inevitably, that there is a constitutional right to polygamy. Lawrence is an implied right to privacy case, prohibiting the attachment of criminal penalties to consenting homosexual activity. It has no bearing on marriage, which is by its nature public. You cannot add the results of cases together as if they were numbers, without looking at the basis on which they were decided.
No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.
At the heart of LIAMT's legal philosophy, I think, is a very strong objection to the idea of judges overriding the sovereignty of democratic States, be they SCOTUS, the ECHR, or the ECJ.
That's what happens in a Constitutional Democracy though. SCOTUS has the powers to override laws if they clash with the constitution - as SCOTUS did on interracial marriage before this.
Just briefly on Greece, I think the likely result of the referendum depends on how Tsipras plays it.
If he comes out and says "Vote down this vicious austerity, and we get to stay in the Euro even if we vote for No", then I think the vote will be a decisive 'no', and Grexit will swiftly follow.
Alternatively: "I know this is hard, and there is much that is difficult in front of us, but the best option for Greece is to vote 'no', and leave the Euro" means a narrow 'no', and Grexit.
Alternatively: "Austerity is terrible. But the package we have been offered means a dramatic reduction in our debts. It will be a difficult few years, but this is surely the right thing for Greece" results in a moderate win for 'yes'.
So far, he has described the package as "humiliating", which suggests he's not going for the third option. However, some SYRIZA officials this morning have been going around saying "if the debt write-off - in whatever form it is delivered - is meaningful, then we believe SYRIZA will be able to support the package."
It's hard to tell if this is a masterstroke by Tsipiras which will lead to concrete proposals on debt relief by the 5th. Or an act of lunacy which sees the country become a failed state.
Holiday refund spend options narrowing.
Is Skeg Vegas safe?
May I suggest Cumbria? Glorious countryside, fantastic food, beautiful beaches on the West Coast and who needs all that sun, anyway?!
Cornwall, best place in the world.
It has to be Cornwall or Isles of Scilly - Cumbria induces too much walking. However, the sandy beaches of Norfolk, especially when the wind is from the SW, are great.
Am operating (from my office window) a full size 'walking' and talking Dalek which is going along the promenade. Scares more grannies - than children who want their photos taken with it.
All part of encouraging more study of science in the area - also have lots of other SF beings which operate when an IR beam is cut by a pedestrian.
That's what happens in a Constitutional Democracy though. SCOTUS has the powers to override laws if they clash with the constitution - as SCOTUS did on interracial marriage before this.
No, they are inventing "rights" that the framers of the Constitution never imagined or provided for. It's being interpreted and used as a justification.
Thank whomever or whatever you like for the SCOTUS decision but don't look to the Constitution for any basis to it.
Comments
Am operating (from my office window) a full size 'walking' and talking Dalek which is going along the promenade. Scares more grannies - than children who want their photos taken with it.
All part of encouraging more study of science in the area - also have lots of other SF beings which operate when an IR beam is cut by a pedestrian.
No, they are inventing "rights" that the framers of the Constitution never imagined or provided for. It's being interpreted and used as a justification.
Thank whomever or whatever you like for the SCOTUS decision but don't look to the Constitution for any basis to it.