Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

Yes, the ignorant suggestion that the baker would make a cake for them if they weren't gay is not surprising- isn't that the entire point of their discrimination?

 

And you're full of it.  Not about them as people?  You support discrimination based on immutable characteristics, as if something you're born with can be inherently immoral.  It's nonsensical.  And when you and your spouse inevitably are turned away from businesses based on your interracial relationship, I can't wait for you to come here and pontificate on how that discrimination is a good thing for American rights.  As we've seen, nothing gets a conservative to change their views faster than when their own policies are used against them.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

Yes, the ignorant suggestion that the baker would make a cake for them if they weren't gay is not surprising- isn't that the entire point of their discrimination?

 

And you're full of it.  Not about them as people?  You support discrimination based on immutable characteristics, as if something you're born with can be inherently immoral.

 

I think we've been down this road of you deliberately misunderstanding me in the past.  He did not discriminate based on their immutable characteristics.  He discriminated based on their choice to engage in conduct--a wedding between two people that his faith does not recognize as capable of being married--that is sinful according to his religion.  And yes, there are still people who deal with same-sex attraction and yet choose to marry partners of the opposite sex--as he would see it, who choose to do the right thing according to God's plan for men and women, a plan that the law can recognize or not but is beyond the capacity of any government to alter.

 

It's nonsensical.  And when you and your spouse inevitably are turned away from businesses based on your interracial relationship, I can't wait for you to come here and pontificate on how that discrimination is a good thing for American rights.  As we've seen, nothing gets a conservative to change their views faster than when their own policies are used against them.

 

I don't believe that's inevitable.  But if a putative vendor for my 10th anniversary party turns me away, I'll commit to you now that I won't make a federal case of it.  Obviously, things are different if we're talking about a hospital or hotel or AAA when I'm stuck (especially considering I have a contract with them for which I've already paid), or Wal-Mart, but there is no colorable First Amendment claim in those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5-4 as expected, usual conservative-progressive lineup.  I haven't read any of it yet but of note: no unified dissent.  One dissent by Breyer (with Kagan), one by Sotomayor (by Ginsburg).  None joined by all four on the left.  Will write more later when time permits (may or may not be today).

 

I can address the Korematsu argument now, though, because Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said this about it:

 

"The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.' 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)."

 

That's about as stick-a-fork-in-it as you can get.  That internal citation, incidentally, was from one of the dissenting opinions in the original Korematsu decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the decision, but I love Roberts.

 

Noted repeatedly throughout his majority opinion that he doesn't think it's sound policy, but that's not his call.

 

We want to fix this? Vote in Congressman that won't support an EO riddled with anti-muslim animus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

 

I am just wondering if merely mentioning an unrelated issue invalidates the precedent of the Korematsu case.  I understand the distinction in not letting people in vs. internment.  I'm just wondering if it has been overturned and if so, does it have an effect on the baby jails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We want to fix this? Vote in Congressman that won't support an EO riddled with anti-muslim animus. sit on a SCOTUS nomination for a year until after elections are held.

 

FTFY


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

 

I am just wondering if merely mentioning an unrelated issue invalidates the precedent of the Korematsu case.  I understand the distinction in not letting people in vs. internment.  I'm just wondering if it has been overturned and if so, does it have an effect on the baby jails.

 

Just in case you missed it, I edited my post above to include the express language from the majority opinion re: Korematsu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

Yes, the ignorant suggestion that the baker would make a cake for them if they weren't gay is not surprising- isn't that the entire point of their discrimination?

 

And you're full of it.  Not about them as people?  You support discrimination based on immutable characteristics, as if something you're born with can be inherently immoral.

 

I think we've been down this road of you deliberately misunderstanding me in the past.  He did not discriminate based on their immutable characteristics.  He discriminated based on their choice to engage in conduct--a wedding between two people that his faith does not recognize as capable of being married--that is sinful according to his religion.  And yes, there are still people who deal with same-sex attraction and yet choose to marry partners of the opposite sex--as he would see it, who choose to do the right thing according to God's plan for men and women, a plan that the law can recognize or not but is beyond the capacity of any government to alter.

 

It's nonsensical.  And when you and your spouse inevitably are turned away from businesses based on your interracial relationship, I can't wait for you to come here and pontificate on how that discrimination is a good thing for American rights.  As we've seen, nothing gets a conservative to change their views faster than when their own policies are used against them.

 

I don't believe that's inevitable.  But if a putative vendor for my 10th anniversary party turns me away, I'll commit to you now that I won't make a federal case of it.  Obviously, things are different if we're talking about a hospital or hotel or AAA when I'm stuck (especially considering I have a contract with them for which I've already paid), or Wal-Mart, but there is no colorable First Amendment claim in those circumstances.

 

I think you're being intentionally dishonest here.  Being gay is an immutable characteristic.  Therefore, who they end up in relationships with is determined by an inherent, immutable characteristic, exactly the same as a heterosexual person ending up with someone of the opposite sex is.  What you're ridiculously suggesting here is that the gay couple are at fault for entering into a homosexual relationship- which again, was inevitably determined by an inherent characteristic- rather than the baker being at fault for discriminating against them for it.  That's crazy.  It would be like discriminating against left-handed people for favoring their left hands, because of course that's going to happen.  It's there in the definition.  You can't realistically or honestly separate a homosexual from a homosexual relationship. 

 

The people who are pressured to ignore their basic biological attractions to satisfy religious beliefs need professional help, because that kind of deep denial is going to cause some serious problems- depression, violence, suicide, etc. 

 

It's inevitable if things keep progressing down the path that you support.  I enjoy the irony in which you arbitrarily apply the standards to which you would have a problem.  What's the difference between a small business discriminating against you and Wal-Mart? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-says-hell-repeal-and-replace-the-fourth-amendment-with-something-terrific-9238f5568313/

 

Gorsuch may no longer see the point of the “fence” that Katz erected around police, but he is still itching to tear it down. And he’s offered only the vaguest legal standard to replace it — a standard that no other member of the Court endorses.

 

Worse, Gorsuch concludes his opinion by suggesting that the best arguments for protecting the cell phone records at issue in Carpenter is an argument grounded in “positive law” — that is, an argument that such records are protected by state or federal law and not the Constitution itself.

 

When you strip away all the rhetoric, in other words, the world Neil Gorsuch wants looks a whole lot like Olmstead. State legislatures or Congress can give you privacy rights, but they can also take them away. And the Fourth Amendment will provide little backstop in a case like Carpenter.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

 

I am just wondering if merely mentioning an unrelated issue invalidates the precedent of the Korematsu case.  I understand the distinction in not letting people in vs. internment.  I'm just wondering if it has been overturned and if so, does it have an effect on the baby jails.

 

No, if a case is overturned, it will be explicit in the opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

Read my post again.  I don't think I said what you seem to think I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the decision, but I love Roberts.

 

Noted repeatedly throughout his majority opinion that he doesn't think it's sound policy, but that's not his call.

 

Unless I'm missing something, what he wrote was “We express no view on the soundness of the policy." That's very different than stating the policy is unsound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

Yes, the ignorant suggestion that the baker would make a cake for them if they weren't gay is not surprising- isn't that the entire point of their discrimination?

 

And you're full of it.  Not about them as people?  You support discrimination based on immutable characteristics, as if something you're born with can be inherently immoral.

 

I think we've been down this road of you deliberately misunderstanding me in the past.  He did not discriminate based on their immutable characteristics.  He discriminated based on their choice to engage in conduct--a wedding between two people that his faith does not recognize as capable of being married--that is sinful according to his religion.  And yes, there are still people who deal with same-sex attraction and yet choose to marry partners of the opposite sex--as he would see it, who choose to do the right thing according to God's plan for men and women, a plan that the law can recognize or not but is beyond the capacity of any government to alter.

 

It's nonsensical.  And when you and your spouse inevitably are turned away from businesses based on your interracial relationship, I can't wait for you to come here and pontificate on how that discrimination is a good thing for American rights.  As we've seen, nothing gets a conservative to change their views faster than when their own policies are used against them.

 

I don't believe that's inevitable.  But if a putative vendor for my 10th anniversary party turns me away, I'll commit to you now that I won't make a federal case of it.  Obviously, things are different if we're talking about a hospital or hotel or AAA when I'm stuck (especially considering I have a contract with them for which I've already paid), or Wal-Mart, but there is no colorable First Amendment claim in those circumstances.

 

I think you're being intentionally dishonest here.  Being gay is an immutable characteristic.  Therefore, who they end up in relationships with is determined by an inherent, immutable characteristic, exactly the same as a heterosexual person ending up with someone of the opposite sex is.  What you're ridiculously suggesting here is that the gay couple are at fault for entering into a homosexual relationship- which again, was inevitably determined by an inherent characteristic- rather than the baker being at fault for discriminating against them for it.  That's crazy.  It would be like discriminating against left-handed people for favoring their left hands, because of course that's going to happen.  It's there in the definition.  You can't realistically or honestly separate a homosexual from a homosexual relationship.

 

In what way could this exact structure of argument not be equally applied to pedophilia?  Or even to non-sexual mental states such as psychopathy?  Are those somehow less biologically innate than homosexual attraction?

 

It's inevitable if things keep progressing down the path that you support.  I enjoy the irony in which you arbitrarily apply the standards to which you would have a problem.  What's the difference between a small business discriminating against you and Wal-Mart?

 

Potentially a great many things.  Are you really arguing that there is no qualitative difference between a company with one owner-employee refusing to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding and a Wal-Mart refusing to sell laundry detergent?  That's the Sarah Huckabee Sanders treatment ("we don't serve your kind"), not the Masterpiece treatment ("we don't serve those occasions").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5-4 as expected, usual conservative-progressive lineup.  I haven't read any of it yet but of note: no unified dissent.  One dissent by Breyer (with Kagan), one by Sotomayor (by Ginsburg).  None joined by all four on the left.  Will write more later when time permits (may or may not be today).

 

I can address the Korematsu argument now, though, because Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said this about it:

 

"The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.' 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)."

 

That's about as stick-a-fork-in-it as you can get.  That internal citation, incidentally, was from one of the dissenting opinions in the original Korematsu decision.

 

This is not an official overturning of Korematsu.  Korematsu is not applicable to Trump v. Hawaii and was raised by the dissent.  Roberts states that Korematsu has been overruled in the court of history only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um ... how do you read the "was gravely wrong the day it was decided" language?  Or the "has no place in law under the Constitution" language?  Or even the "affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious" language (referring to the fact that Korematsu had not yet been overturned simply because the Court had never been presented with an opportunity to do so)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

 

Then wait for the Constitutional challenge to these ''internment camps'' you refer to regarding illegal migrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

 

Then wait for the Constitutional challenge to these ''internment camps'' you refer to regarding illegal migrants.

 

that was the gist of my initial question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um ... how do you read the "was gravely wrong the day it was decided" language?  Or the "has no place in law under the Constitution" language?  Or even the "affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious" language (referring to the fact that Korematsu had not yet been overturned simply because the Court had never been presented with an opportunity to do so)?

 

The Court has not been presented with an opportunity to formally overturn Korematsu.  Sorry, it's still ''good'' law.  The ''no place under the Consitution'' language is taken from a dissent related to Korematsu.  Sounds like Roberts would vote to overturn Korematsu directly, if afforded the opportunity.  Korematsu may have been overturned in the course of historical thinking, but not by the US Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

 

Then wait for the Constitutional challenge to these ''internment camps'' you refer to regarding illegal migrants.

 

that was the gist of my initial question

 

Well, given that the illegal Cuban migrants were held in detention camps in 1980, it appears to still be Constitutional.  Don't recall any hue and cry about them or any Constitutional challenges either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

 

Then wait for the Constitutional challenge to these ''internment camps'' you refer to regarding illegal migrants.

 

that was the gist of my initial question

 

Well, given that the illegal Cuban migrants were held in detention camps in 1980, it appears to still be Constitutional.  Don't recall any hue and cry about them or any Constitutional challenges either.

 

Well 1980, is chronolgically before today's ruing reversing Korematsu.  Try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for that update.  does this have any effect on the internment camps for migrants?  I'm sorry if my questions are pedestrian.  I am trying to navigate this.

 

Depends on the term ''migrant''; illegal or legal migrant.

It makes no difference constitutionally speaking.

 

Then wait for the Constitutional challenge to these ''internment camps'' you refer to regarding illegal migrants.

 

that was the gist of my initial question

 

Well, given that the illegal Cuban migrants were held in detention camps in 1980, it appears to still be Constitutional.  Don't recall any hue and cry about them or any Constitutional challenges either.

 

Well 1980, is chronolgically before today's ruing reversing Korematsu.  Try to keep up.

 

Well, then why ask the question at all if you think Korematsu was overturned.  It wasn't, but given your logic that it was, why ask about ''internment camps'' being permitted?

 

I see you didn't challenge Yabo713, the attorney, on his statement that Korematsu is not overturned.  Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you worried about my question?  I am legitimately wondering if today's decision affects the internment camps existing today.  I only saw Gramarye's analysis and I accepted it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you worried about my question?  I am legitimately wondering if today's decision affects the internment camps existing today.  I only saw Gramarye's analysis and I accepted it.

 

Worried?  You asked about ''internment camps''; they are not a part of this and will not affect them.  You're reasoning and application of Korematsu to the illegal migrant issue today is misplaced.

 

How would today's ruling being applicable to today's ''internment camps'' in your view?

 

You dismissed the 1980 Cuban detention camps as not an issue due to Trump v Hawaii, adding that I'm not keeping up. You answered your own question, at least in your mind, that the Cuban ''internment camps'' have been deemed illegal by Trump v. Hawaii and yet you persist in wondering how today's ruling affects today's ''internment camps''.  Not an appropriate term, but nonetheless, you're contradicting yourself.

 

Btw, Yabo the attorney said Korematsu was not overturned; I agree with that, yet you didn't challenge him, which is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

As for your ''political reasoning'', I haven't seen any; as for your ''legal reasoning'', seems that was turned into swiss cheese, far from not being able to poke holes in your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

I don't see the ''political analysis'' request in this post.  Can you point it out please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

 

I am just wondering if merely mentioning an unrelated issue invalidates the precedent of the Korematsu case.  I understand the distinction in not letting people in vs. internment.  I'm just wondering if it has been overturned and if so, does it have an effect on the baby jails.

 

Again, where's the ''political analysis'' aspect to this post?  You're asking for legal analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

I meant legal analysis but i was typing quickly on my phone.  My analysis is basic.  If the court overturned Korematsu, which Gramarye believes it does, then my rhetorical question is whether a legal challenge to the Trump children's internment camp could win based on a citation to today's decision. You began by challenging whether the migrants are legal or illegal which is irrelevant to the question.  You asked about a 1980 situation which is also irrelevant to the discussion of today.

 

If you interpretation is that, today's decision did not overturn Korematsu, then stop there.  That's your input and it is valid.  There is no need to delve into all of these other irrelevant issues.  The main disagreement is whether Korematsu was overturned.  If no, my question is moot.  If yes, i believe that the current internment camps would be unconstitutional.  Feel free to poke holes into the latter analysis using legal challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one of the lawyers help me out?  In the decision, it has been reported that the Court admonished Korematsu and stated that it is obviously illegal.  Does this statement effectively overturn Korematsu?

 

The origin of the people is the lynchpin here. Most of the Japanese interned were U.S. citizens.

 

Think of it as a power to regulate internal movement versus entrance from an external place.

 

I am just wondering if merely mentioning an unrelated issue invalidates the precedent of the Korematsu case.  I understand the distinction in not letting people in vs. internment.  I'm just wondering if it has been overturned and if so, does it have an effect on the baby jails.

 

Again, where's the ''political analysis'' aspect to this post?  You're asking for legal analysis.

 

You keep calling this out and claiming that I am looking for a legal analysis, which I am.  but you haven;t given legal analyses other than you think Korematsu is still valid law.  Everything else you've commented was political and not legal in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

While it's no conservative's favorite, "policy" is actually a legal analysis. Policy and politics are essentially the same.

 

There are five different types of legal arguments (based on text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy), and through myriad examples this book teaches law students, lawyers, and judges how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate each type of argument.

 

For the tenth time I'm going to recommend this book to lawyers and non-lawyers to better understand how Supreme Court Justices finesse their way toward arriving at a desired decision.

 

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611635881/The-Five-Types-of-Legal-Argument-Third-Edition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

I butted out of this argument today. Constitutional interpretation should not be results oriented. That's why the Judiciary is independent.

 

Incorrect results are the responsibility of legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

I butted out of this argument today. Constitutional interpretation should not be results oriented. That's why the Judiciary is independent.

 

Incorrect results are the responsibility of legislators.

 

This is so hard for so many of my friends to accept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

 

If we're arguing morals then we might as well address who's being hateful and who isn't.  In your scenario the baker isn't supplying the hate-- his customers are.  In the real scenario, the baker treated a gay couple as if they wanted a "white power" cake.  Unless an aversion to gays is assumed by the listener, his stance doesn't sound the slightest bit moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

 

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.

 

So the Supreme Court was willing to throw out the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision because they were hostile to the baker's religion (Christianity). Yet they are totally willing to ignore all of the things Trump has said that have been hostile to a religion (Islam) and let his EO stand. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

 

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.

 

So the Supreme Court was willing to throw out the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision because they were hostile to the baker's religion (Christianity). Yet they are totally willing to ignore all of the things Trump has said that have been hostile to a religion (Islam) and let his EO stand. LOL.

 

They also explicitly called out the rhetorical strategy used by the court in Korematsu and flimsily applied the same to the travel ban case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

 

If we're arguing morals then we might as well address who's being hateful and who isn't.  In your scenario the baker isn't supplying the hate-- his customers are.  In the real scenario, the baker treated a gay couple as if they wanted a "white power" cake.  Unless an aversion to gays is assumed by the listener, his stance doesn't sound the slightest bit moral.

 

We will always have people disagreeing on what is moral. Or what is hate. Even if you and I agree on what is moral - and in both cases I think we do - we cannot have government enforcing this standard on such a personal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

While it's no conservative's favorite, "policy" is actually a legal analysis. Policy and politics are essentially the same.

 

There are five different types of legal arguments (based on text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy), and through myriad examples this book teaches law students, lawyers, and judges how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate each type of argument.

 

For the tenth time I'm going to recommend this book to lawyers and non-lawyers to better understand how Supreme Court Justices finesse their way toward arriving at a desired decision.

 

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611635881/The-Five-Types-of-Legal-Argument-Third-Edition

 

Of course policy and politics are the same. Everyone should know that first there is a plain reading of the text, and as needed, legislative intent, precedent, tradition, and policy. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...