Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

So when a democrat is elected and expands the court to 15 justices you won't conplain, right?

 

It's the constitution that compels the Senate not the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Constitution compels no such thing as a vote on a presidential nomination.  A refusal to hold a vote and a nay vote stand on equal footing, because the Constitution is silent between them, on how to signal that a nominee does not have the constitutionally-required "consent" of the Senate.

 

When the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices I will definitely complain.  But I will not use the word "stolen," nor will I charge that it is unconstitutional or that the justices are illegitimately appointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is SCOTUS our only functioning branch of Federal Government at this point?

 

*If you ignore that Gorsuch's seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (not the fault of SCOTUS, of course)

 

Dude, get over it already.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Is SCOTUS our only functioning branch of Federal Government at this point?

 

*If you ignore that Gorsuch's seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (not the fault of SCOTUS, of course)

 

Dude, get over it already.

 

You guys can pretend this is fine because your side won.  But you both know that it is BS. This is just party tribalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had no responsibility to hold a vote.  The president does not get to tell the Senate how to run the Senate.  Sorry.

 

EDIT: And holding the seat open forever would have been a perfectly constitutional thing to do.  There have been times in our history when the Supreme Court had other than nine members.  The Constitution does not require nine members.

 

Holding the seat open would not be constitutional technically unless congress voted to change the size of the court. The constitution allows congress to set the size of the court which was last formally set at 9.  To leave a seat open is in violation of that act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more we allow our customs and norms to ne destroyed so that our side wins, the weaker the Republic becomes.  The constitution requires parties to act in good faith.  McConnell is a cancer to the Republic and his behavior should be condemned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell acted in good faith.  He violated no duty to the Constitution and had no duty to the president.  He and his caucus believed that Garland should not be on the Supreme Court.  The Democrats were not denied a seat on the Court; they were denied an opportunity to make a media spectacle of the hearings that would have resulted in the "no" vote.

 

I’m actually with the liberals on this one. A vote should’ve been had.

 

This is not something you can be "with the liberals" in good faith on and still call yourself a conservative.  Maybe you can say that as a political or ethical matter, a vote should've been had.  You cannot say it as a legal matter.  There is, quite frankly, no good faith legal argument that McConnell was constitutionally obligated to hold a vote.  If there way, you know very well that someone (quite possibly Obama's solicitor general) would have advanced it, and appealed it to the Supreme Court.  There are some law professors who made the attempt, but anyone can get something (especially something that flatters progressive sensibilities both as to bareknuckle results and their own self-perceived intellectual superiority) published in a law review or an editorial page.  As best I can recall, no one, or at least no one serious, tried to push that argument in a forum actually governed by Rule 11 (i.e, where they could be sanctioned for a frivolous argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell acted in bad faith by his own admission don't whitewash the stain he has placed on our republic. He had no issue with Garland he admitted that we were in an election. Don't defend this bad faith effort by McConnell.  You and I both know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that is bad faith?  "We're in an election and we could get someone better by waiting" is a good faith reason to wait.

 

Remember, checks and balances work in both directions.  The appointment power is one of the executive and legislature's checks on the judiciary.  There is no bad faith in saying that electoral politics played a role in the appointment decision.  Appointment is a political power.  It is shared by the executive and legislative branches as a check on the judiciary.  It is, in fact, the primary check on the judiciary, since impeachment is vanishingly rare and simple defiance (i.e., the Andrew Jackson strategy, premised on the fact that the judiciary does not command or fund an army, as the executive and legislature do) actually is a bad faith means of "checking" the judiciary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or rather, to set a new norm- that a party must hold the Presidency and the Senate in order to appoint judges.  This will be unworkable in the long run, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't like it, either, but at the same time, this kind of thing was inevitable when the Right chose to start supporting "religious freedom" bills to discriminate against specific minorities patronizing businesses, or in putting people in office that would radically change the way we all draw lines in the sand.  Conservatives never seem to quite grasp the potential consequences of their extremism.

 

Except of course that it's apparently OK for leftists to just go ahead and discriminate (because they're so holy and righteous and anything they discriminate against must by definition deserve it); conservatives somehow need to get a statute passed first (to legitimate their bigotry and hatred, of course).

 

I can both disagree with it and still think it's a pretty predictable result of that kind of legislation.  Once you open to door to be able to discriminate against people you don't like, you don't get to feign outrage when it happens against people you do.  Call it the law of unintended consequences. 

That said, I still see a pretty clear distinction between discrimination against immutable characteristics (sexuality, race, gender) and mutable ones.  If I had a business, I don't know that I would think twice about kicking out a KKK member or a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention, of course, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, separating the baker from the bakery is an exercise in deliberate blindness

 

 

Such as fan of corporate personhood as you should know that the bakery is indeed separate from the baker, except in the highly unlikely case that it's a sole proprietorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

 

(1) I actually think much of the left here, and in America generally, wouldn't even concede freedom of conscience on the part of a ring-maker.  Some wouldn't even concede it on the part of clergy, and those people may well have included Obama's solicitor general, and quite possibly also at least one of the Supreme Court justices he got confirmed.

 

(2) Who are you to judge whether a cake is or is not part of the sacrament?  Should courts and judges get into the business of deciding what is and isn't sufficiently associated with the sacrament to be considered part of it?  Note that judges have already shied away from doing so when faced with contracts that expressly incorporate elements of Islamic law.  Why should it be different when faced with Christian religious questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baker most certainly attempted to intervene in another's actions and used their religion to justify it.

 

I'm sorry, but that is just a twisted definition of the word "intervene."  All he wanted was to not be conscripted into participating in what he sees as a perversion of a sacrament.

 

 

Again with this nonsense? Seriously, this is where you and anyone else who sides with the baker, are dead wrong. I'm gonna say it one last time.  CAKES ARE IN NO WAY AN ELEMENT OF A SACRAMENT!

If the baker were a ring-maker, you win! It's just a cake for a party.

 

(1) I actually think much of the left here, and in America generally, wouldn't even concede freedom of conscience on the part of a ring-maker.  Some wouldn't even concede it on the part of clergy, and those people may well have included Obama's solicitor general, and quite possibly also at least one of the Supreme Court justices he got confirmed.

 

(2) Who are you to judge whether a cake is or is not part of the sacrament?  Should courts and judges get into the business of deciding what is and isn't sufficiently associated with the sacrament to be considered part of it?  Note that judges have already shied away from doing so when faced with contracts that expressly incorporate elements of Islamic law.  Why should it be different when faced with Christian religious questions?

 

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? 

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.

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

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...