Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Two legal questions:

    (1) Will it require a legislative action for gays to achieve full legal equality, or can the Courts get them there?

    It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many (most?) states, right? All Obergefell decided was that the state cannot deny gays the right to marry. That still means they are two rulings/laws short of absolute equality: (i) the state can't discriminate in any way against gays, and (ii) a privately owned place of public accommodation can't do the same. With race this was decided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do we need another act of Congress for gays?

    Also: (2) If Congress repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or whatever the renewal(s) of that Act are, could restaurants stop serving black people?
    2) is yes, at least at the federal level (state anti discrimination laws would obviously remain in place). The 14th Amendment requires equal protection of the laws, and applies to the states and federal government, not private entities or citizens.

    1) is probably similar. Absent the passage of a statute, people can discriminate. The constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit discrimination per se, and indeed protects it to an extent with things like the first amendment. It's less clear whether a statute would be necessary to prevent the government itself from discriminating, however. Most likely you'd have to do the whole balancing test in numerous factual situations

    Comment


    • Originally posted by alfablue View Post
      The rights of the individual trumps the will of the masses. We are a Republic afterall.

      You see the legislative branch putting your will onto other people as ok, but if that will is against their rights, then it's its up to the court branch to stop that. That's the point of the court.

      The SCOTUS *should* have intervened when people of Japanese ancestry were put into camps. They intervened with the Jim Crow laws when the legislation branch thought it was ok to have separate but equal, as it was neither, in actual practice.
      I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority and you interpret it as my views.

      But FF's post related to another challenge to PPACA. This time by the Congress taking the Executive to court. My question related to the Constitutional issue presented.

      If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?

      Read it in that context and get back to me.
      CCT '77 & '78
      4 kids
      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

        Originally posted by joecct View Post
        If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?
        You know the rules:

        Exec > Leg: Veto

        Leg > Exec: Impeachment

        Jud > Leg: Judicial review

        Leg > Jud: Advise and consent

        Jud > Exec: Judicial review

        Exec > Jud: Appoint justices
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Originally posted by joecct View Post
          I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority and you interpret it as my views.
          Ah, you're back to the "I'm just asking questions" routine. Too bad, it was better when you actually played it straight for the last few weeks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
            You're assuming the Court has gotten too big for it's britches? Last I saw we have 3 equal branches and the checks and balances are working fine. It's only folks on the extreme right who thinks the Courts have gone insane and it's their own nominees to the Court who are giving the rulings. Just imagine if the Court were actually Left Leaning? You'd probably have a coronary.
            I survived the Bulger Court.

            I was leaning to the Executive Branch.
            CCT '77 & '78
            4 kids
            5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
            1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

            ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

            I want to live forever. So far, so good.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by unofan View Post
              Ah, you're back to the "I'm just asking questions" routine. Too bad, it was better when you actually played it straight for the last few weeks.
              If a question stimulates debate, I think that's good. Many posts just pontificate into the I'm right and you're an idiot.
              CCT '77 & '78
              4 kids
              5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
              1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

              ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

              I want to live forever. So far, so good.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                You know the rules:

                Exec > Leg: Veto

                Leg > Exec: Impeachment

                Jud > Leg: Judicial review

                Leg > Jud: Advise and consent

                Jud > Exec: Judicial review

                Exec > Jud: Appoint justices
                This assumes that the Legislative has a set. They've been emasculated by inaction and punting the hard decisions to the Executive and the courts.
                CCT '77 & '78
                4 kids
                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                - Benjamin Franklin

                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                  Originally posted by joecct View Post
                  This assumes that the Legislative has a set. They've been emasculated by inaction and punting the hard decisions to the Executive and the courts.
                  Doesn't change the fact that they are an equal branch of government and have just as much power to exert as the other branches. Having a set is not a prereq to being an equal branch. Remember, WE elect them. So, if WE want them to change we need to change it.
                  **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                  Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                  Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    Doesn't change the fact that they are an equal branch of government and have just as much power to exert as the other branches. Having a set is not a prereq to being an equal branch. Remember, WE elect them. So, if WE want them to change we need to change it.
                    Good idea. But the 90% recidivism rate is not encouraging.
                    CCT '77 & '78
                    4 kids
                    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                      Originally posted by joecct View Post
                      I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

                      As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.
                      It doesnt matter, you dont speak for God. If God has an issue with something, being as he/she is omnipotent and omniscient, he/she can make it known.

                      If God exists he/she will punish the wicked when they are up for judgement. Until then it is not your job to do so in his/her name. It takes a special level of arrogance to think you have the right to judge others in the name of God.
                      "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                      -aparch

                      "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                      -INCH

                      Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                      -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                        Also, the rules have changed and did so early on. He flooded the earth as punishment for our wickedness, then promised never to do so again, giving us rainbows as a sign of that covenant.

                        I don't know about you, but going from near extinction level genocide as punishment to "my bad, won't do that again" strikes me as a pretty big change.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                          Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                          About 2015 years ago they seemed to have changed a lot, if you believe the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Otherwise Christians wouldn't wear polyblend clothing or eat shellfish.
                          I'd say the NT clarifies the OT. Also Paul had a good perspective on this that Jesus was the end of the OT law. I'd also say that if one perceives differences, the NT is the priority.

                          Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                          If God has an issue with something, being as he/she is omnipotent and omniscient, he/she can make it known.
                          Jesus.
                          Go Gophers!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                            Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                            You seem to have that problem with a lot of people, Bob. Perhaps you should point that finger at a mirror instead.
                            Not really. Just a handful of people on this board who seem to enjoy complaining about things a lot, even at times when I agree with them and they're so used to complaining they don't notice.
                            Originally posted by Priceless
                            Good to see you're so reasonable.
                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                            Very well, said.
                            Originally posted by Rover
                            A fair assessment Bob.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              We all seem to be missing your point on this one. Perhaps you would consider restating it? This is not a knock -- it usually takes me three or four tries to make something I consider to be clear as day comprehensible to other people.
                              It was quite simple. Burd tried to draw a connection with citing God condemning things that everyone agrees are ok. I simply spun that around and threw in a couple things that most people agree aren't ok to show that in some cases people would expect God to condemn something like incest, so God condemning something isn't necessarily a bad thing. If God didn't condemn such a thing, people would certainly take issue, as compared to citing Norwegians and such like burd did.

                              St. Clown simply read into what I said way more than what I actually said or intended to convey, as happens fairly regularly with him.
                              Originally posted by Priceless
                              Good to see you're so reasonable.
                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                              Very well, said.
                              Originally posted by Rover
                              A fair assessment Bob.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                                Ok, but burd's logic backed his argument, while yours doesn't refute it. He argued that society often disagrees with what religious objectors assert, and then provided some examples. You responded by asserting society and God agree on some things. Great, but that doesn't refute his point that they differ on those things which he mentioned.

                                A and B both having the same relationship with C doesn't mean A = B or that A and B have the same relationships with D, E, and F.

                                Just because God objects to pedophilia, and society also objects to pedophilia, doesn't mean that society should object to all things God also objects to.

                                I doubt anyone on here would dispute that there are many things which the Bible prohibits which are also illegal. That doesn't mean we should make illegal other activities just because the Bible prohibits them.
                                Last edited by unofan; 09-10-2015, 12:26 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X