What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Exactly. Roberts wrote that a majority of the Court has decided essentially to put time limits upon laws now. He wrote that the law needs to "speaks to current conditions". So for me they put an arbitrary time limit upon laws based upon whatever they feel is "current".
I think that is entirely appropriate for a law that is purportedly intended to remedy a fixed problem (discrimination prior to 1965). If it doesn't have a time limit, that's essentially admitting that the law is a failure - that it will never solve the problem it was enacted to address.

What if Congress, in its wisdom, decided to apply the law to any state/county which had EVER allowed slavery? The 9 states singled out by the VRA only treated black people worse than any other state from the period from perhaps 1800-1960, which is only about 1/3 of the time that "modern" governments have existed in the new world. New York finally outlawed slavery in 1837, a whopping 28 years before the 13th amendment outlawed it everywhere, and only allowed blacks to vote starting in 1860. Yet, we're supposed to believe that a primary cause of the disadvantages that African Americans face (and they definitely still do) are the Jim Crow laws that existed for less than 100 years in 9 particular states?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I think that is entirely appropriate for a law that is purportedly intended to remedy a fixed problem (discrimination prior to 1965). If it doesn't have a time limit, that's essentially admitting that the law is a failure - that it will never solve the problem it was enacted to address.

The important part is...sometimes. Criminal laws help prevent crimes...but they don't fix the underlying issues (as they can be unsolvable). The trick is to determine when a law is 'outdated'. And while the SCOTUS is well designed to determine when a law is against the Constitution...is it really designed to determine when a law is no longer needed?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What if Congress, in its wisdom, decided to apply the law to any state/county which had EVER allowed slavery?

That is a completely different argument. I don't know what SCOTUS would think about that. But those type of laws (one's that single certain segements of the country out) are very prevalant.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that a primary cause of the disadvantages that African Americans face (and they definitely still do) are the Jim Crow laws that existed for less than 100 years in 9 particular states?

I'm not sure where you are going with this one. Even Roberts in his odd way thinks that the country still needs VRA just not the formula. So I guess you think that the whole monitoring of states to ensure that they are not discriminating against people with regards to voting is bad? I don't think many people (anyone?), certainly not myself, thinks that Jim Crow laws are the "primary cause of the disadvantages", but do I think that certain segements of the country and certainly some states, have higher racist and discrimination with regards to voting practices.

Again, my issue was with Roberts (and presumabily the majority of SCOTUS) using the term "current" as a reason do determine the constitutionality of a law.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The important part is...sometimes. Criminal laws help prevent crimes...but they don't fix the underlying issues (as they can be unsolvable). The trick is to determine when a law is 'outdated'. And while the SCOTUS is well designed to determine when a law is against the Constitution...is it really designed to determine when a law is no longer needed?

The only problem with that is that if it is still on the books, it can still be enforced. Just like how in some towns you can still arrest all the men because they did not carry their rifles to church. Political parties today seem to only want to enforce specific laws when it is convenient. You cannot possibly write a law to determine when it is no longer needed unless you include escape clauses. The only other way is to have the legislation repeal it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The only problem with that is that if it is still on the books, it can still be enforced. Just like how in some towns you can still arrest all the men because they did not carry their rifles to church. Political parties today seem to only want to enforce specific laws when it is convenient. You cannot possibly write a law to determine when it is no longer needed unless you include escape clauses. The only other way is to have the legislation repeal it.

True there are tons of those type of laws, but is that is for the legislative bodies to determine if they are necessary or needed and not the courts? In my mind, courts shouldn't be determining the necessity of laws but the legality of laws.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Exactly. Roberts wrote that a majority of the Court has decided essentially to put time limits upon laws now. He wrote that the law needs to "speaks to current conditions". So for me they put an arbitrary time limit upon laws based upon whatever they feel is "current".

We'll have Justice Roberts speak for himself here:

the state with the largest gap between white and black voter turnout is Massachusetts

So, based on your argument, then we need a special provision in the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination there, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The important part is...sometimes. Criminal laws help prevent crimes...but they don't fix the underlying issues (as they can be unsolvable). The trick is to determine when a law is 'outdated'. And while the SCOTUS is well designed to determine when a law is against the Constitution...is it really designed to determine when a law is no longer needed?

This element of the ruling is being taken out of context. The Constitution requires that the Federal government treat all states equally. Section 4 of the VRA did not. The Court ruled in 1966 that the VRA was only allowed as a special exception due to extraordinary circumstances. The ruling yesterday merely restored the Constititutionality that should have prevailed under most circumstances. It's not that laws have time limits, it is that the exception to normal Constitutional requirements did its job. it worked. People should be celebrating this result. Most of the states that had been covered by Section 4 now have better black turnout in voting than most northern states.
 
The important part is...sometimes. Criminal laws help prevent crimes...but they don't fix the underlying issues (as they can be unsolvable). The trick is to determine when a law is 'outdated'. And while the SCOTUS is well designed to determine when a law is against the Constitution...is it really designed to determine when a law is no longer needed?

I thought the laws determined the punishment after the person was convicted. To say criminal laws deter crimes would be agreeing that the death penalty deters murder.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So, based on your argument, then we need a special provision in the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination there, right?

No. I don't know how you inferred that from my comments. Again, so you understand, I have an issue with the SCOTUS determining what is "current" or to put it another way, for putting a expiration date onto portions a law because the majority of the Justices believe that discrimination doesn't exist in certain parts of the country.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

True there are tons of those type of laws, but is that is for the legislative bodies to determine if they are necessary or needed and not the courts? In my mind, courts shouldn't be determining the necessity of laws but the legality of laws.

The legislative body can easily be compared to the Alpha Betas of Revenge of the Nerds. They don't really get anything done, and don't listen to the peons, especially the Tri-Lams.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The legislative body can easily be compared to the Alpha Betas of Revenge of the Nerds. They don't really get anything done, and don't listen to the peons, especially the Tri-Lams.

So that give the all-ok for activist courts? Got it. One portion of the government dosn't do their job well, so it's all fine for another portion to overstep their bounds. Ok.
 
I thought the laws determined the punishment after the person was convicted. To say criminal laws deter crimes would be agreeing that the death penalty deters murder.

Criminal laws have 3 primary purposes: to deter, to punish, and to rehabilitate.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So that give the all-ok for activist courts? Got it. One portion of the government dosn't do their job well, so it's all fine for another portion to overstep their bounds. Ok.

Hey, I don't like it, but if they aren't breaking any rules, or even worse, one party "stacks the deck" to game the system, what other option is there? Try to beat three billion rounds and revolt?

When the door closes, a window opens.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Doma is out first this morning. Kennedy writes for a 5-4 court. Struck down on equal protection.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Doma is out first this morning. Kennedy writes for a 5-4 court. Struck down on equal protection.
Logic (?) would then dictate that Prop 8 is constitutional??
 
Logic (?) would then dictate that Prop 8 is constitutional??

Roberts' dissent in the doma case states the prop 8 case is kicked on the standing issue.

Prop 8 is not out yet (scalia still reading his dissent in doma), but all indications are scotus punted it on standing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top