The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Which is why I say Roberts is a corporate conservative. If you're a movement conservative, concerned about social issues or gubmint expansion, you're most likely not getting a lot out of these guys.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Which is why I say Roberts is a corporate conservative. If you're a movement conservative, concerned about social issues or gubmint expansion, you're most likely not getting a lot out of these guys.

And you probably have noticed that I'm much more of a social conservative, so I find the current court to be the largely useless at best. I'm not a big fan of corporate conservatives, or at least the more extreme among them. Both Roberts and Kennedy are often at odds with the interests of social conservatives.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You mean a 5-4 majority that often goes against conservative interests? Yah.

Other than gay rights, this Court seems to still be drifting to the right on social issues (continually tightening the noose on abortion and affirmative action), galloping to the right on economic issues (Citizen United and McCutcheon) and being confused on civil rights issues (damaging the VRA but upholding Obamacare, for now).

I suspect gay rights is different because, like desegregation in a prior decade, it's so obvious that society has become much more accepting and tolerant, to the point that in 20 years young people are going to look back on the period of "defense of marriage" the same way we look at the police dogs in Birmingham. The Court is, at its very heart, pragmatic, and it knows that ship has sailed. It's not like abortion where the pendulum swings back and forth. Homophobia and anti-gay discrimination are going to die off everywhere except the sort of pulpits where they still warn about "race mixing."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

And you probably have noticed that I'm much more of a social conservative, so I find the current court to be the largely useless at best. I'm not a big fan of corporate conservatives, or at least the more extreme among them. Both Roberts and Kennedy are often at odds with the interests of social conservatives.

I can see that as a social conservative / economic liberal(ish) you would be continually frustrated and angered by this Court. But that doesn't mean the Court is "liberal" -- it just happens that the current alignment goes against you almost every time.

If it's any consolation, this alignment is self-contradictory and probably cannot last, and either the social or the economic side is going to tip depending on who the next president is. A Republican president will probably ensure an across-the-board conservative Court (except on gay rights, as explained previously) while a Democratic president will probably move us more towards an across-the-board liberal Court, unless Hillary really, really screws us and appoints some Wall Street lapdog.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I wonder how many court decisions within, say, the last 25 years or so, have gone 5-4? The country has become very polarized in recent history, as partially evidenced by the arguments found here.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Which is an insight before the US Consitution was the law of the land- and as I read it, a need of some kind of Militia, to make sure that we have some kind of counterballance to the professional army. After that was written the second amendmant was written, obviously a compromise of a unlimited Milita that Hamilton sees, and one that is more, well, regulated.

Keeping good track of your arms that you have is easy to interpret as being well regulated. Especially in the light the the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case- the interpretation of the lower courts is correct.

Just to make a point, as I'm not really going anywhere with this...

In the original intent, the US government didn't have a professional army. Each state was able to create their own, and that's how we operated until sometime after the Civil War. In the Constitution, the US government only funded and operated the Navy and, by default, the Marines. Each state was able to decide if it wanted to rely upon militia or its own formal army.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I wonder how many court decisions within, say, the last 25 years or so, have gone 5-4? The country has become very polarized in recent history, as partially evidenced by the arguments found here.

A lot.

Pretty amazing chart. Another interesting stat: 44 presidents, but only 14 chief justices.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The whole text:



So how is locking up arms infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

It doesn't at all.

I come at this as someone who believes if you want to own a gun, fine. Limitations on the type of gun or the number of bullets it can hold and a variety of other things are nonsense, and just so much political grandstanding.

But, if you choose to own a gun, or carry it around with you and something goes wrong, you as the gun owner are responsible. So it should be in your interest to keep your gun safe, to keep it locked up, or have a trigger guard on it, or keep it unloaded or all of the above.

That said, this law is insanely stupid, and should bother people. What next? Some legislature or city council going to come in and tell us we need to keep our drain cleaners under lock and key? We need to keep our candles in a safe? Is there simply no limit to what some politician somewhere is willing to do in terms of figuratively coming into your home and telling you what to do?

This is why, in my opinion, politicians find themselves on the human scale so many levels below pedophiles and the like that they'll never catch up.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It doesn't at all.

I come at this as someone who believes if you want to own a gun, fine. Limitations on the type of gun or the number of bullets it can hold and a variety of other things are nonsense, and just so much political grandstanding.

But, if you choose to own a gun, or carry it around with you and something goes wrong, you as the gun owner are responsible. So it should be in your interest to keep your gun safe, to keep it locked up, or have a trigger guard on it, or keep it unloaded or all of the above.

That said, this law is insanely stupid, and should bother people. What next? Some legislature or city council going to come in and tell us we need to keep our drain cleaners under lock and key? We need to keep our candles in a safe? Is there simply no limit to what some politician somewhere is willing to do in terms of figuratively coming into your home and telling you what to do?

This is why, in my opinion, politicians find themselves on the human scale so many levels below pedophiles and the like that they'll never catch up.

Well said. This law, in and of itself, it's horribly burdensome, but it is exemplary of the every growing invasiveness of some governmental entities into every nook and cranny of life.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I can see that as a social conservative / economic liberal(ish) you would be continually frustrated and angered by this Court. But that doesn't mean the Court is "liberal" -- it just happens that the current alignment goes against you almost every time.

If it's any consolation, this alignment is self-contradictory and probably cannot last, and either the social or the economic side is going to tip depending on who the next president is. A Republican president will probably ensure an across-the-board conservative Court (except on gay rights, as explained previously) while a Democratic president will probably move us more towards an across-the-board liberal Court, unless Hillary really, really screws us and appoints some Wall Street lapdog.

Generally agree. On the first part though, as a social conservative, a person can say that the court isn't very socially conservative for the most part, so if that's what a person values, then to them the Court isn't very conservative. If a person is a corporate conservative, then I'd think they'd view the Court as being pretty conservative. The lens people view things through (based on what they view as important) heavily influences the extent to which one views the Court as being liberal, conservative, or whatever.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It doesn't at all.

I come at this as someone who believes if you want to own a gun, fine. Limitations on the type of gun or the number of bullets it can hold and a variety of other things are nonsense, and just so much political grandstanding.

But, if you choose to own a gun, or carry it around with you and something goes wrong, you as the gun owner are responsible. So it should be in your interest to keep your gun safe, to keep it locked up, or have a trigger guard on it, or keep it unloaded or all of the above.

That said, this law is insanely stupid, and should bother people. What next? Some legislature or city council going to come in and tell us we need to keep our drain cleaners under lock and key? We need to keep our candles in a safe? Is there simply no limit to what some politician somewhere is willing to do in terms of figuratively coming into your home and telling you what to do?

This is why, in my opinion, politicians find themselves on the human scale so many levels below pedophiles and the like that they'll never catch up.

Don't you remember the Mr. Yuck campaign?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Generally agree. On the first part though, as a social conservative, a person can say that the court isn't very socially conservative for the most part, so if that's what a person values, then to them the Court isn't very conservative. If a person is a corporate conservative, then I'd think they'd view the Court as being pretty conservative. The lens people view things through (based on what they view as important) heavily influences the extent to which one views the Court as being liberal, conservative, or whatever.

Absolutely.

I wonder whether the increased polarization of all politics, including the Court, is due to the increasing concentration of people in 2 of the four 2x2 quadrants of the liberal/conservative x economic/social map. There used to be a fairly even distribution of people in all 4 quadrants, but one quadrant (yours, in fact) -- social conservative / economic liberal, what used to be called "populist" -- is all but empty now. Likewise, after a boomlet in the 90s and 00s, the social liberal / economic conservative quadrant seems to have started to empty out with the crash demonstrating that economic conservatism undermines social liberalism by driving up poverty. So we're left with two strongly self-reinforcing philosophies, which also happen to align geographically and culturally, so all the sinews that used to interlace political opponents are broken. There's no reason for representatives of the two camps to compromise in Congress, because there's no future vote where people are going to break ranks.

Against this, we have a Court that is still "mixed," at least in Kennedy and, less so, in Roberts and Breyer. So the Court is doing stuff that is normal politically but it appears bizarre in the context of our new, broken, political alignments. Unless subsequent presidents appoint justices with complex and divided philosophies, or unless a new issue rises that cuts across all the current issues, the Court will eventually reflect our same broken politics.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Well said. This law, in and of itself, it's horribly burdensome, but it is exemplary of the every growing invasiveness of some governmental entities into every nook and cranny of life.

But, of course, you're perfectly fine with government intrusion into the nooks and crannies YOU care about, like who can get married and who can have an abortion. You can't play the libertarian card and then run to the power of the nanny state to enforce YOUR morality.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

But, of course, you're perfectly fine with government intrusion into the nooks and crannies YOU care about, like who can get married and who can have an abortion. You can't play the libertarian card and then run to the power of the nanny state to enforce YOUR morality.

Bingo on marriage. Abortion is a tricky one, as you have to decide which is more important: life or liberty. Libertarians are classic liberals, influenced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Whichever one is more important determines the stance on abortion. If you take the literal definition of liberal, i.e. liberty before anything, then abortion is OK.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bingo on marriage. Abortion is a tricky one, as you have to decide which is more important: life or liberty. Libertarians are classic liberals, influenced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Whichever one is more important determines the stance on abortion. If you take the literal definition of liberal, i.e. liberty before anything, then abortion is OK.

Funny that abortion is the issue- being that guns in the wrong hands kill people too- but you side with liberty over life given the risk guns present.

So you can have a device that's sole intention is to take life away, and that is your liberty, but when people want to exercise their liberty and have an abortion, they are not to be allowed to do that.

Which is exactly Lynah's point.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

That said, this law is insanely stupid, and should bother people. What next? Some legislature or city council going to come in and tell us we need to keep our drain cleaners under lock and key? We need to keep our candles in a safe? Is there simply no limit to what some politician somewhere is willing to do in terms of figuratively coming into your home and telling you what to do?

The only other object that kills people on the same scale as guns are cars- and they ARE regulated a LOT for safety. Far more than guns will ever be. Heck, the insurance industry has done a number on vehicles and the number of airbags in them.

If people started dying due to drain cleaner on that scale, I'm sure there would be regulations about that. Government does pass laws for the general wefare of the people, afterall.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The only other object that kills people on the same scale as guns are cars- and they ARE regulated a LOT for safety. Far more than guns will ever be. Heck, the insurance industry has done a number on vehicles and the number of airbags in them.

If people started dying due to drain cleaner on that scale, I'm sure there would be regulations about that. Government does pass laws for the general wefare of the people, afterall.

Considering you actually believe the lie that it's "for our own good", then you are the exact problem this country has. We don't need to throw someone into the slammer for the rest of his/her life for non-violent activity with no victim and only affects him/herself.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Government does pass laws for the general wefare of the people, afterall.

So the general welfare of the people is to run the government into the ground with debt nearly beyond measure? And that's about one of a thousand such questions one could pose to this statement.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

So the general welfare of the people is to run the government into the ground with debt nearly beyond measure? And that's about one of a thousand such questions one could pose to this statement.

I think the point is that an absolutist view of any given amendment is contrary to the judicial philosophy that governs everything else in the country. Every right has limits, but the Second Amendment is treated as untouchable because a powerful lobby is making millions of dollars off it and aggressively opposes any limitation. That's a distortion, driven by greed.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I think the point is that an absolutist view of any given amendment is contrary to the judicial philosophy that governs everything else in the country. Every right has limits, but the Second Amendment is treated as untouchable because a powerful lobby is making millions of dollars off it and aggressively opposes any limitation. That's a distortion, driven by greed.

Someone doesn't understand "shall not be denied or abridged". That means ZERO limitations. The only possible limitation that could ever be considered is the 9th amendment, which is where one person's already established rights as such cannot be trumped by another person attempting to establish rights.