unofan
Well-known member
I don't think any 4-1-4 ruling can be properly labeled a smackdown. If you can't get a clean 5th vote, it's a muddled mess.
Last edited:
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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
I don't think any 4-1-4 ruling can be properly labeled a smackdown. If you can't get a clean 5th vote, it's a muddled mess.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
That's exactly what Kagan said about SarBox in her dissent!
That's exactly what Kagan said about SarBox in her dissent!
unofan
Well-known member
You realize she voted to uphold the conviction not withstanding that, right?
And SarBox is a god awful abbreviation. You sound like a farking teenage girl calling it that.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
hence the use of the word "dissent" to describe the source of her quote.
hence the use of the word "dissent" to describe the source of her quote.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
VA is stupid, part Infinity.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/260749-va-stripped-iraqi-war-vet-benefits-doesnt-like-lives/
http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...va-refuses-recognize-veteran-s-wife-and-child
I'm not in favor of same sex marriage, but if the State of Washington does, the reciprocity(?) clause should make the marriage legal in all 50 states and territories.
VA is stupid, part Infinity.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/260749-va-stripped-iraqi-war-vet-benefits-doesnt-like-lives/
http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...va-refuses-recognize-veteran-s-wife-and-child
I'm not in favor of same sex marriage, but if the State of Washington does, the reciprocity(?) clause should make the marriage legal in all 50 states and territories.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Give it time; the SCOTUS will have to sort it out, and put Grumpy Grandpa Roy in his place.
Marriage is a contract, and contracts, being legal proceedings, are supposed to be recognized across state lines per the full faith & credit clause.
Give it time; the SCOTUS will have to sort it out, and put Grumpy Grandpa Roy in his place.
Marriage is a contract, and contracts, being legal proceedings, are supposed to be recognized across state lines per the full faith & credit clause.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Contracts are not legal proceedings entitled to full faith and credit just because they are contracts, and marriage is more than a contract.
Contracts are not legal proceedings entitled to full faith and credit just because they are contracts, and marriage is more than a contract.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Well, you learn something new everyday.
Well, you learn something new everyday.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
To the extent that a marriage has legal repercussions, it is only a contract.
To the extent that a marriage has personal value beyond a contract, it's nobody else's business.
To the extent that a marriage has legal repercussions, it is only a contract.
To the extent that a marriage has personal value beyond a contract, it's nobody else's business.
Perfectly put.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
So it certainly looks like the court will side with the Arizona legislature and rule the independent election commission unconstitutional (for purposes of the federal districts only).
Wonder if our resident Arizonan will call them activist judges if/when that happens.
So it certainly looks like the court will side with the Arizona legislature and rule the independent election commission unconstitutional (for purposes of the federal districts only).
Wonder if our resident Arizonan will call them activist judges if/when that happens.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Nope -- case of the legislature ducking its responsibility. If you don't like how the legislature apportions the districts -- change the legislature.
The only legislature capable of avoiding the problem that independent commissions are meant to fix is a legislature composed of non-humans.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I meant it is more than a contract in that it has a status conferred by the State. As to the personal value part, agreed.
I meant it is more than a contract in that it has a status conferred by the State. As to the personal value part, agreed.
So does every contract. If your housepainter messes up his job, do you sue in a State court or in some separate, entirely private system?
What, exactly, do you think the state views any differently about a marriage contract?
Marriage has the possibility of children which makes it unique among "contractual relations". I believe that is why (asking other reasons) the State has different rules for breaking a painting contact and dissolving the marriage bond.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Just because a contract gives you a certain right to enforce it against the other party to the contract does not mean state-approved marriage is similar to all contracts. What I had in mind is that two people can contract to paint a house, but that contract is between only them--no approval from a third party is required. If it goes well, nobody else gets involved and no other benefits in the lives of the homeowners are involved as a result of the contract, other than the agreed-upon work and the corresponding consideration. Even if it does not go well, the parties can resolve their differences privately, between themselves or through private mediation or arbitration.
With marriage as it is now, the state confers a special status as a result of the marriage and that status affects those lives in other ways, including citizenship, taxes, property ownership, inheritance, etc. The state is involved in important ways, whether the marriage works out or not. In that sense, marriage is definitely more that simply a contract between two people to paint a house, fix a car, or prepare a tax return.
Do I think that is necessary? Probably not, since I also feel that our personal relationships are our own. But nobody here thinks the state will cease to be involved in marriages.
Just because a contract gives you a certain right to enforce it against the other party to the contract does not mean state-approved marriage is similar to all contracts. What I had in mind is that two people can contract to paint a house, but that contract is between only them--no approval from a third party is required. If it goes well, nobody else gets involved and no other benefits in the lives of the homeowners are involved as a result of the contract, other than the agreed-upon work and the corresponding consideration. Even if it does not go well, the parties can resolve their differences privately, between themselves or through private mediation or arbitration.
With marriage as it is now, the state confers a special status as a result of the marriage and that status affects those lives in other ways, including citizenship, taxes, property ownership, inheritance, etc. The state is involved in important ways, whether the marriage works out or not. In that sense, marriage is definitely more that simply a contract between two people to paint a house, fix a car, or prepare a tax return.
Do I think that is necessary? Probably not, since I also feel that our personal relationships are our own. But nobody here thinks the state will cease to be involved in marriages.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
If you're going to take the tack that marriage is just a contract, I think it's fair to consider marriage as a contract on steroids. There are a whole host of implied rights, duties, and obligations that automatically come with a marriage that do not come with your standard business contract.
Not to mention, cases like Loving v. Virginia hold special places in American history. Things like Dartmouth College v. Woodward discussing purely contractual rights, less so.
If you're going to take the tack that marriage is just a contract, I think it's fair to consider marriage as a contract on steroids. There are a whole host of implied rights, duties, and obligations that automatically come with a marriage that do not come with your standard business contract.
Not to mention, cases like Loving v. Virginia hold special places in American history. Things like Dartmouth College v. Woodward discussing purely contractual rights, less so.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Don't let a Dartmouth person hear you say that. It is a small college, and yet sir there are those who love her.
Don't let a Dartmouth person hear you say that. It is a small college, and yet sir there are those who love her.
- Status