The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Kepler]

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

But, hey, a little more undermining of the Court's credibility is ok, as long as they rule the way you want them to.

Bush v Gore called. It said, "aint that the truth, buddy!"

 

[Bob Gray]

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

We don't disagree on Roe. It's infamous for how terrible the reasoning was, and that in large part has been why it continues to haunt the Court. From what I have been told (uno I'm sure can explain it better), Roe should have been decided on equal protection rather than privacy. The decision was bungled, and that has kept alive the myriads ways in which women's rights have been clawed away, instead of it being accepted as settled law.

IWe can't know whether Obergefell will have a similar problem because the decision hasn't been written yet, so it sounds like your article is a case of wishful thinking by an opponent of gay marriage, not an actual assessment of the legal arguments.

You're right we don't know what the decision will specifically say, but there's been a lot written on how the court may approach this and I don't think many people expected heretofore unidentified reasoning out of left field to be used here.

 

[Priceless]

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

Now there's some of your classic sloganeering. Funny how even your Justice Kennedy, who will likely help put you over the top, recognized it's quite a thing for nine people to change something that's been unquestioned for millennia.

Exactly. Birth control should still be illegal (Griswold) as should interracial marriage (Loving) and gays should still face sodomy charges (Lawrence). It's been that way for millennia.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Bush v Gore called. It said, "aint that the truth, buddy!"

Funny thing is, both liberals and conservatives see the Court as being less credible, but for very different reasons/cases.

Really, big picture, relying on courts to sort out every fine detail of life that people now seem to bring to court is never going to be good for a nation or society long term. Some things are unavoidable, but we as a society are way more litigious than is healthy.

 

[Kepler]

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

Now there's some of your classic sloganeering. Funny how even your Justice Kennedy, who will likely help put you over the top, recognized it's quite a thing for nine people to change something that's been unquestioned for millennia.

I'll let the other Uncle Tom handle this one:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So yes, examine well whether a tradition is good practice or rank superstition. But if the latter, a change can be healthy.

Every tradition was once a new-fangled violation of some prior, unquestioned tradition. Christianity overthrew a Judaism that was at least a thousand years old when the Church Fathers had less than a decade of experience. Abolitionists overcame an institution that was as old as mankind. And the subjugation of women by men is older even than the species, tracing back to the sheer impulse of stronger apes to dominate the weaker.

Many old things are good. A few old things are atrocious.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Exactly. Birth control should still be illegal (Griswold) as should interracial marriage (Loving) and gays should still face sodomy charges (Lawrence). It's been that way for millennia.

So much false equivalence in one sentence. Nice try.

 

[Kepler]

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

So much false equivalence in one sentence. Nice try.

It's really not, Bob. It's nearly exact equivalence; and at the time of those decisions the same "millenia" argument was made.

 

[Kepler]

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

Really, big picture, relying on courts to sort out every fine detail of life that people now seem to bring to court is never going to be good for a nation or society long term. Some things are unavoidable, but we as a society are way more litigious than is healthy.

At the poker table, winners wanna talk; losers just say "deal." When you're ahead, it's easy to say you've played enough and the game is over. If the Court is not for the redress of rights denied, what is it for? Traffic tickets?

 

[Bob Gray]

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

It's really not, Bob. It's nearly exact equivalence; and at the time of those decisions the same "millenia" argument was made.

We see it differently. You really are saying nothing more than there were bad things done in the past and those were fixed, so this is the same because you think it's a bad thing that needs fixing. Using that loose reasoning, most every problem in the world that someone thinks exists is the same. Some of us don't get caught in the simple emotion of such an argument. False equivalence for sure here.

 

[Kepler]

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

Some of us don't get caught in the simple emotion of such an argument.

Yes, Bob. You are being objective and I am being emotional. I'm sure that's the root of our disagreement.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

At the poker table, winners wanna talk; losers just say "deal." When you're ahead, it's easy to say you've played enough and the game is over. If the Court is not for the redress of rights denied, what is it for? Traffic tickets?

That comment of mine was about courts in general, not about this particular case. Which is why I say big picture.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Yes, Bob. You are being objective and I am being emotional. I'm sure that's the root of our disagreement.

Well, about time that was finally settled.

 

[unofan]

We don't disagree on Roe. It's infamous for how terrible the reasoning was, and that in large part has been why it continues to haunt the Court. From what I have been told (uno I'm sure can explain it better), Roe should have been decided on equal protection rather than privacy. The decision was bungled, and that has kept alive the myriads ways in which women's rights have been clawed away, instead of it being accepted as settled law.

IWe can't know whether Obergefell will have a similar problem because the decision hasn't been written yet, so it sounds like your article is a case of wishful thinking by an opponent of gay marriage, not an actual assessment of the legal arguments.

It's been a long time since I've read Roe. I remember it being pretty meandering, but I don't think there was any way to avoid the controversy that followed. To the extent that the most ardent anti-abortion people consider it murder, no court case is going to dissuade them from that belief. If you're part of the 60% or so of the population that believes abortion should be legal but regulated, you don't care how it was legalized.

The fights now are essentially between the states where the former group controls the political process but runs up against a federal judiciary that generally sides with the latter moderate majority over what constitutes a "reasonable restriction"

How same sex marriage gets twisted in such a fashion, I don't really get the logic there. This is clearly more along the lines of Brown or Loving than Roe, and those are now celebrated virtually universally, not divisive.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Sounds like Mr. Bursch from Michigan is making some good arguments, not they will make a dent in the hard core left of the Court.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

The audio is interesting. At 27:00 we get a nice unplanned break.

 

[Kepler]

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

It's been a long time since I've read Roe. I remember it being pretty meandering, but I don't think there was any way to avoid the controversy that followed. To the extent that the most ardent anti-abortion people consider it murder, no court case is going to dissuade them from that belief.

I meant the messiness of the challenges and decisions that followed. I've read that had Roe been decided on the correct grounds, the challenges wouldn't have dented it. There would of course be challenges for the sociological reasons you stated. I'm sure there are people every year filing challenges to the legality of the IRS. They feel real strongly about it, too. Doesn't mean a judge is going to give them the time of day.

 

[Kepler]

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

Sounds like Mr. Bursch from Michigan is making some good arguments, not they will make a dent in the hard core left of the Court.

Serious question: do you think Kagan and Sotomeyer are farther left than Scalia and Alito are right? (or substitute your choice of justices if you feel those aren't the extremes)

I feel like the court has 4 solid lefts, 4 solid rights, and 1 center-right (AK).

 

[Rover]

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

There's only one structure that can be seen from outer space, which is the Great Wall of China. If the SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage, there's gonna be two: the second one in the Arizona desert as Bob erects a cross to crucify himself on that the Martians will be able to observe from their home planet.

 

[St. Clown]

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

Saw an interesting article about how Ginsburg and Kagan should recuse themselves, as they both have recently officiated at gay marriage ceremonies, calling into obvious question whether they can rule on this case in an unbiased way. I can just imagine the uproar we'd hear if conservative justices had compromised themselves so obviously.

They both officiated gay marriage ceremonies in which those states already permit same-sex marriages and the SCOTUS had already handled those sorts of cases for the DOMA aspect. In what way does that create a conflict of interest for a case where the states involve have a current ban on same-sex marriages?

 

[Kepler]

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

This suggests differently. What a huge shift has happened...