The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Roberts.

@elizabethjdias: Roberts in his dissent: hard questions for religious freedom: http://twitter.com/elizabethjdias/status/614436945406509059/photo/1

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Was kinda hoping for the redistricting case to be announced today, as that's been an interesting one to follow locally here in AZ. Gotta wait another few days.

Kep,

Of course the media wasn't the only factor. Changes like this always are the result of many factors.

Gotta love some of the stuff from the Chief Justice, even if his performance at times is less than impressive.

Judicial modesty “is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition,” he wrote.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Alito concern trolls the majority, saying this will lead to people being called bigots.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Alito concern trolls the majority, saying this will lead to people being called bigots.

Those poor poor bigots. However will they get on with their lives?

 

[joecct]

Alito concern trolls the majority, saying this will lead to people being called bigots.

In this forum or its predecessors, it has already happened.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Roberts.

@elizabethjdias: Roberts in his dissent: hard questions for religious freedom: http://twitter.com/elizabethjdias/status/614436945406509059/photo/1

In the case of the example cited, that's not a hard question at all. If you extend a benefit to married people and this marriage is recognized then you can't deny it. It would be exactly the same as a mixed marriage. I don't think Liberty has to worry about a sudden influx of gay married students, however.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Roberts.

@elizabethjdias: Roberts in his dissent: hard questions for religious freedom: http://twitter.com/elizabethjdias/status/614436945406509059/photo/1

The interesting part to me is how the majority, according to that article, avoids saying anything about the freedom to "exercise" their religion. We all know this will launch further assaults on religious views that don't endorse homosexual behavior. That article even references that the Solicitor General admitted as much.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Judicial modesty “is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition,” he wrote.

There's a one word rebuttal for that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

In the case of the example cited, that's not a hard question at all. If you extend a benefit to married people and this marriage is recognized then you can't deny it. It would be exactly the same as a mixed marriage. I don't think Liberty has to worry about a sudden influx of gay married students, however.

Sure they will. People will push any edge of the envelope they can to try to fully claim their full right in every way shape and form. Just like people who could buy a cake elsewhere make an issue of that and such. it's as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. We live in a country where unfortunately a lot of people look for fights (instead of looking for ways to live at peace with their fellow man).

 

[joecct]

In the case of the example cited, that's not a hard question at all. If you extend a benefit to married people and this marriage is recognized then you can't deny it. It would be exactly the same as a mixed marriage. I don't think Liberty has to worry about a sudden influx of gay married students, however.

Notre Dame? Georgetown? Boston College? Loyola?

The consequences of the Land O Lakes Statement will now bite the catholic (small c) colleges in the arse.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

The interesting part to me is how the majority, according to that article, avoids saying anything about the freedom to "exercise" their religion. We all know this will launch further assaults on religious views that don't endorse homosexual behavior. That article even references that the Solicitor General admitted as much.

Again, this depends upon what you mean by an "assault." Brown "assaulted" people whose religious views imposed a hierarchy of race. Loving "assaulted" people whose religious views prohibited race mixing. Like Aztec (or Mayan -- I always forget) human sacrifice, some "religious freedoms" are simply not protected.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Was kinda hoping for the redistricting case to be announced today, as that's been an interesting one to follow locally here in AZ. Gotta wait another few days.

Kep,

Of course the media wasn't the only factor. Changes like this always are the result of many factors.

Gotta love some of the stuff from the Chief Justice, even if his performance at times is less than impressive.

Judicial modesty “is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition,” he wrote.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

I completely agree with the Chief Justice. The outcome of this case is fine with me but it was about the majority group on the supreme court making law versus it actually being in the constitution and that part is troublesome.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Sure they will. People will push any edge of the envelope they can to try to fully claim their full right in every way shape and form. Just like people who could buy a cake elsewhere make an issue of that and such. it's as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. We live in a country where unfortunately a lot of people look for fights (instead of looking for ways to live at peace with their fellow man).

Come now, Bob. Demanding to be treated with equal dignity is only "looking for a fight" if somebody has a problem with that. There is a bully in these cases, but it's not the side you're thinking of.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I completely agree with the Chief Justice. The outcome of this case is fine with me but it was about the majority group on the supreme court making law versus it actually being in the constitution and that part is troublesome.

Didn't I read something about McCutcheon essentially creating its own justification completely out of wholecloth? Where were Justice Roberts' scruples then?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Again, this depends upon what you mean by an "assault." Brown "assaulted" people whose religious views imposed a hierarchy of race. Loving "assaulted" people whose religious views prohibited race mixing. Like Aztec (or Mayan -- I always forget) human sacrifice, some "religious freedoms" are simply not protected.

Uh, human sacrifice is a ridiculous example. Nobody is asking for protection against such or ever has for anything remotely like that. But, such exaggeration will inevitably be part of the assault.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Notre Dame? Georgetown? Boston College? Loyola?

The consequences of the Land O Lakes Statement will now bite the catholic (small c) colleges in the arse.

I think it will do them greater credit. (I also had to look it up since all that meant to me was butter.) Surely those schools have had to deal with the contradiction between church orthodoxy and state law before.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Didn't I read something about McCutcheon essentially creating its own justification completely out of wholecloth? Where were Justice Roberts' scruples then?

I'm not someone who follows every decision so feel free to explain that if you want...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Come now, Bob. Demanding to be treated with equal dignity is only "looking for a fight" if somebody has a problem with that. There is a bully in these cases, but it's not the side you're thinking of.

Only? Only? Come now. Hounding anyone who doesn't endorse what you do has nothing with being treated with equal dignity. It has already happened, but the Supreme Court's implicit endorsement will ramp up things significantly.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Uh, human sacrifice is a ridiculous example. Nobody is asking for protection against such or ever has for anything remotely like that. But, such exaggeration will inevitably be part of the assault.

It's important to recognize that the religiosity or sincerity of a belief does not in itself constitute a protection from state regulation. Like everything else, there's a negotiation of where the line between protected and unprotected religious views falls. I absolutely agree with you and other conservative posters that with Obergefell that line has moved. But I think it's important to note that these lines are always moving. Constitutional Law is not delivered once and forever like Mosaic Law. It evolves.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'm not someone who follows every decision so feel free to explain that if you want...

I'll try but I have to go back and look. uno might know what I'm talking about off the cuff. I know it was a criticism that was leveled.

Edit: I think this was one of the entry points to the charge. It is a liberal advocacy site, but of course conservative advocacy sites would hardly be stressing Robert's rejection of precedent.