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

[FreshFish]

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.

Due to technological change and social evolution, there are plenty of examples of situations in which the Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever. I'd prefer those questions be settled through the legislative process rather than having Justices make stuff up.

Regarding abortion, society was already starting to develop the outlines of a social consensus that said, "fine early, not okay late, we have to negotiate more regarding the middle." Had that social conversation continued, we'd have arrived at a grand compromise many years ago and it would no longer be a divisive issue, everyone would have grumbled and moved on to something else.

Instead, the Court short-circuited that process and it is still an issue today, decades beyond its normal shelf life.

in my personal view, the Court got the "results" just about right (even though the reasoning was atrocious! "penumbras" and "emanations"? seriously? but I digress...) however, by handing down a decree from on high, no one felt like they had their chance to be heard, there were no majority votes, and we are stuck with an issue that should be out of sight in the rear view mirror by now.


Frankly, I just don't understand why the Justices can't say, "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other because modern technology didn't exist back then, and the Drafters never envisioned that such a situation would ever come about. This is a job for legislative deliberation and majority rule, provided that rights of minorities are adequately protected along the way."

 

[Foxton]

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

I'd prefer those questions be settled through the legislative process rather than having Justices make stuff up.

The justices didn't make anything up, **** off with this misleading phrasing you partisan hack.

 

[unofan]

Due to technological change and social evolution, there are plenty of examples of situations in which the Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever. I'd prefer those questions be settled through the legislative process rather than having Justices make stuff up.

Regarding abortion, society was already starting to develop the outlines of a social consensus that said, "fine early, not okay late, we have to negotiate more regarding the middle." Had that social conversation continued, we'd have arrived at a grand compromise many years ago and it would no longer be a divisive issue, everyone would have grumbled and moved on to something else.

Instead, the Court short-circuited that process and it is still an issue today, decades beyond its normal shelf life.

in my personal view, the Court got the "results" just about right (even though the reasoning was atrocious! "penumbras" and "emanations"? seriously? but I digress...) however, by handing down a decree from on high, no one felt like they had their chance to be heard, there were no majority votes, and we are stuck with an issue that should be out of sight in the rear view mirror by now.


Frankly, I just don't understand why the Justices can't say, "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other because modern technology didn't exist back then, and the Drafters never envisioned that such a situation would ever come about. This is a job for legislative deliberation and majority rule, provided that rights of minorities are adequately protected along the way."

Because unlike in your theoretical concern troll world, the real world doesn't wait for everything to be legislated, and real cases and controversies arise continuously.

If a cop pulls you over and searches your cell phone without a warrant, and you claim that search is illegal, what exactly do you expect the court to do? "The founders couldn't have foreseen cell phones, therefore I refuse to issue a ruling?" Then what, you (and thousands like you, not to mention the million or so cops out there) remain in limbo indefinitely? I suppose that's ok if you're out on bail, less so if you're stuck in jail.

And for someone who actively criticizes big government, your philosophy sure sounds like a call to start legislating every aspect of Americans' lives. Because otherwise, the system grinds to a halt as the judicial branch twiddles its thumbs, unable to do anything because the real world will always move faster than the political one.

 

[bronconick]

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

Frankly, I just don't understand why the Justices can't say, "there is no guidance in the Constitution one way or the other because modern technology didn't exist back then, and the Drafters never envisioned that such a situation would ever come about. This is a job for legislative deliberation and majority rule, provided that rights of minorities are adequately protected along the way."

If they do that we may as well have a new Constitutional Congress and start from scratch.

That's not gonna fly.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

Because unlike in your theoretical concern troll world, the real world doesn't wait for everything to be legislated, and real cases and controversies arise continuously.

If a cop pulls you over and searches your cell phone without a warrant, and you claim that search is illegal, what exactly do you expect the court to do? "The founders couldn't have foreseen cell phones, therefore I refuse to issue a ruling." Then what, you (and thousands like you, not to mention the million or so cops out there) remain in limbo indefinitely? I suppose that's ok if you're out on bail, less so if you're stuck in jail.

And for someone who actively criticizes big government, your philosophy sure sounds like a call to start legislating every aspect of Americans' lives. Because otherwise, the system grinds to a halt as the judicial branch terrifies its thumbs, unable to do anything because the real world will always move faster than the political one.

Here is my question. When we decided to abolish slavery after the civil war, we implemented the Reconstruction Amendments. We didn't just bring a case before the supreme court and expect that since public opinion was on their side, they'd create new rights that were not there before. Why is that the wrong way to go with things? Because its too hard to get enough states to do it? That seems silly since what, 37 states had "freedom to marry" as the law of the land before today...I guess we'd need 38 to ratify an amendment and I'm guessing some of the states would struggle to ratify since the reason its legal in those states was a judicial decision, not legislation?

 

[TimP]

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

Why shouldn't we? There are parts that need to be scrapped due to the changing times. The Constitution should be acknowledged as a living document.

 

[Foxton]

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

Here is my question. When we decided to abolish slavery after the civil war, we implemented the Reconstruction Amendments. We didn't just bring a case before the supreme court and expect that since public opinion was on their side, they'd create new rights that were not there before. Why is that the wrong way to go with things? Because its too hard to get enough states to do it? That seems silly since what, 37 states had "freedom to marry" as the law of the land before today...I guess we'd need 38 to ratify an amendment and I'm guessing some of the states would struggle to ratify since the reason its legal in those states was a judicial decision, not legislation?

You may want to look into the reconstruction acts that were required to get those amendments passed. As in, confederate states couldn't have their new constitutions accepted without accepting the 14th amendment.

It's ridiculous to expect a constitutional amendment in this day and age to reiterate an amendment that already exists. 37 states as you mention already said that marriage was marriage. The issue decided today was that the laws specifically created in the other states to deny this violated the 14th amendment. It is not the creation of rights, only the guaranteeing of them.

 

[Kepler]

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

Here is my question. When we decided to abolish slavery after the civil war, we implemented the Reconstruction Amendments. We didn't just bring a case before the supreme court and expect that since public opinion was on their side, they'd create new rights that were not there before. Why is that the wrong way to go with things? Because its too hard to get enough states to do it? That seems silly since what, 37 states had "freedom to marry" as the law of the land before today...I guess we'd need 38 to ratify an amendment and I'm guessing some of the states would struggle to ratify since the reason its legal in those states was a judicial decision, not legislation?

Well, the majority opinion is no new right is being created, it's just that gays are being recognized as falling under the 14th.

The Reconstruction amendments were necessary because slavery was formally in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the federal government and not the states. Those were radical changes to the structure of the Constitution.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

Good answers, thanks to both of you. That helps me understand what happen today. It's more about saying no one ever asked before to be protected under the 14th amendment in order to marry someone of the same sex. Today the Supreme Court was given the chance to say that yes, now that they've been asked the question, the 14th amendment does extend to same-sex couple?

 

[SteveP]

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

That didn't take long.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For those unsure about Alito's and Roberts' comments on the muzzling of the opposition, it began several minutes ago <a href="http://t.co/k7zYjSDaGR">pic.twitter.com/k7zYjSDaGR</a></p>— David Freddoso (@freddoso) <a href="https://twitter.com/freddoso/status/614474458359820288">June 26, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And in other Pennsylvania news.....

The controversy over the display of the Confederate flag in the wake of the killing of nine black church members in Charleston, S.C., has reached the annual Union County Veterans Fourth of July Parade in Lewisburg.

The 18th North Carolina Co. A re-enactors have been asked not to display the Confederate flag if it marches, parade chairman Kevin Bittenbender said Friday.

 

[Kepler]

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

We actually do need some amendments, however, and they tend to come in bunches so maybe we'll see another progressive era. The Second has to be modified, and corporate "personhood" has to be explicitly fenced off from the Bill of Rights. If I got my fifteen minutes of absolute rule I'd also abolish the Senate and change the House to 3-year terms falling on the Presidential cycle, with Presidents permitted to run thrice, but I'm pretty sure the latter is just me.

 

[Kepler]

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

And in other Pennsylvania news.....

Are there WW2 re-enactors in Europe?

Serious question -- I have no idea. I vaguely remember there are Napoleanic War re-enactments.

A co-worker of mine did French and Indian War re-enacting. Now that is some super hardcore stuff.

 

[Jimjamesak]

We actually do need some amendments, however, and they tend to come in bunches so maybe we'll see another progressive era. The Second has to be modified, and corporate "personhood" has to be explicitly fenced off from the Bill of Rights. If I got my fifteen minutes of absolute rule I'd also abolish the Senate and change the House to 3-year terms falling on the Presidential cycle, with Presidents permitted to run thrice, but I'm pretty sure the latter is just me.

The Senate needs to stick around but needs to reduced heavily in importance. Basically make it a yes or no chamber, no laws introduced, no filibusters etc.

 

[Kepler]

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

The Senate needs to stick around but needs to reduced heavily in importance. Basically make it a yes or no chamber, no laws introduced, no filibusters etc.

Don't need an amendment to eliminate filibusters; just modify the Senate rules to a simple majority on cloture votes. But I don't see any purpose for the Senate. House craziness can be held in check by the other two branches, and having just one legislative chamber would eliminate a lot of the posturing nonsense that both chambers get up to now in passing purely symbolic crap safe on the assumption that the other side will spike it.

Killing the Senate also gets rid of the EV distortion, and having the House be the sole legislative body would also encourage greater responsibility and accountability for Members.

Another progressive amendment could outlaw gerrymandering and guarantee a neutral redistricting mechanism in the same way as it now guarantees each state must have a republican form of government. Imagine an election where practically every seat was in play? Talk about good for democracy.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

Don't need an amendment to eliminate filibusters; just modify the Senate rules to a simple majority on cloture votes. But I don't see any purpose for the Senate. House craziness can be held in check by the other two branches, and having just one legislative chamber would eliminate a lot of the posturing nonsense that both chambers get up to now in passing purely symbolic crap safe on the assumption that the other side will spike it.

Killing the Senate also gets rid of the EV distortion, and having the House be the sole legislative body would also encourage greater responsibility and accountability for Members.

Another progressive amendment could outlaw gerrymandering and guarantee a neutral redistricting mechanism in the same way as it now guarantees each state must have a republican form of government. Imagine an election where practically every seat was in play? Talk about good for democracy.

Uhm, wouldn't that be gerrymandering of a different kind? I don't think we should be able to create districts that are out of whack like North Carolina's 12th but at the same time that doesn't mean each district should be forced to be a toss up. There obviously needs to be some middle ground.

I also don't understand why everyone wants to trash the Senate.

 

[Kepler]

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

I also don't understand why everyone wants to trash the Senate.

Have you seen the place? I mean, at least put in granite counter tops...

But I was unclear: the districts won't be "forced" to be a toss-up; there should simply be a bi-partisan solution which also doesn't bend over backwards to protect incumbents, and that basically means some sort of centralization algorithm. Discrete Math is Our Friend.

To be honest, half the districts would probably still be safe anyway, because people self-segregate with similar-thinking neighbors.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

Have you seen the place? I mean, at least put in granite counter tops...

But I was unclear: the districts won't be "forced" to be a toss-up; there should simply be a bi-partisan solution which also doesn't bend over backwards to protect incumbents, and that basically means some sort of centralization algorithm. Discrete Math is Our Friend.

To be honest, half the districts would probably still be safe anyway, because people self-segregate with similar-thinking neighbors.

The fact that politicians suck doesn't mean we change our government and give up on a bicameral legislature. You guys might be right that a single legislature MIGHT fix some of the posturing we get with stuff currently but that doesn't mean it would make things better.

 

[Kepler]

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

The fact that politicians suck doesn't mean we change our government and give up on a bicameral legislature.

Our whole basis of government with checks and balances is based on the principle that politicians suck. The bicamerality of the legislature is based on the assumption that elites need a firewall to protect themselves from the rest of us.

I am not in favor of the latter premise, given what it's led to.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

Our whole basis of government with checks and balances is based on the principle that politicians suck. The bicamerality of the legislature is based on the assumption that elites need a firewall to protect themselves from the rest of us.

I am not in favor of the latter premise, given what it's led to.

Thats an interesting theory, I've always thought of it as being a check between the big states and small states, not to mention a check on the shortsightedness of those who are constantly facing reelection versus those with longer terms.

 

[LynahFan]

Well the question is are 3 people truly entering into a group union or is Person A married to Person B but also trying to marry Person C and Person B doesn't object to Person A being married to 2 people...Person A and Person C are consenting adults correct?

Ah, good point. Let me try again.

"Each person can marry exactly one other person."

Does that violate the 14th amendment, and if so, how?