What's new
By:
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 VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
Interesting article on the power of the judiciary

http://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/01/001-how-the-court-became-supreme
Click to expand...

It is an interesting article, however this statement, which is at the core of the writer's assertion, is either wrong, or every prominent constitutional law professor of the last hundred years is wrong:

But as the Court’s own record of precedents demonstrates, its post-1958 conception of American constitutional history is fundamentally wrong. A limited form of judicial review was already established by 1800, but only for relatively “clear cases.” Marbury did not alter this, but rather established a clear precedent for the Court’s power to disregard congressional laws in cases “of a judiciary nature”—cases in which judicial functions were threatened by application of a questionable statutory provision. Marbury established only that the judiciary would play an important role in constitutional interpretation, not that it would play the ultimate role.
Click to expand...

I have rarely run across a statement that so blithely contradicts reality.

In short, the piece is an eloquent fiction; an exercise in attempted wish fulfillment in the service of a partisan argument that has been (recently) in eclipse, but which is obviously very attractive to a certain mindset currently given the direction of a Court that happens not to be finding for them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Random musings I've overheard since 26 June:

- Will companies now stop giving "partner benefits" and require a "marriage certificate" for all extended employee benefits?

- Can't you sign a power of attorney and a medical power of attorney (including living will) and have net effectively the same relationship as marriage? About the only thing I can see would be different is the "filing jointly" check box on a 1040. (I can solve that too --> eliminate the IRS. ;) :D )

- Finally, the Supremes declared that all states shall issue a license based on the least restrictive criteria of any state in the country and all states shall respect licenses (or laws on the subject) issued in other states. Will this same ruling apply to my concealed carry permit now as well, meaning CA and NY and IL must respect my ND permit? Or did we all just go under Vermont's "no license required" for concealed carry?


So many questions. So many questions.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Random musings I've overheard since 26 June:

- Will companies now stop giving "partner benefits" and require a "marriage certificate" for all extended employee benefits?

- Can't you sign a power of attorney and a medical power of attorney (including living will) and have net effectively the same relationship as marriage? About the only thing I can see would be different is the "filing jointly" check box on a 1040. (I can solve that too --> eliminate the IRS. ;) :D )

- Finally, the Supremes declared that all states shall issue a license based on the least restrictive criteria of any state in the country and all states shall respect licenses (or laws on the subject) issued in other states. Will this same ruling apply to my concealed carry permit now as well, meaning CA and NY and IL must respect my ND permit? Or did we all just go under Vermont's "no license required" for concealed carry?


So many questions. So many questions.
Click to expand...

1) you'd have to ask each individual company. The constitution neither requires not prohibits either decision, and I have no idea about what ERISA says on the matter.

2) and this is different from any other non-marital relationship...how?

3) The court said no such thing, so your "musing" is based on a false premise.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Using the numbering that was applied:

1. Some companies are moving to requiring a marriage license for extended benefits is what I've been told.

2. I guess I'm confused as to what a "marriage" is. Isn't it just a contract, a merger; two entities become one? What other special things under the old definition existed? Survivor benefits? No, you can direct those as you will. All I can come up with is the "filing jointly" box.

3. From the SCOTUS Blog:

Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Click to expand...

That says a license lawfully issued in one state must be recognized by other states, per the Fourteenth Amendment. Between this precedent, and driver's licenses being recognized state to state, it's not a long reach to ask "why not lawfully issued concealed carry licenses" as well.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Using the numbering that was applied:

1. Some companies are moving to requiring a marriage license for extended benefits is what I've been told.

2. I guess I'm confused as to what a "marriage" is. Isn't it just a contract, a merger; two entities become one? What other special things under the old definition existed? Survivor benefits? No, you can direct those as you will. All I can come up with is the "filing jointly" box.

3. From the SCOTUS Blog:



That says a license lawfully issued in one state must be recognized by other states, per the Fourteenth Amendment. Between this precedent, and driver's licenses being recognized state to state, it's not a long reach to ask "why not lawfully issued concealed carry licenses" as well.
Click to expand...

1) ok...so?

2) According to a five second Google search, there are 1138 marital benefits and rights in federal law. That goes up if you start counting state and local laws.

3) The fourteenth amendment clause at issue requires equal protection, thus the government can't discriminate against gay people. It doesn't say anything about gun laws, as being a gun owner is not a protected characteristic. And given that you've got the second amendment, you'd be better off sticking with challenges under that one anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

The Sicatoka said:
Random musings I've overheard since 26 June:

- Will companies now stop giving "partner benefits" and require a "marriage certificate" for all extended employee benefits?
Click to expand...

Not if they want to be competitive. Tech companies introduced partner benefits for their unmarried bedtime het playmates. It was only extended fortuitously to the gays later.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

SJHovey said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/y...s-in-question-after-marriage-ruling.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Many employers extended the benefits only to partners of gay employees because they did not have the option to legally wed. Plenty of other organizations, however, extended domestic partner coverage to opposite-sex couples as well — and those companies are expected to maintain the benefits more so than those that offered them only to same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

So it goes.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Wow. Looking at the last page of posts, 1999 was a **** good rookie year.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Would it really be too much to ask for elected officials to be able to answer SIMPLE questions on how the government works?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/09/1400714/-Oklahoma-governor-in-dire-need-of-a-civics-class
You know there are three branches of our government: the Supreme Court and the legislative branch and you have the people. The people and their ability to vote. And so I'm hoping we'll be able to address this issue in the legislative session and let the people of Oklahoma decide.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
From her bio:



Color me unsurprised.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, the group that reads this isn't the typical American...there are things we all should know that this group does, while a large part of the general population doesn't.
I watched a video making its way around facebook asking high school grads 3rd grade history questions and most didn't know the answers...pretty simple political stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top