The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Same thing if God condemns pedophilia or incest. This is easy to flip around.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Same thing if God condemns pedophilia or incest. This is easy to flip around.

No, your example is only too flawed as it deals with potentially causing harm of another person. Children are subject of special laws to that they're protected because they don't always know what can or cannot harm them. Most incest, I would think, is not full grown adult children with parents or siblings, it's an older family member preying on an underage one, usually getting the Daily Double of pedophila and incest all in one nut.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.

About 2015 years ago they seemed to have changed a lot, if you believe the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Otherwise Christians wouldn't wear polyblend clothing or eat shellfish.

 

[joecct]

About 2015 years ago they seemed to have changed a lot, if you believe the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Otherwise Christians wouldn't wear polyblend clothing or eat shellfish.

If it trumped, then we would not have the OT at all. Read what I wrote again.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.

In that case all we can do is our best interpretation at any given time. The final tally will comes soon enough for us all. The interpretation people are moving towards is that gay/straight is as equal as white/black or male/female.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

No, your example is only too flawed as it deals with potentially causing harm of another person. Children are subject of special laws to that they're protected because they don't always know what can or cannot harm them. Most incest, I would think, is not full grown adult children with parents or siblings, it's an older family member preying on an underage one, usually getting the Daily Double of pedophila and incest all in one nut.

As usual, you miss my point. I'm starting to wonder if you ever understand as I seem to go through this with you all too regularly.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.

And really, a lot of folks aren't even interested in what God is saying, they just want to remake God in whatever fashion makes them feel comfortable. That's rubbish. Then there are people who really honest to goodness try to understand what God is saying and come to honestly held differences. I can respect that a lot more, but such is becoming more scarce.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

As usual, you miss my point. I'm starting to wonder if you ever understand as I seem to go through this with you all too regularly.

You seem to have that problem with a lot of people, Bob. Perhaps you should point that finger at a mirror instead.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If it trumped, then we would not have the OT at all. Read what I wrote again.

I heard somewhere the Book of Mormon trumped both the Old and New Testament.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Back to FF's 9:43 post.

If one side of the Constitutional triangle starts to exert too much power, how do you reign it in?

While the Founders intended for 3 equal branches of government, were they OK if the Congress got too big for its britches as they are closest to the people?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

As usual, you miss my point. I'm starting to wonder if you ever understand as I seem to go through this with you all too regularly.

We all seem to be missing your point on this one. Perhaps you would consider restating it? This is not a knock -- it usually takes me three or four tries to make something I consider to be clear as day comprehensible to other people.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.

I still don't understand for SSM, which harms nobody, cost nobody else any money, and treats more people equally- how that is something that you need project religious judgement on vs. just letting people get married and judged when the time comes.

You posted your measure of worry a while ago, which SSM meets, yet you don't think it should happen. What's up with that?

And in this particular instance, when given a government who is legally bound to NOT recognize a religion, you seem to think that a person in the government should be legally allowed to recognize a religion on behalf of the government. If her church does not marry same sex couples, or she will not marry another woman- fine. But to force that belief onto the government when it's been decided that it's ok?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If it trumped, then we would not have the OT at all. Read what I wrote again.

Are there not parts of the OT that the NT made completely useless? Do Christians provide burnt offerrings? Are there bans on fabrics and fish as proscribed in the OT? Things have changed, perhaps not all of them but certainly some of them.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Back to FF's 9:43 post.

If one side of the Constitutional triangle starts to exert too much power, how do you reign it in?

While the Founders intended for 3 equal branches of government, were they OK if the Congress got too big for its britches as they are closest to the people?

You're assuming the Court has gotten too big for it's britches? Last I saw we have 3 equal branches and the checks and balances are working fine. It's only folks on the extreme right who thinks the Courts have gone insane and it's their own nominees to the Court who are giving the rulings. Just imagine if the Court were actually Left Leaning? You'd probably have a coronary.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Back to FF's 9:43 post.

If one side of the Constitutional triangle starts to exert too much power, how do you reign it in?

While the Founders intended for 3 equal branches of government, were they OK if the Congress got too big for its britches as they are closest to the people?

The rights of the individual trumps the will of the masses. We are a Republic afterall.

You see the legislative branch putting your will onto other people as ok, but if that will is against their rights, then it's its up to the court branch to stop that. That's the point of the court.

I'm know that gun rights people have anurisms every time any gun legislation is brought to the floor, even if there are a majority of support.

The SCOTUS *should* have intervened when people of Japanese ancestry were put into camps. They intervened with the Jim Crow laws when the legislation branch thought it was ok to have separate but equal, as it was neither, in actual practice.

 

[unofan]

Two legal questions:

(1) Will it require a legislative action for gays to achieve full legal equality, or can the Courts get them there?

It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many (most?) states, right? All Obergefell decided was that the state cannot deny gays the right to marry. That still means they are two rulings/laws short of absolute equality: (i) the state can't discriminate in any way against gays, and (ii) a privately owned place of public accommodation can't do the same. With race this was decided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do we need another act of Congress for gays?

Also: (2) If Congress repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or whatever the renewal(s) of that Act are, could restaurants stop serving black people?

2) is yes, at least at the federal level (state anti discrimination laws would obviously remain in place). The 14th Amendment requires equal protection of the laws, and applies to the states and federal government, not private entities or citizens.

1) is probably similar. Absent the passage of a statute, people can discriminate. The constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit discrimination per se, and indeed protects it to an extent with things like the first amendment. It's less clear whether a statute would be necessary to prevent the government itself from discriminating, however. Most likely you'd have to do the whole balancing test in numerous factual situations

 

[joecct]

The rights of the individual trumps the will of the masses. We are a Republic afterall.

You see the legislative branch putting your will onto other people as ok, but if that will is against their rights, then it's its up to the court branch to stop that. That's the point of the court.

The SCOTUS *should* have intervened when people of Japanese ancestry were put into camps. They intervened with the Jim Crow laws when the legislation branch thought it was ok to have separate but equal, as it was neither, in actual practice.

I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority and you interpret it as my views.

But FF's post related to another challenge to PPACA. This time by the Congress taking the Executive to court. My question related to the Constitutional issue presented.

If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?

Read it in that context and get back to me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?

You know the rules:

Exec > Leg: Veto

Leg > Exec: Impeachment

Jud > Leg: Judicial review

Leg > Jud: Advise and consent

Jud > Exec: Judicial review

Exec > Jud: Appoint justices

 

[unofan]

I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority and you interpret it as my views.

Ah, you're back to the "I'm just asking questions" routine. Too bad, it was better when you actually played it straight for the last few weeks.

 

[joecct]

You're assuming the Court has gotten too big for it's britches? Last I saw we have 3 equal branches and the checks and balances are working fine. It's only folks on the extreme right who thinks the Courts have gone insane and it's their own nominees to the Court who are giving the rulings. Just imagine if the Court were actually Left Leaning? You'd probably have a coronary.

I survived the Bulger Court.

I was leaning to the Executive Branch.