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

[MissThundercat]

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

I hope those fvcksticks are reverse-trolled with massive amounts of dreaded same-sex kissing.

Here's the facebook page for the protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/171...l&source=3&source_newsfeed_story_type=regular

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

Legal Beagles -- what is an immoral / illegal law and is it the duty of a citizen / office holder to oppose such a law? We have examples in the military where it is the duty of the soldier not to obey an illegal order. Does the same admonishment extend into the civilian sector?

Joe, with all due respect (and I really don't think you are a bad guy), it should not take a lawyer to realize the difference between a SCOTUS ruling from the country's top legal eagles who have the authority to interpret the law, and an order from a superior officer who does not.

 

[burd]

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

Legal Beagles -- what is an immoral / illegal law and is it the duty of a citizen / office holder to oppose such a law? We have examples in the military where it is the duty of the soldier not to obey an illegal order. Does the same admonishment extend into the civilian sector?

Refuse and resign.

This has nothing to do with conscience. It's the child kicking and screaming by the candy display at the checkout stand.

 

[unofan]

Legal Beagles -- what is an immoral / illegal law and is it the duty of a citizen / office holder to oppose such a law? We have examples in the military where it is the duty of the soldier not to obey an illegal order. Does the same admonishment extend into the civilian sector?

As with all things, it depends. The big difference is that civilians are not conscripted, and don't sign their lives away to their jobs, thus they always have the option of quitting.

Also, gay marriage isn't illegal, no matter what you personally believe. The nation's highest court just issued a high profile ruling on that.

If you're truly asking generically and not simply begging the question, you say state your belief in court and let the courts decide. But if they say it's legal, as with gay marriage, then you **** well better understand it's legal and we're back to choosing between doing your job or quitting.

If it's legal but personally immoral, your option is to do it or quit if it involves an essential job function that cannot be reasonably accommodated. And note that reasonableness is a much more employer friendly standard for religious accommodation cases than disability ones.

 

[Twitch Boy]

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

"I'm sorry, I can't issue you this gun license due to my sincerely held religious beliefs. Thou shalt not kill. Doesn't get much clearer than that."

Watch Fox News have an existential crisis.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

Legal Beagles -- what is an immoral / illegal law and is it the duty of a citizen / office holder to oppose such a law? We have examples in the military where it is the duty of the soldier not to obey an illegal order. Does the same admonishment extend into the civilian sector?

Well first of all there are no illegal laws. By virtue of being a law, it is legal. I think you've confused the idea of a law that an individual may believe to be immoral according to the their personal code (a belief that has no standing whatsoever in law as far a someones sworn duty as an elected official) and a military order given by a superior that is illegal. Your squad leader cannot order you to shoot an unarmed combatant who has clearly surrendered. If he does it is not only allowed, but expected, that you disregard such an illegal order. This has no similarity whatsoever to a duly sworn judge sitting in good standing compelling an elected official to uphold the law and do her sworn duty.

And before anyone posts it, yes I realize that some laws are found to be unconstitutional and are later changed or stricken entirely. That wrinkle does not alter the point made.

 

[joecct]

As with all things, it depends. The big difference is that civilians are not conscripted, and don't sign their lives away to their jobs, thus they always have the option of quitting.

Also, gay marriage isn't illegal, no matter what you personally believe. The nation's highest court just issued a high profile ruling on that.

If you're truly asking generically and not simply begging the question, you say state your belief in court and let the courts decide. But if they say it's legal, as with gay marriage, then you **** well better understand it's legal and we're back to choosing between doing your job or quitting.

If it's legal but personally immoral, your option is to do it or quit if it involves an essential job function that cannot be reasonably accommodated. And note that reasonableness is a much more employer friendly standard for religious accommodation cases than disability ones.

Threshold of insanity? A law rounding up the Jews and shipping them to extermination camps is obviously (or should be) immoral but legally enacted. We would have, I think, a moral duty to oppose such a law. War crimes trials have shown that following orders is not a defense.

I have previously posted the following conduct guides
1. If it harms no one, do it.
2. Protect the weak from the strong.

Obviously the extermination camp example runs afoul of the above. If a law violates one of the above, it should be opposed. Gay marriage does not.

I am not for gay marriage. I think SCOTUS made a mistake in the breadth of the ruling and should have left it to the individual states. They made the same mistake with Roe. Obviously, on this board, I am in the minority. Time will tell which path would have been better.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

I am not for gay marriage. I think SCOTUS made a mistake in the breadth of the ruling and should have left it to the individual states. They made the same mistake with Roe. Obviously, on this board, I am in the minority. Time will tell which path would have been better.

In a mobile society some laws --marriage laws being an easy example -- cannot by and large be left to the states. If it is legal in my state but not yours, what happens when I move to your state? Some laws can be left to states and localities based on local mores or circumstances. High speed limits in western states with sparse traffic? No problem. Requiring the person from Montana to slow down driving on I-95 through Philadelphia? Not at all unreasonable. But the gay couple that got married in Massachusetts who move to Kentucky to care for an ailing parent and suddenly find themselves unmarried in the eyes of the law? Not at all reasonable.

 

[joecct]

In a mobile society some laws --marriage laws being an easy example -- cannot by and large be left to the states. If it is legal in my state but not yours, what happens when I move to your state? Some laws can be left to states and localities based on local mores or circumstances. High speed limits in western states with sparse traffic? No problem. Requiring the person from Montana to slow down driving on I-95 through Philadelphia? Not at all unreasonable. But the gay couple that got married in Massachusetts who move to Kentucky to care for an ailing parent and suddenly find themselves unmarried in the eyes of the law? Not at all reasonable.

Age of consent to marry varies among the states. SCOTUS did not touch that.

 

[unofan]

Age of consent to marry varies among the states. SCOTUS did not touch that.

And one of the attorneys for the states acknowledged he'd never heard of a case where a state invalidated another state's marriage due to such differences.

If you think that's a big deal, you're free to find someone who has standing and pay for them to challenge that in court.

 

[unofan]

Threshold of insanity? A law rounding up the Jews and shipping them to extermination camps is obviously (or should be) immoral but legally enacted. We would have, I think, a moral duty to oppose such a law.

You oppose it by quitting. You are not in the military. You can do that.

 

[alfablue]

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

I have previously posted the following conduct guides
1. If it harms no one, do it.
2. Protect the weak from the strong.

I am not for gay marriage. I think SCOTUS made a mistake in the breadth of the ruling and should have left it to the individual states. They made the same mistake with Roe. Obviously, on this board, I am in the minority. Time will tell which path would have been better.

Sorry that I'm picking your quotes out of your post, but I think this pairing is quite interesting. You say your rule to the former, but state that the latter is still what things should be.

Based on your measurements:

1) who is harmed by gay people getting married? Really harmed. It's easy to demonstrate how gay people are harmed if they are not allowed to be married- where the person one commits to is not legally bound to you in various parts of the government.
2) clearly, the gay population is the minority- how is this not protecting the weak from the strong? Christianity is the dominant religion in this country- which is usually the strong arm in morality arguments.

That's a side comment, of course.

Given the path of how the judgment has come about, the court has said that relative to the government, it can not discriminate based on sexuality- the decision may have been toward marriage, but the message is that you can not write laws restricting the rights of homosexuals relative to everyone else.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Gotta agree with Joe. People keep saying she had to do her job or quit. Not true. There was a third option...she could stay in her job and refuse to carry out gay marriages. And that is in fact what she did. Just as with anyone who does their job poorly, she's not evil...there is no permanent damage to anything due to her actions.

If anything, it was the system that broke down...as it needed to address it immediately.

No, it's not the continuation of it, its the fact that she instructed her subordinates to protest as well, and since 5/6 of them said today that they would comply with the court order, they were not in her camp. Which is to say, she told them to break the law/break a court order.

I see the point about her protesting to her conscience, and using free speech to do that. Even though I do have an issue that a government representative goes against the Constitution. As an elected government representative, who swore an oath- that should be grounds of whatever it's called that she loses her office.

But basically taking other, non willing, people down with her. I do have an extra issue with that. This is where a protest goes from heroic to very much not.

Military people are allowed to not follow orders when the order is unlawful. We can't have people just using their position to order people around just based on what they believe.

Regarding her staff, the system is working when 1) they know and are given support to not follow her orders 2) she is removed from her position immediately 3) her staff is immediately reinstated or rewarded for its loyalty. If the system is doing its job, she's largely a non-factor and we aren't even talking about this.

The system is there to make sure she pays the price when acting out. And she is paying that price. From a legal standpoint, the oath just raises the stakes. And she's going to jail as she should. Now you could make the case that she swore on a Bible and that opens her up to charges of hypocrisy.

 

[Slap Shot]

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

See, if you and the troll brigade weren't so smarmy, I might make more of an effort to respond to you. Wishful thinking.

Sure thing, Bob.

 

[joecct]

And one of the attorneys for the states acknowledged he'd never heard of a case where a state invalidated another state's marriage due to such differences.

If you think that's a big deal, you're free to find someone who has standing and pay for them to challenge that in court.

No. No. What I wanted was
1. SCOTUS to affirm the right that each state may determine who can get married within its borders.
2. SCOTUS validates the existing law that a marriage (or divorce) enacted in State A is valid in the rest of the USA.

The results allows everyone to be happy.

Old timers will remember the special spot that Elkton, MD occupied along the East Coast.

 

[GrinCDXX]

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

No. No. What I wanted was
1. SCOTUS to affirm the right that each state may determine who can get married within its borders.
2. SCOTUS validates the existing law that a marriage (or divorce) enacted in State A is valid in the rest of the USA.

The results allows everyone to be happy.

Old timers will remember the special spot that Elkton, MD occupied along the East Coast.

So would this right of the states to determine who will be given a marriage license be completely unfettered? Would they be free to refuse to issue them to any minority? If not, why not?

 

[joecct]

So would this right of the states to determine who will be given a marriage license be completely unfettered? Would they be free to refuse to issue them to any minority? If not, why not?

Minorities were settled in Loving and, I'm sure, the various civil rights acts.

 

[burd]

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

No. No. What I wanted was
1. SCOTUS to affirm the right that each state may determine who can get married within its borders.
2. SCOTUS validates the existing law that a marriage (or divorce) enacted in State A is valid in the rest of the USA.

The results allows everyone to be happy.

Old timers will remember the special spot that Elkton, MD occupied along the East Coast.

Minorities were settled in Loving and, I'm sure, the various civil rights acts.

So the 14th A applies to race, gender, age, alienage, etc, but not gay marriage? Wouldn't it have been much simpler just to find the law constitutional?

 

[alfablue]

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

No. No. What I wanted was
1. SCOTUS to affirm the right that each state may determine who can get married within its borders.
2. SCOTUS validates the existing law that a marriage (or divorce) enacted in State A is valid in the rest of the USA.

The results allows everyone to be happy.

Old timers will remember the special spot that Elkton, MD occupied along the East Coast.

But none of that was asked of the SCOTUS. So how could they say anything about it. All they did was take the restriction of man-woman only combination of 2 out. So it can be man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man. That's it.

States are still allowed to define marriage in their state- but only the relationship, age, and numerical restrictions are constitutional. Can't restrict based on religion, race, or sexual orientation. That's it.

How can they make a statement that they were not asked to answer?

 

[joecct]

So the 14th A applies to race, gender, age, alienage, etc, but not gay marriage? Wouldn't it have been much simpler just to find the law constitutional?

I agree with your 1st sentence. Justice Kennedy thought otherwise.