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

[Kepler]

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

This is nicely done.

 

[St. Clown]

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

Helicopter parents do not permit their kids to make mistakes. They write their term papers, do their science projects, write the college essays. In short Junior or Precious is protected in a bubble.

Right now our SCOTUS does not permit the legislature to write a bad or vague law. If nobody understands it, or the law has more faults in it than California, the court will rewrite the law from the bench to fit "intent", instead of sending it back to the legislature with a big "F" on it with the admonishment to do better.

Bad and vague are two very different things. If a law is vague, then the court will strike it down as such, which has been done since the beginning of this nation. As to bad law, Justice Roberts stated flatly in his opinion on the Obamacare ruling that it wasn't his job to protect us from bad law, only to determine if the law was legally permissible.

 

[Handyman]

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

Bad and vague are two very different things. If a law is vague, then the court will strike it down as such, which has been done since the beginning of this nation. As to bad law, Justice Roberts stated flatly in his opinion on the Obamacare ruling that it wasn't his job to protect us from bad law, only to determine if the law was legally permissible.

I swear people need to go back to High School and take a refresher in American Government and Politics. This isnt even like AP level crap this is the very basics.

 

[FreshFish]

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

It seems like the Supreme Court has never had to rule that workplace discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional. Many people think it is "probably" the case or "most likely" the case, but the Court never formally had to rule one way or the other.

State governments passed laws saying that workplace discrimination was illegal before a case ever reached SCOTUS. Maybe a few people didn't like the idea, but it seems so right, so just, so fair, that the political process was able to deal with it without needing SCOTUS to intervene. Now it is so basic and fundamental and background that no one thinks twice about it.

It is not whether the Court is right or not that frustrates many people, it is that, by intervening in a political debate and short-circuiting it, the debate is not at all solved but instead persists much longer than it ever would have otherwise.


No matter how self-righteous a person feels, to forcibly ram your self-righteousness down someone else's throat against their will often creates opposition in situations where people otherwise would be open to persuasion instead.

 

[alfablue]

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

It is not whether the Court is right or not that frustrates many people, it is that, by intervening in a political debate and short-circuiting it, the debate is not at all solved but instead persists much longer than it ever would have otherwise.

No, only the losers of the judgement get frustrated. It is the Court's job to make sure that laws are written so that they do not violate rights- and many of the laws that the "short circuit" do just that. You bring up homosexual rights- the 14th amendment gives us all equal application of the law- so it's not rocket science to think that one can not discriminate against someone who is homosexual based on equal application of the law, given discrimination and harassment laws.

Funny that we can not discriminate based on religion, but we seem to like the idea of discriminating because of religion. One part of your identity that is clearly a choice, it's fair to note.

 

[LynahFan]

Now [not discriminating against gays in the workplace] is so basic and fundamental and background that no one thinks twice about it.

Clearly, you have never traveled to a red state.

Read up.

 

[burd]

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

It seems like the Supreme Court has never had to rule that workplace discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional. Many people think it is "probably" the case or "most likely" the case, but the Court never formally had to rule one way or the other.

State governments passed laws saying that workplace discrimination was illegal before a case ever reached SCOTUS. Maybe a few people didn't like the idea, but it seems so right, so just, so fair, that the political process was able to deal with it without needing SCOTUS to intervene. Now it is so basic and fundamental and background that no one thinks twice about it.

It is not whether the Court is right or not that frustrates many people, it is that, by intervening in a political debate and short-circuiting it, the debate is not at all solved but instead persists much longer than it ever would have otherwise.


No matter how self-righteous a person feels, to forcibly ram your self-righteousness down someone else's throat against their will often creates opposition in situations where people otherwise would be open to persuasion instead.

You obviously think Marbury v. Madison was a bunch of horseshat

 

[unofan]

It seems like the Supreme Court has never had to rule that workplace discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional. Many people think it is "probably" the case or "most likely" the case, but the Court never formally had to rule one way or the other.

State governments passed laws saying that workplace discrimination was illegal before a case ever reached SCOTUS. Maybe a few people didn't like the idea, but it seems so right, so just, so fair, that the political process was able to deal with it without needing SCOTUS to intervene. Now it is so basic and fundamental and background that no one thinks twice about it.

It is not whether the Court is right or not that frustrates many people, it is that, by intervening in a political debate and short-circuiting it, the debate is not at all solved but instead persists much longer than it ever would have otherwise.


No matter how self-righteous a person feels, to forcibly ram your self-righteousness down someone else's throat against their will often creates opposition in situations where people otherwise would be open to persuasion instead.

Workplace discrimination of any sort is not unconstitutional, unless you're talking about the government as the employer. There's a reason anti-discrimination laws are needed re: private employment (and housing, and education, and places of public accommodation, etc). So it's not surprising the Court had never issued that ruling, because the Constitution isn't applicable.

 

[GrinCDXX]

No matter how self-righteous a person feels, to forcibly ram your self-righteousness down someone else's throat against their will often creates opposition in situations where people otherwise would be open to persuasion instead.

People can be persuaded that others are entitled to equal rights? Well, that's sure big of them!

 

[bronconick]

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

Clarence Thomas asked a question in oral arguments for the first time in ten years

 

[Kepler]

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

Clarence Thomas asked a question in oral arguments for the first time in ten years

Holy crap. IINM it was the exact anniversary. I assume he did it on purpose.

 

[unofan]

Holy crap. IINM it was the exact anniversary. I assume he did it on purpose.

Anniversary was last week (or even the week before, can't remember which).

 

[Kepler]

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

Anniversary was last week (or even the week before, can't remember which).

Oh well. I like my scenario better.

 

[Kepler]

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

TX "women's health" law so obviously bogus even the Court might figure it out.

 

[Rover]

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

TX "women's health" law so obviously bogus even the Court might figure it out.

Not sure why the forced birther crowd thought a SCOTUS ruling was a good idea as long as Kennedy is around. IIRC he helped write the "undue burden" statue the last time a major challenge came up. Unless the old boy has gotten more conservative over the years I'm not sure why he'd change his stance on that. if anything he's gotten more liberal. Texas officials have just about openly admitted this is about shutting down clinics. He might have different reasons than the 4 libs but I'm thinking this one goes 5-3 to overturn.

 

[unofan]

Not sure why the forced birther crowd thought a SCOTUS ruling was a good idea as long as Kennedy is around. IIRC he helped write the "undue burden" statue the last time a major challenge came up. Unless the old boy has gotten more conservative over the years I'm not sure why he'd change his stance on that. if anything he's gotten more liberal. Texas officials have just about openly admitted this is about shutting down clinics. He might have different reasons than the 4 libs but I'm thinking this one goes 5-3 to overturn.

Probably because Kennedy has only voted to strike down one law in 20 years as being an undue burden. He created the standard and then rendered it effectively toothless.

I also wouldn't say he's gotten more liberal; he's been the champion of gay rights on the court forever, so that's not a change. Most other things he's stillreliably conservative (he voted against the ACA, the voting rights act, and for citizens united, for instance)

 

[Kepler]

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

Not sure why the forced birther crowd thought a SCOTUS ruling was a good idea as long as Kennedy is around. IIRC he helped write the "undue burden" statue the last time a major challenge came up.

I was going to challenge this but luckily I looked it up first, and you are absolutely correct: the plurality opinion in Casey was written by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

I would expect if/when Hillary wins and the Court goes 5-4 we will start to see all the backdoor attacks on Roe begin to fall. There need not be any additional legal theory introduced, the structure is already there in Casey. Eventually, of course, Casey needs to be superseded by stronger language and a full 14th Amendment protection that thwarts all the deceitful measures. It's not like you have to demonstrate that it's too hard for blacks to get a burger to overturn a state law biased against them being served.

 

[Kepler]

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

Good news, maybe?

Over the lone dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon blocked the continued enforcement of a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have a professional right to send patients to a hospital within thirty miles of their clinics. The Court did not give a full explanation, but did say it was following what it had done late last June in blocking a Texas law imposing the same rule, and other restrictions.

Just two days ago, the Justices had examined the Texas law during an intense hearing, and presumably cast their first, preliminary vote on how to rule in that case at a private Conference Friday morning. But there was nothing in the text of the Court’s afternoon order on the Louisiana law that would give a reliable hint of where it is headed on the constitutional controversy over abortion clinic restrictions.

So we shall see. On the good side, Kennedy did the right thing. But on the bad side so did Alito, who is typically a villain in these cases.

 

[Rover]

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

Good news, maybe?



So we shall see. On the good side, Kennedy did the right thing. But on the bad side so did Alito, who is typically a villain in these cases.

I just don't see this law being upheld because the states are basically mocking the standard that Kennedy helped write. They're coming out and admitting it. Yes, you never know and all that but what Texas, etc is up to is pretty obvious.

 

[joecct]

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

I was going to challenge this but luckily I looked it up first, and you are absolutely correct: the plurality opinion in Casey was written by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

I would expect if/when Hillary wins and the Court goes 5-4 we will start to see all the backdoor attacks on Roe begin to fall. There need not be any additional legal theory introduced, the structure is already there in Casey. Eventually, of course, Casey needs to be superseded by stronger language and a full 14th Amendment protection that thwarts all the deceitful measures. It's not like you have to demonstrate that it's too hard for blacks to get a burger to overturn a state law biased against them being served.

As much as it disturbs me, abortion will be around for a long time. But, there have to be limits. This is where Roe is faulty as abortion was decided by judicial diktat rather than legislatively. Yes, you can have an abortion in the 1st trimester without restriction (YUK!), but beyond that states may or may not limit the right to kill a fetus/baby.