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

[burd]

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

State action--a threshold requirement for equal protection analysis. No state action, no constitutional question (federal--state constitutions can provide more but not less protection).

 

[SJHovey]

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

Separate but Equal applied to schools funded by government agencies, be they local, county, state, or federal. Private discrimination was still legal after that. That case took place in 1954, Jim Crow was still in effect after that, and Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott took place in 1955. It wasn't until 1956 that the Supreme Court ruled to end government bus segregation. These various SCOTUS rulings all had widespread impacts, but they were generally widespread in targeted areas of government interactions with the public.

Exactly. Hence the adoption of laws like the federal Civil Rights act, and the plethora of state civil rights acts. I'm sure UNO will correct me if I'm wrong, but even today the civil rights acts around the country and at the federal level don't all protect against the same things. Just depends on where you live or work.

 

[alfablue]

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

State action--a threshold requirement for equal protection analysis. No state action, no constitutional question (federal--state constitutions can provide more but not less protection).

Which explains why gay marriage became the issue it did. The more state and federal laws you make, the more that equal protection has to be part of the measurement. The writing was on the wall once the first obvious restrictions were put in place.

 

[unofan]

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

Those are statutory, not Constitutional. The Constitution restricts government actions, not private parties.

 

[unofan]

Well lets look at this. In Brown v Topeka Board of Education, the court ruled separate was inherently unequal which I assume violated the Constitution? Or did they say it violated a certain law that had been passed, but not the Constitution itself? Because this seems on point about whether discrimination can be tolerated...

Board of Education = government, which means the 14th Amendment applies.

Derek Zoolander's Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Do Other Things Good Too is prohibited from discrimination by statute, not the Constitution. Lawmakers could repeal the Civil Rights Act tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

[burd]

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

Derek Zoolander's Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Do Other Things Good Too is prohibited from discrimination by statute, not the Constitution. Lawmakers could repeal the Civil Rights Act tomorrow if they wanted to.

Shhhhh. There are plenty of knucks out there who do, they are just too ignorant to know they can.

 

[Kepler]

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

Private clubs are also exempt because of the Freedom of Association contained in the 1st Amendment, which is why the states generally can't regulate them, either. See, for example, the Boy Scouts case from 2000.

Why doesn't that cover churches too?

 

[unofan]

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

Why doesn't that cover churches too?

What do you mean? Freedom of Religion is a pretty powerful shield against a whole host of things.

(accidentally deleted my last post, bah).

 

[Kepler]

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

What do you mean? Freedom of Religion is a pretty powerful shield against a whole host of things.

(accidentally deleted my last post, bah).

I mean why don't churches fall under the exemption to public accommodation? A church can't refuse black members.

 

[unofan]

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

I mean why don't churches fall under the exemption to public accommodation? A church can't refuse black members.

I think it can, but not without losing its tax exemption, from what I remember when it came up during the gay marriage fight; I don't even remember if it was a court ruling for sure, but I vaguely remember something to the effect of "you can practice what you want, but you don't have a Constitutional right to a tax exemption and the IRS's rules are reasonable." (If I'm remembering right, that would have predated the RFRA by years - who knows if that would stand up today if challenged).

Edit: This seems like a pretty good synopsis of things, from what I can tell after a quick read, though it mainly talks about religious schools and not the churches themselves. There's an aside that assumes while the IRS claims it could revoke tax exempt status from a racist church, it's never actually done so, likely never will, and would likely face constitutional hurdles if it tried to.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/05/20/obergefell-and-byus-tax-exemption/

 

[burd]

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

I think it can, but not without losing its tax exemption, from what I remember when it came up during the gay marriage fight; I don't even remember if it was a court ruling for sure, but I vaguely remember something to the effect of "you can practice what you want, but you don't have a Constitutional right to a tax exemption and the IRS's rules are reasonable." (If I'm remembering right, that would have predated the RFRA by years - who knows if that would stand up today if challenged).

Edit: This seems like a pretty good synopsis of things, from what I can tell after a quick read, though it mainly talks about religious schools and not the churches themselves. There's an aside that assumes while the IRS claims it could revoke tax exempt status from a racist church, it's never actually done so, likely never will, and would likely face constitutional hurdles if it tried to.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/05/20/obergefell-and-byus-tax-exemption/

I also had that vague recollection that it was a 501(C)(3) issue, uno. I think there was a fairly recent decision in which the issue was discussed. If I recall correctly, the religious organization could not be forced to admit a member of a protected class for constitutional reasons, but the IRS could revoke its exempt status. Not gonna research it though.

 

[Rover]

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

Interesting article about the SCOTUS...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_way_the_supreme_court_and_conservative.html

 

[Kepler]

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

I think it can, but not without losing its tax exemption, from what I remember when it came up during the gay marriage fight; I don't even remember if it was a court ruling for sure, but I vaguely remember something to the effect of "you can practice what you want, but you don't have a Constitutional right to a tax exemption and the IRS's rules are reasonable." (If I'm remembering right, that would have predated the RFRA by years - who knows if that would stand up today if challenged).

Edit: This seems like a pretty good synopsis of things, from what I can tell after a quick read, though it mainly talks about religious schools and not the churches themselves. There's an aside that assumes while the IRS claims it could revoke tax exempt status from a racist church, it's never actually done so, likely never will, and would likely face constitutional hurdles if it tried to.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/05/20/obergefell-and-byus-tax-exemption/

Thank you. it is always a pleasure to have somebody who knows what they're talking about here. (Although it's disconcerting too. )

 

[Kepler]

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

For once the statute is short, especially considering its importance. I give you Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I chopped the part that refers to penalties and court process to get under the max char limit.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201.(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

SEC. 202.All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203.No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

...

 

[Kepler]

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

Another source (or maybe the same one through different channels) with the Final 3.

Srinivasan, Watford and Garland.

Garland is 63 so I hope Obama doesn't send him up. That's something a 2009 or 2010 Obama would do; as we have all learned, we can't negotiate with terrorists.

Srinivasan seems like the obvious choice. When the GOP shoots him down they'll just expose themselves even more as craven hypocrites. If Clinton wins we will also likely take the Senate, so if Srinivasan really is the next Oliver Wendell Holmes she can just send him up again, but more to the point with the Senate Schumer can just ditch the closure supermajority and Hillary can put a lefty version of Scalia on the Court. The GOP won't be able to say boo because they're the ones who were so insanely partisan.

More to the point, the Dems can quietly explain to the non-derp GOP now that this will be the consequence of holding the Court hostage, which might break the Teeps' little crime syndicate up.

 

[Rover]

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

Another source (or maybe the same one through different channels) with the Final 3.

Srinivasan, Watford and Garland.

Garland is 63 so I hope Obama doesn't put him up. That's something a 2009 or 2010 Obama would do; as we have all learned, we can't negotiate with terrorists.

Srinivasan seems like the obvious choice. When the GOP shoots him down they'll just expose themselves even more as craven hypocrites. If Clinton wins we will also likely take the Senate, so if Srinivasan really is the next Oliver Wendell Holmes she can just send him up again, but more to the with the Senate Schumer can just ditch the closure supermajority and Hillary can put a lefty version of Scalia on the Court. The GOP won't be able to say boo because they're the ones who were so insanely partisan.

More to the point, the Dems can quietly explain to the GOP that this will be the consequence of holding the Court hostage, which might break their little crime syndicate up.

Obama has to be careful here, and I too want him to go for a raging liberal for two reasons:

1) Say he puts up a quasi-moderate. As in liberal on social issues but a foot in corporate America. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, to stop the GOP Senate after the election from actually approving the nomination unless that person withdraws. Then you get another Anthony Kennedy on the court, perhaps a shade to the left. Not ideal.

2) If he nominates another lib like the 4 already on the court, even if they don't get a hearing they'll be properly vetted in the public eye. By the time the new President and Senate takes office, it'll be pretty easy to run roughshod over Senate knuckledraggers and get nominee approved and then go to work overturning every idiotic conservative decision over the last 30 years.

 

[Kepler]

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

I don't want a precedent of the GOP voting down an extremely liberal nominee. For one thing, that gives them a huge victory with the type of supporters who are just as likely to rip them to shreds over confirming anybody. For another, it takes the onus of the nomination failure off conservative intransigence and puts it on Obama for nominating an extremist.

Put it this way. No matter who Obama sends, the GOP will do their usual kneejerk reframing as too left for Lenin. The 29%ers who listen to Hate Radio will be on board, and answer with even more virulent and delusional rhetoric. So far, there's nothing we can do to control that. What we can do is remind the other 71% of how crazy and dangerous the knucks are. A centrist-left nominee does that. Pick somebody with political aspirations and little interest in the Court job, let the GOP slander them, and it makes them a hero to the left and a sympathetic figure to everyone who doesn't live in the Echo Chamber.

Always use the VRWC's isolation against them. They have no idea how unhinged they appear to the rest of the country, so let them froth and damage themselves. Help them let their Bundy flag fly.

 

[unofan]

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

Even a moderate like Sri Srinivasan shifts the Court to the left because he's replacing Scalia. He's still left of Kennedy and would likely become the swing vote for many 5-4 cases.

You nominate him now to either get confirmed or to back the GOP into a corner. If they don't vote or vote him down and the Dems win the White House, then you consider nominating the libbiest lib that ever libbed and throw the GOPs own words back at them.

 

[Kepler]

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

This is the closest we have to a law thread, so I'll put this here. I'm interested to hear what our attorneys think. Is this "fraud"? Is it a pyramid scheme? I really don't know. It's very interesting.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Good rule of thumb: if anyone is guaranteeing you returns of 8% annually, walk away. The person is scamming you.