The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3819 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 ... 191  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2022 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
These cases were certainly antimajoritarian within the regions you describe, but all eventually had majority support nationally. This is particularly stark for Brown: for decades, the rest of the nation didn't like Jim Crow but ultimately felt that it was the South's business only. That position got increasingly untenable after World War II, and eventually the national majority against Jim Crow prevailed, including but not limited to at SCOTUS.

I'm guessing this will end up true with abortion as well: there may be states where there's a legitimate majority within that want to go so far as to completely ban it, but the national majority is likely going to be nowhere near that position.

This is an interesting argument, making it more of a what's the right level of government to decide these questions. Again, expanding rights and protecting minorities is generally one of the things that I think has been better handled at the federal level and I prefer to see that (even though I might be uncomfortable with the Constitutional mechanisms used to do so) than to see something that is "more democratic" at the state level but ultimately harmful to people without political power.
:thumbsup:

I agree that if you're going to go down this path, do it federally so there's consistent rights for all. Otherwise it should be devolved all the way down to the local level. I'm becoming more convinced that the state level is the worst level to address most things.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
Gone
 Profile

Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 1:03 am
Posts: 2823
Location: August 2020 Poster of the Month
Image

Can relate.

_________________
Dev wrote:
You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 2:22 pm 
Offline
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 3:34 pm
Posts: 4347
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
warehouse wrote:
when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come


Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?

brown? no. loving? yes

Conservative Justices promote a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution and both of these decisions are squarely within that framework and anti-miscegenation laws are inarguably a distinction based on race. It would also be just a little awkward for a court with Clarence Thomas.

US v Windsor, Obergefell v Hodges, and Lawrence v Texas are all cases I'd argue are in much bigger danger than either of those two.

so they can still use their position to discriminate against gay people, they just have to use a different legal avenue?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
warehouse wrote:
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
warehouse wrote:
when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come


Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?

brown? no. loving? yes

Conservative Justices promote a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution and both of these decisions are squarely within that framework and anti-miscegenation laws are inarguably a distinction based on race. It would also be just a little awkward for a court with Clarence Thomas.

US v Windsor, Obergefell v Hodges, and Lawrence v Texas are all cases I'd argue are in much bigger danger than either of those two.

so they can still use their position to discriminate against gay people, they just have to use a different legal avenue?

Discriminating against gay people is much easier, they'd just argue that there isn't a "right" to marry or adopt or have sex and therefore states would be allowed to regulate or ban those activities for certain people as they see fit.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 12:41 pm
Posts: 5792
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
warehouse wrote:
when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come


Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?

brown? no. loving? yes

Conservative Justices promote a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution and both of these decisions are squarely within that framework and anti-miscegenation laws are inarguably a distinction based on race. It would also be just a little awkward for a court with Clarence Thomas.

US v Windsor, Obergefell v Hodges, and Lawrence v Texas are all cases I'd argue are in much bigger danger than either of those two.

so they can still use their position to discriminate against gay people, they just have to use a different legal avenue?

Discriminating against gay people is much easier, they'd just argue that there isn't a "right" to marry or adopt or have sex and therefore states would be allowed to regulate or ban those activities for certain people as they see fit.



is there a right for a man and woman to marry, adopt or have sex?

_________________
Did the Mother Fucker pay extra to yell?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 8:08 pm 
Offline
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 3:34 pm
Posts: 4347
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
4/5 wrote:
warehouse wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
warehouse wrote:
when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come


Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?

brown? no. loving? yes

Conservative Justices promote a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution and both of these decisions are squarely within that framework and anti-miscegenation laws are inarguably a distinction based on race. It would also be just a little awkward for a court with Clarence Thomas.

US v Windsor, Obergefell v Hodges, and Lawrence v Texas are all cases I'd argue are in much bigger danger than either of those two.

so they can still use their position to discriminate against gay people, they just have to use a different legal avenue?

Discriminating against gay people is much easier, they'd just argue that there isn't a "right" to marry or adopt or have sex and therefore states would be allowed to regulate or ban those activities for certain people as they see fit.

i know how it works, my point was these activist judges seem likely to revisit decisions like Obergfell


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Peeps wrote:

is there a right for a man and woman to marry, adopt or have sex?

Sex is privacy and marriage and adoption are equal protection issues. Privacy is easy to ignore, just say there isn't such a right or say that it doesn't extend to things like sex, birth control, or abortion. For marriage and adoption just say that those are issues that fall to states' licensing or general police powers and that they aren't equal protection violations because the intention of hetero marriage or adoption laws isn't to discriminate but rather are based off hundreds (or thousands) of years of tradition and that a law limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex is no different than laws limiting the number of people in a marriage to two or the age of consent or other things states get to decide about marriage.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22379
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Why doesn't the ninth amendment ever come into play?

Wouldn't it be originalist to argue that the Founding Fathers were so afraid that people would use the Bill of Rights as a list of "the only rights that are protected" that they added an amendment to cover the rights they couldn't think of?

The original intent of James Madison was to protect a woman's right to choose and the right of gay people to get married.

_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
Sex is privacy and marriage and adoption are equal protection issues.
One could easily argue that sexual activity has many equal protection considerations to it, especially in the context of a cause like Lawrence v. Texas. I always found O'Connor relying on EPC to be more convincing, even if her actual argument was weaksauce because she was trying to find a way to strike down the law without overturning Bowers v. Hardwick since she (badly, IMO) was part of that majority. And of course, Ginsburg was very much insistent that the right to abortion should be an EPC issue, and never liked the privacy grounds that Roe v. Wade was based on.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6932
B wrote:
Why doesn't the ninth amendment ever come into play?

Wouldn't it be originalist to argue that the Founding Fathers were so afraid that people would use the Bill of Rights as a list of "the only rights that are protected" that they added an amendment to cover the rights they couldn't think of?
Both the 9th and 10th Amendments are so vague and quite the truisms that I find neither to be very useful. Obviously, any SCOTUS justice could use (and has used) either one to reach a result they like, though.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Based on what leaked Alito would say the 9th protects rights that were generally thought of and already had a tradition when they wrote the amendment.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Sex is privacy and marriage and adoption are equal protection issues.
One could easily argue that sexual activity has many equal protection considerations to it, especially in the context of a cause like Lawrence v. Texas. I always found O'Connor relying on EPC to be more convincing, even if her actual argument was weaksauce because she was trying to find a way to strike down the law without overturning Bowers v. Hardwick since she (badly, IMO) was part of that majority. And of course, Ginsburg was very much insistent that the right to abortion should be an EPC issue, and never liked the privacy grounds that Roe v. Wade was based on.

Agreed. When I read your first sentence I was going to reply with RBG’s take on Roe but you handled that for me. I just meant for the sake of overturning they’d stick with privacy since that’s more nebulous.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22379
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
4/5 wrote:
Based on what leaked Alito would say the 9th protects rights that were generally thought of and already had a tradition when they wrote the amendment.


If they had been generally thinking of traditional rights, they would have put them on the list. That's a stupid argument.

_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
I think Hamilton was on to something in Federalist 84.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22379
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
I didn't realize that all of my life's hardships were caused by abortion.


_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:25 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 6:10 pm
Posts: 6950
B wrote:
I didn't realize that all of my life's hardships were caused by abortion.



He could just as easily blame men's hardships on the release of The French Connection.

_________________
Nihilist lives don't matter


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Posts: 9712
Location: Tristes Tropiques
Nothing else famously happened in 1973

_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Legacy of Love
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Posts: 78190
Location: Anarchist Jurisdiction
JuanHamm wrote:
B wrote:
I didn't realize that all of my life's hardships were caused by abortion.



He could just as easily blame men's hardships on the release of The French Connection.

AL


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2022 11:48 pm 
Offline
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 3:34 pm
Posts: 4347
4/5 wrote:
Based on what leaked Alito would say the 9th protects rights that were generally thought of and already had a tradition when they wrote the amendment.

if this is the thought behind the opinion, do they also think we need to update the amendment ever X amount of years?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2022 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
I Have A Third Nipple
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 19695
Location: Cumberland, RI
Mickey wrote:
Nothing else famously happened in 1973

Never forget

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
lol


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3819 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 ... 191  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Fri March 29, 2024 10:36 am