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  [ 553 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed October 04, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 2706
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argum ... ting-case/
Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?
Only Kennedy knows for sure. I wouldn't mind Trump launching a few angry tweets in his direction if he votes in favor of a result Trump doesn't like. The travel ban case would have been perfect but it sounds like they're going to moot that one.

4/5 wrote:
I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence.
I really dislike that line of thought that Roberts used. The entire job of the courts is to address litigation.

It seems like Roberts likes to play the stature of the court/court is a referee cards whenever he he's okay with the status quo, because he certainly hasn't been afraid to make policy and set fire to precedent when it suits him, like limiting Congress' spending power in the Obamacare case. One could certainly argue that decision would/did open the floodgates to new litigation.

_________________
"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: Thu October 05, 2017 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 5341
4/5 wrote:
It seems like Roberts likes to play the stature of the court/court is a referee cards whenever he he's okay with the status quo, because he certainly hasn't been afraid to make policy and set fire to precedent when it suits him
In fairness to him, this is the same for every justice, and I largely don't have a problem with it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu October 05, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 2706
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
It seems like Roberts likes to play the stature of the court/court is a referee cards whenever he he's okay with the status quo, because he certainly hasn't been afraid to make policy and set fire to precedent when it suits him
In fairness to him, this is the same for every justice, and I largely don't have a problem with it.

Sure.
I admit this could be because I just read a book that was critical of Roberts, The Oath, but it seems that a reasonable argument could be made that the Roberts Court has been the most activist since the Warren Court in spite of rhetoric insisting that he's a firm believer in judicial restraint.

It's probably really just because conservatives typically have 5 votes more than anything else, though.

_________________
"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: Tue December 05, 2017 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 5341


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Worst Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm
Posts: 45131
Yeah I've been very curious as to how this would go.

_________________
Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 5341
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Yeah I've been very curious as to how this would go.
I need to wait for a full article but it sounds like Kennedy was more pissed off about religious liberty than free speech. And that would piss me off, because while I think this is a close case for the latter, I also think it's not a close case for the former.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 2651
Is this teh gay marriage wedding cake one? I can't call a recent where I have been more conflicted. Commerce should not be compelled, but simultaneously a public business cannot discriminate.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 5341
Bi_3 wrote:
Is this teh gay marriage wedding cake one? I can't call a recent where I have been more conflicted. Commerce should not be compelled, but simultaneously a public business cannot discriminate.
Yep, that's the one. In this specific case, I would narrowly rule against the cakemaker because he refused to sell even a generic cake, and leave the larger constitutional questions for another day. But where I think it gets problematic is if the First Amendment doesn't protect from being compelled to add decorations to a generic product that could more accurately be described as art. If that was the law, all it takes is for some anti-SSM assholes to compel a business to design a product that caters to their beliefs to confound things.

Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh, as they usually do with issues like this, really helped clear things up in my mind.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... y_fund.pdf


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 2651
Green Habit wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Is this teh gay marriage wedding cake one? I can't call a recent where I have been more conflicted. Commerce should not be compelled, but simultaneously a public business cannot discriminate.
Yep, that's the one. In this specific case, I would narrowly rule against the cakemaker because he refused to sell even a generic cake, and leave the larger constitutional questions for another day. But where I think it gets problematic is if the First Amendment doesn't protect from being compelled to add decorations to a generic product that could more accurately be described as art. If that was the law, all it takes is for some anti-SSM assholes to compel a business to design a product that caters to their beliefs to confound things.

Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh, as they usually do with issues like this, really helped clear things up in my mind.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... y_fund.pdf


I don't have the time to read all that... but is the act of this transaction still not sort of forcing a de facto endorsement of SSM just like a custom cake? So a coffee shop could say "i support criminal justice reform, so no cops allowed". Cops are engaging in legal activities, like SSM is legal (as it should be), but the business can choose to not serve them right? Honestly asking...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 2706
I had a dream that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the gerrymandering case. It was 5-4 with a narrow ruling against the state, but it chose not to adopt the suggested test to determine if a state is gerrymandered, so they didn't set a new precedent limiting partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy wrote the Opinion of the Court.

_________________
"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: Tue December 05, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 7932
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
4/5 wrote:
I had a dream that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the gerrymandering case. It was 5-4 with a narrow ruling against the state, but it chose not to adopt the suggested test to determine if a state is gerrymandered, so they didn't set a new precedent limiting partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy wrote the Opinion of the Court.


Wait. That didn't happen?

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 12400
Location: Cumberland, RI
4/5 wrote:
I had a dream that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the gerrymandering case. It was 5-4 with a narrow ruling against the state, but it chose not to adopt the suggested test to determine if a state is gerrymandered, so they didn't set a new precedent limiting partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy wrote the Opinion of the Court.


I mostly dream about boobs.

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
A+


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue December 05, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 10:45 pm
Posts: 111
Bi_3 wrote:
I don't have the time to read all that... but is the act of this transaction still not sort of forcing a de facto endorsement of SSM just like a custom cake? So a coffee shop could say "i support criminal justice reform, so no cops allowed". Cops are engaging in legal activities, like SSM is legal (as it should be), but the business can choose to not serve them right? Honestly asking...


The best explanation I've heard is something like: if the cake was picked out of a catalog or a menu of cakes then its discrimation to refuse to sell. If they asked for some custom design that the baker wouldn't sell to anyone under any circumstances then it's ok to refuse. Like it wouldn't be religious discrimination if they refused to sell a cake shaped like a cross so long as they don't sell them to anyone. So if the cops in your example were orderIng from the menu at the coffee shop it would be illegal to refuse them service.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Thu November 21, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 349
I have an interesting take on this now that I'm a business owner yet still a bleeding heart liberal.

I feel like a business should reserve the right to refuse products and services to whoever they want. However, I don't think it's a wise business decision to throw yourself in the middle of such a controversy. There are a million ways to say no to someone...if you have personal beliefs about something and don't want to engage in business that involves it, it seems smarter to just say "I'm too busy to accommodate your cake right now" or something else. Why put your business and livelihood at risk just to make your personal beliefs public?

I see plenty of Trump bumper stickers at my shop, and while on a personal level I despise Trump and what he stands for, I'm not going to die on that hill and start refusing service to people because of it. Business is business, and I have far too much at stake to inject my personal shit into it.

_________________
Dev wrote:
Clutch rules you dummy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Posts: 31390
Location: Mountains
meatwad wrote:
I have an interesting take on this now that I'm a business owner yet still a bleeding heart liberal.

I feel like a business should reserve the right to refuse products and services to whoever they want. However, I don't think it's a wise business decision to throw yourself in the middle of such a controversy. There are a million ways to say no to someone...if you have personal beliefs about something and don't want to engage in business that involves it, it seems smarter to just say "I'm too busy to accommodate your cake right now" or something else. Why put your business and livelihood at risk just to make your personal beliefs public?

I see plenty of Trump bumper stickers at my shop, and while on a personal level I despise Trump and what he stands for, I'm not going to die on that hill and start refusing service to people because of it. Business is business, and I have far too much at stake to inject my personal shit into it.


Is there a limit for you? Is there a point where you would perhaps deny service to someone?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 3:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Thu November 21, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 349
Strat wrote:
meatwad wrote:
I have an interesting take on this now that I'm a business owner yet still a bleeding heart liberal.

I feel like a business should reserve the right to refuse products and services to whoever they want. However, I don't think it's a wise business decision to throw yourself in the middle of such a controversy. There are a million ways to say no to someone...if you have personal beliefs about something and don't want to engage in business that involves it, it seems smarter to just say "I'm too busy to accommodate your cake right now" or something else. Why put your business and livelihood at risk just to make your personal beliefs public?

I see plenty of Trump bumper stickers at my shop, and while on a personal level I despise Trump and what he stands for, I'm not going to die on that hill and start refusing service to people because of it. Business is business, and I have far too much at stake to inject my personal shit into it.


Is there a limit for you? Is there a point where you would perhaps deny service to someone?


Absolutely, though each situation has to be looked at in context. I guess I look at it like this...if you want to keep your beliefs to yourself and just enjoy a sandwich then I'll do the same and gladly take your money. But if you want to use my restaurant as a platform for your hatred or other such nonsense, I'll kindly tell you to get the fuck out.

_________________
Dev wrote:
Clutch rules you dummy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 4179
what if he puts poop in the cake tho


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
Broken Tamborine
 Profile

Joined: Thu November 21, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 349
96583UP wrote:
what if he puts poop in the cake tho


:shake:

_________________
Dev wrote:
Clutch rules you dummy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed December 06, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 2651
Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
I don't have the time to read all that... but is the act of this transaction still not sort of forcing a de facto endorsement of SSM just like a custom cake? So a coffee shop could say "i support criminal justice reform, so no cops allowed". Cops are engaging in legal activities, like SSM is legal (as it should be), but the business can choose to not serve them right? Honestly asking...


The best explanation I've heard is something like: if the cake was picked out of a catalog or a menu of cakes then its discrimation to refuse to sell. If they asked for some custom design that the baker wouldn't sell to anyone under any circumstances then it's ok to refuse. Like it wouldn't be religious discrimination if they refused to sell a cake shaped like a cross so long as they don't sell them to anyone. So if the cops in your example were orderIng from the menu at the coffee shop it would be illegal to refuse them service.


I think this is basically the Volokh argument that GH linked to above, but I have since learned that it’s state level protected class status that causes the conflict. So unless the state has cops as a protected class, you can refuse to transact with them and they have no legal recourse.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu December 07, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 2651
I'm confused by all the fake news about this case... did the baker offer to sell them an existing cake from the store (just not decorate as they requested)? Did the baker sell cakes for other LGBTQ events? What is real anymore?!?!?!?!


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 553 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: potatojunkie and 2 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 Thu December 14, 2017 8:42 pm