|
KernelSlanders posted:Is it ad hominem to point out that all three of the non-Christians on the court dissented from an opinion that said non-Christians shouldn't feel coerced into participating in or would be unreasonable to be feel disparaged by the overtly Christian prayers? edit: This isn't to say, that the Christians couldn't have broken reasoning that is informed by their experience as Christians, but the argument would fail because of the broken reasoning, not because of the cause of the broken reasoning.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is it ad hominem to point out that all three of the non-Christians on the court dissented from an opinion that said non-Christians shouldn't feel coerced into participating in or would be unreasonable to be feel disparaged by the overtly Christian prayers? John Roberts would say "see when you say that, that makes me feel targeted as a Christian. I got over it though! That's called Having A Robust Society. But it's just so divisive to point out that we're all Christians and might be behaving prejudicially. Being accused of prejudice is literally the worst and most painful thing that can happen to somebody." And a single tear would roll down his rugged face.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is it ad hominem to point out that all three of the non-Christians on the court dissented from an opinion that said non-Christians shouldn't feel coerced into participating in or would be reasonable to be feel disparaged by the overtly Christian prayers? There you go again. Liberals are always trying to divide us into groups and set us against each other. You liberals plain don't like the good old days when people of all faiths just agreed!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
"Rather than obliterating the wall separating church and state all at once, the Roberts Court’s opinions are dismantling it brick by brick. The clear message from Town of Greece v. Galloway is that prayers before legislative sessions are allowed, no matter how much they are sectarian and from a particular religion. In fact, the practice in the Town of Greece was exactly what Justice Kennedy said could still violate the Establishment Clause: a “pattern of prayers over time” that “proselytize[d]” and “betray[ed] an impermissible government purpose.”" Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Professor at UC Irvine School of Law I know I've been all mad in this thread, but, as a layman Sociology major selling insurance, its good to feel vindicated by a ton of leading legal scholars across the country. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:"Rather than obliterating the wall separating church and state all at once, the Roberts Court’s opinions are dismantling it brick by brick. The clear message from Town of Greece v. Galloway is that prayers before legislative sessions are allowed, no matter how much they are sectarian and from a particular religion. In fact, the practice in the Town of Greece was exactly what Justice Kennedy said could still violate the Establishment Clause: a “pattern of prayers over time” that “proselytize[d]” and “betray[ed] an impermissible government purpose.”" You picked a good one to quote, too- Chemerinsky's name is on maybe three of my law books, including the Constitutional Law one. He's arguably the biggest name on that list of big names. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:39 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The first question is preposterous. It assumes that the Town would not be discriminatory unless if a speaker talks about Faith A. The invocation of a specific religious belief by a non-government speaker before the beginning of the session, in and of itself, will not cause government officials to flick on their "Discriminate Against Religious Beliefs" button. I don't think you are going far enough though. I mean, why even permit the Muslim guy to speaking? Nothing he can possibly say is going to influence those CHRISTIAN council members, right? I mean, they are gonna be so uncomfortable standing before that council that we should just skip the whole thing and save time.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You picked a good one to quote, too- Chemerinsky's name is on maybe three of my law books, including the Constitutional Law one. He's arguably the biggest name on that list of big names. I'm reading through all of the posts after the ruling and I'm really intrigued at this. Even those that do not question the Marsh ruling are still scratching their heads as to why Kennedy and Alito give such twisted rulings and why history is being used as such a strong arbiter in this case, when compared to things like say, the Voting Rights Act. The doublespeak is really heavy here, and the more I read, the more frustrated I become. "Its always been this way, so prayer is OK. Why? Because its always been this way as described by Marsh v Chambers. Except when it isn't." Yet when the VRA was handled, they essentially said a lot of the history is meaningless because we need to devise new ways to weigh legislation. Why are the 2nd amendment and religios issues so important to maintain tradition and historical literalism, but literally everything else is up to how the Justices' feel that day? Edit: Another good point: if the prayers are wrong if they are proselytizing, why do the prayers need to be said at all? Is a prayer not proselytizing in and of itself if it is compulsory, public, and orated? Why not do it in public to satisfy Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito's test?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is the sort of thing that falls in the "completely acceptable today, will astonish our descendants in 100 years" category, though.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Why are the 2nd amendment and religious issues so important to maintain tradition and historical literalism, but literally everything else is up to how the Justices' feel that day?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm reading through all of the posts after the ruling and I'm really intrigued at this. Even those that do not question the Marsh ruling are still scratching their heads as to why Kennedy and Alito give such twisted rulings and why history is being used as such a strong arbiter in this case, when compared to things like say, the Voting Rights Act. The doublespeak is really heavy here, and the more I read, the more frustrated I become. To push back a bit, remember that you're seeing the writing of legal academics on SCOTUSBlog- the coverage from opinion writers in particular is going to lean politically Democratic.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To push back a bit, remember that you're seeing the writing of legal academics on SCOTUSBlog- the coverage from opinion writers in particular is going to lean politically Democratic. Why? Their reasoning seems solid.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Lots o' words. From one layman Sociology major to another, it seems that when it comes to justifying themselves the conservative justices have a knack for threadbare appeals to ~~tradition~~. And barring that, rank hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Is the question why "long ago" history is important in some cases, and "more recent" history important in others? If so, the answer is because different legal issues implicate different segments of history. Constitutional issues are frequently grounded, or at least sourced in, the viewpoints of those who enacted the relevant portion of the Constitution. It is true that the relative import of this history depends upon a Justice's jurisprudential philosophy (e.g., Originalists thinking original, historical meaning is the be-all, end-all). But most Justices (and jurists throughout the U.S., since we are a common law nation, and therefore "tradition and history" is basically the backbone of how courts make law) believe historical practice to be important to some degree, especially in cases implicating Constitutional issues -- which is to say, in cases implicating very fuzzy areas of law where no real boundaries are established. That's why, for example, both the majority opinion and Justice Stevens' dissent in McDonald v. Chicago used great swaths of history to talk about the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, statutory issues are frequently grounded in the text itself and, when going beyond the text, the relevant history of the time of the drafting of the legislation (often referred to as "legislative history"). That's why, for example, both the majority opinion and Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Shelby County v. Holder discussed the state of affairs when Congress reauthorized the VRA in 2006. Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
I was about to mention Stevens' 2A dissents. Every justice talks about history and tradition when it suits them, just like they all use that one federalism quote.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I would really like to see how Kennedy recasts the history of legislative prayer when the Dearborn city council decides to start all its meetings with "lā ʾilāha ʾil ʾāllāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh wa ʿalīyyun walīyyu-llāh." Double bonus points if the plaintiff is Sunni upset over the sectarian endorsement.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Looks like nobody likes, respects or trusts the Supreme Court: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/supreme-court-poll_n_5279535.html quote:The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less. While the study does come from a democratic leaning firm, it polls across all political affiliations.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
But, Roberts upheld the ACA, that showed that he was apolitical!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
From a layman's perspective this court certainly seems like a significant section has no professional integrity in regards to not letting their biases get in the way of their legal reasoning.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:27 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Is the process for impeaching a justice really that difficult? If getting a blowjob from a secretary is grounds for impeachment I don't understand why the Clarence Thomas is getting away with all these Koch brothers handjoes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Clinton didn't get impeached for a blowjob. He got impeached for perjury.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Clinton didn't get impeached for a blowjob. He got impeached for perjury.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Clinton didn't get impeached for a blowjob. He got impeached for perjury. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Clinton instead just said "Yup, I did that thing." instead of lying. Republicans probably would have exploded.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Korak posted:The perjury was only for blowjob stuff. Correct, but to say he got impeached for a hummer is missing a major step.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
The procedure for impeaching a justice is virtually new ground, since it's been used only twice in the history of the nation. Both of those cases were weird and fringey, and the most recent one was in like 1910. IF there were modern impeachment proceedings, those involved on both sides would have to interpret the standards as they went along. Justcicial impeachment is also seen as another potential nuclear option, in that once you start doing it, the other guys will start doing it too.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:50 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
I'm late to the game here, and admittedly, I'm only really kind of looking at it because I don't like a lot of the more recent rulings, but.... Is the Supreme Court a good idea? It seems that not only today, but throughout history there have been examples of justices using the bench to shape the United States not in a spirit of the Constitution, but in their own personal biases and agendas. For example, even going back to Dredd Scott, it is clear that the Court was less interested in doing what was in the spirit of the Constitution, and more in line with what they felt should or should not be. Should we have additional checks on SCOTUS? Should justices be for life? I'm sure these questions have been asked and answered before, but the corruption really seems to be a lot more visible as technology and general understanding of law increases.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
I am the 18%.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm late to the game here, and admittedly, I'm only really kind of looking at it because I don't like a lot of the more recent rulings, but.... Those same biases and opinions have also shaped the U.S in good ways as well.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm late to the game here, and admittedly, I'm only really kind of looking at it because I don't like a lot of the more recent rulings, but.... Counterpoints: Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm late to the game here, and admittedly, I'm only really kind of looking at it because I don't like a lot of the more recent rulings, but.... Short version: The Supreme Court is less responsive to democratic majorities, but that's a feature, not a bug. From a civic republican standpoint, the Supreme Court is the best bad solution to the problem of state concentration of power. Without a weirdly appointed, longstanding, semi-quasi-independent branch at the federal level, it's very difficult to keep a republic from turning into a one-party nightmare state. The tenure of supreme court justices makes it difficult for a particular group/faction/partty to effectively take over the government if they have majorities in the legislature and a president in office. All of those things can occur in a single election. (This is also why the court-packing scandal was a huge deal- if Roosevelt had been able to pull it off, he would have signaled an ability to manipulate the structure of the federal government to seize total control by legal means, effectively undoing the constitution.)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
I guess one solution is to treat like being on the Supreme Court sort of being like a monk. You are not allowed to make any money besides the salary provided for you by the government. This includes purchasing stock in companies or positions being offered to you after retirement. When you get on the bench, any major financial assets must be sold off and put into a trust. This trust is available to the Justice after retirement, not before and nothing is ever added to it. You cannot donate to any political party or charity. Corporations, other interest groups (left, right or center) may not contact the Justices under any circumstances or be involved with them in any sort of dealings. No fundraisers, dinners or anything of the sort. Gifts of money, physical trips and offers of a position after retirement are barred and perpetrators prosecuted under Federal Law for Bribery. Justices accepting and hiding such offers are subjected to impeachment. If discovered after retirement, they are to be prosecuted for Bribery as well. All major financial dealings of family members must be detailed and disclosed yearly and in the event that their situation changes. If there is a conflict of interest on a case, you must recuse yourself. It is harsh, but pretty necessary to maintain the fabric of the Republic. If you can buy a Justice, you get way more bang for your buck. Who wants a 4-8 year President when you can influence policy for 40+ years? I realize that any variation of this will never happen, of course. Especially with this idiotic court who thinks that the only incentive that really tempts humanity to be influenced is quid pro quo. hobbesmaster posted:But, Roberts upheld the ACA, that showed that he was apolitical! I guess he didn't want to be THAT obvious about it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
All good points, all good points. There ARE positive aspects of SCOTUS as well. It just seems to me, even with the good decisions we've seen, that they could easily have gone the other way based on who happened to be on the bench at any given time. Especially recently, look at all these 5-4 decisions coming down and how our Republic would look very different if Reagan and George H. W. Bush never had the opportunity to appoint the justices they did. To me this seems less an "independent branch to adjudicate the Constitution" and more "I'm in power, so my ideology is going to be represented on the bench for things that have never even been considered before, for the next 60 years". The same goes for Obama and whoever else is elected next. I just feel like it could have been helpful and would be helpful today to have some kind of check against blind partisan and /or revisionist opinions. We should know which way a Justice is going to rule based on their interpretation of the law, not based on who appointed them. We look at Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We read their opinions and they are often contradictory or nonsensical, or even invalidate previous opinions they have penned. I'm sure other Justices I agree with have done the same as well. Shouldn't there be some way to check against them pushing an ideology in favor of actual interpretation of the Constitution? Also Dapper Dan has good ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:how our Republic would look very different if Reagan and George H. W. Bush never had the opportunity to appoint the justices they did. HW Bush appointed Souter and Thomas. Okay, Thomas takes the majority in, uh, the majority of the Bad 5-4 Decisions, for his own reasons, but even if you ignore the occasional case where 1860s jurisprudence demands that he join the side of the angels, HW did alright. He certainly made the Court a more interesting place. (And Reagan appointed Kennedy, so there's that.) There is nothing good about W's appointments except that Mrs Miers didn't get confirmed. Also, someone else was going to say this, but Clarence Thomas very rarely contradicts anything he has ever penned. Don't lump him in with Scalia, especially post-Lawrence Scalia. Edit: also, to go up the page a bit, Clinton probably didn't commit (provable) perjury. His lawyers carefully picked apart the definition of "sexual contact", and Clinton himself was extraordinarily careful in his court statements. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 16:55 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Counterpoints: Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas. United States v. Windsor, Boumedine v. Bush, Kyllo v. United States, Texas v. Johnson, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, District of Columbia v. Heller, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:United States v. Windsor, Boumedine v. Bush, Kyllo v. United States, Texas v. Johnson, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, District of Columbia v. Heller, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. BSA v. Dale is really an outlier from that group because its the one that doesn't say anything about the relation between citizens and their government other than in a fairly peripheral way. Can the government force a private club not to discriminate? Otherwise it was a dispute between two private individuals.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:That much is obvious. My point is that CHRISTIANITY doesn't care. People will be upset, but so long as their favorite gets to go up, they can pooh-pooh the Satanists and still win by having a majority Christian population in congress invoke Jesus and not Beezlebub. Its still a losing situation. You can always just say your own prayer over the pagan they've invited. http://youtu.be/4XiizB9Lkqk
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:We should know which way a Justice is going to rule based on their interpretation of the law, not based on who appointed them. We look at Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We read their opinions and they are often contradictory or nonsensical, or even invalidate previous opinions they have penned. Thomas is a bad example to use, because he is arguably one of the most idiosyncratic Justices in Supreme Court history. Thomas' radical brand of originalism and one-man crusade to make something out of the privileges or immunities clause makes his decisions pretty unpredictable
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Can you elaborate about Thomas and the p and I clause ?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Can you elaborate about Thomas and the p and I clause ? Read his concurrence in e: sorry brain fart Justice Thomas posted:Applying what is now a well-settled test, the plurality opinion concludes that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it is “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty,” ante, at 19 (citing Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149 (1968)), and “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” ante, at 19 (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997)). I agree with that description of the right. But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to “process.” Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. KernelSlanders fucked around with this message at 17:28 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:BSA v. Dale is really an outlier from that group because its the one that doesn't say anything about the relation between citizens and their government other than in a fairly peripheral way. Can the government force a private club not to discriminate? Otherwise it was a dispute between two private individuals. I suppose to an extent, but were NYT v. Sullivan and NYT v. United States really such different cases? And where would you put Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I suppose to an extent, but were NYT v. Sullivan and NYT v. United States really such different cases? And where would you put Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus? I think those NYT cases are quite different from each other, and both very different from the Boy Scout case. Libel damages and criminal prior restraints are different beasts entirely. There was no issue of truth in NYT v US, and in fact if what the NYT wanted to report had been false that would have made the US' case weaker, not stronger. At any rate, what the government can prevent you from saying, and what responsibility you have to third parties for reckless speech are very different beasts, at least in my opinion. If we had criminal libel statutes in the U.S., that would close the gap considerably, but we don't. I don't see where Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus fits at all. I thought that was a standing case.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:37
|
|