|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Arguing with Kennedy over word choice. I get his point and agree. Dignity is something that comes from within and nothing the state does can take that from you. However, overall I think dissenting in this case is bullshit. Marriage is a fundamental right. The end. Nah, common-sense understanding is that dignity isn't just something that comes from within. Some people can manage dignity in the face of indignity, but the slaves, for example, were stripped of their dignity in many ways. If someone throws a pie in your face, that's an assault on your dignity. We use it both ways in common language, both as something that wells from within and something that can be assaulted, attacked, and stripped from you. That's why the phrase 'stripped of their dignity' is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:Then nominate himself. No but he's from
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:there's a strain of black conservatism along the lines of "white people can't bring me down" that he comes from D&D hero Ta-Nehisi Coates had a very interesting article about black conservatism back in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nah, common-sense understanding is that dignity isn't just something that comes from within. Some people can manage dignity in the face of indignity, but the slaves, for example, were stripped of their dignity in many ways. If someone throws a pie in your face, that's an assault on your dignity. We use it both ways in common language, both as something that wells from within and something that can be assaulted, attacked, and stripped from you. That's why the phrase 'stripped of their dignity' is a thing. The fact that he picked slavery as an example of how dignity can't be granted or denied by any outside agency is actually a really weird display of historical ignorance, because dehumanizing slaves and denying them their dignity was one of the most important cultural and ideological pillars of slavery. It's also puzzling from the perspective of legal history. The state absolutely can take away your dignity, before the development of incarceration that was one of the main methods of punishing criminal offenders, and it's still around in regimes that use torture. Is having hummus and pasta forcibly injected into your rectum while you're held indefinitely without trial damaging to your human dignity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/boring_as_heck/status/614459602424492032
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Shoutout to Alito for being the biggest baby in his dissent. Alito's seems way worse than any of the other dissents, which were basically just "not our place." He seems actually disgusted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I think Scalia knows more about prehistoric monsters than Pratt ever could
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Thomas's "dignity" dissent makes it sound like he agrees with Dredd Scott, jfc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Arguing with Kennedy over word choice. I get his point and agree. Dignity is something that comes from within and nothing the state does can take that from you. However, overall I think dissenting in this case is bullshit. Marriage is a fundamental right. The end. I like the concept that dignity cannot be stolen from anyone. It supports people's resilience in the face of injustice. But, unfortunately, a government can take away dignity in the eyes of others. And that kind of declaration tears at an individual's sense of dignity. The USA's founding documents statements of human dignity are not mere dicta, but a repudiation of attempts to take dignity away. And stamping out these assaults on dignity on that basis prevents further ones. For example, suppose we prevented Donald Trump from running for the presidency, because someone with such a ridiculous thing on his head is obviously unqualified. Then Vermin Supreme would also be disqualified. I think we would all agree that would be a grave injustice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I don't understand this part of Thomas's dissent. 1. It is common wisdom that no matter what injustices are worked upon a man, he still retains his basic dignity as a human being. 2. Many injustices, such as slavery or internment camps, are worked under cover of law. 3. Therefore, the law cannot strip away a person's basic dignity. 4. Therefore, the law cannot affect a person's dignity. 5. The legality of SSM is a question of law. 6. Therefore, keeping SSM illegal cannot possibly affect anyone's dignity. It's a really dumb argument for many reasons, but the key point is that he's conflating the poetic "dignity" that is inherent to the human condition with the more prosaic "dignity" that everyone actually cares about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Considering the company that Thomas like to keep I think his opinion really only counts 3/5 that of the average justice
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
peengers posted:Considering the company that Thomas like to keep I think his opinion really only counts 3/5 that of the average justice 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
So Do conservatives now try to out the Supreme Court as unconstitiutional
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:So Time to reverse Marbury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I'm sorry that Bush had to raise taxes, but that isn't evidence of him being mentally unbalanced. I was referring to Reagan appointing Clarence Thomas 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Time to reverse Marbury. Literally an argument that got trotted out when Obamacare was ruled constitutional (the first time) .
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:So It's always been like this. If the SC votes for them, its good and the American way. If the SC votes against them, activist unelected judges, 360 million voters denied, baby jesus crying. Then 3 days after the vote they are forgotten about, and wine and dined by lobbyists until the next vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I was referring to Reagan appointing Clarence Thomas Bush appointed him to SCOTUS, not Reagan
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Now we just need weed and conceal carry
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I was referring to Reagan appointing Clarence Thomas Thomas worked in various functions in the Reagan administration, but he was a Bush appointee for both of his federal judiciary posts. Unless you think that Reagan was still president in '91, just like Reagan probably did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:So http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/in-iowa-ted-cruz-denounces-gay-marriage-lauds-indiana-religious-liberty-bill.html/ quote:On his first Iowa stop as a presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz warned Wednesday that a Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide would be “fundamentally illegitimate.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Thomas's "dignity" dissent makes it sound like he agrees with Dredd Scott, jfc. In fairness to Thomas, I'm pretty sure he would say that Dred Scott is wrong (and Korematsu, etc). Just for reasons that aren't related to dignity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas worked in various functions in the Reagan administration, but he was a Bush appointee for both of his federal judiciary posts. I stand corrected! Thanks Bush! The original sentiment of "gently caress Reagan" still stands, though
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/in-iowa-ted-cruz-denounces-gay-marriage-lauds-indiana-religious-liberty-bill.html/ Don't any of those options require a two thirds majority nobody will ever get on this issue?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
GStultus Maximus posted:http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/in-iowa-ted-cruz-denounces-gay-marriage-lauds-indiana-religious-liberty-bill.html/ Good job losing
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Don't any of those options require a two thirds majority nobody will ever get on this issue? In the sense that Obama will veto anything like that, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In the sense that Obama will veto anything like that, yes. It wouldn't even get out of committee. Jurisdiction-stripping the Supreme Court is the most insubstantial of hot air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
I'm so excited about this decision. My friends are at the court use now, they got their license and the waiver of waiting time from the judge and are currently waiting their turn for the magistrate who is marrying people for free today. They will be the 8th gay couple married in Bexar County. It's loving awesome. They refused to fly to another state 5 years ago to get a license when they had their wedding because they wanted it in Texas or nothing. They finally get their dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
This got lost (understandably) because I posted it 5 minutes before the SSM ruling, but I'm still curious:alnilam posted:So I read this article about conservatives being pissed at Roberts
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Meh, politicians have always treated scotus as ideological (though judges won't agree with this), while acknowledging it sometimes backfires. Just look at the questions nominees get asked by Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Let's not overlook the impact of today's Johnson decision, which means not only can you have gay weddings, you can have sawed-off shotgun gay weddings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Because of course that's what Biden's up to. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Let's not overlook the impact of today's Johnson decision, which means not only can you have gay weddings, you can have sawed-off shotgun gay weddings. But Johnson does nothing to change the laws prohibiting sawed off shotguns (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your opinion on that). The case deals with whether that prior conviction counts as a violent felony for ACCA purposes. So...still something to fight for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Because of course that's what Biden's up to. Fake, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Drone posted:SCOTUS Thread 2015: Spiderman, jiggery-pokery, pure applesauce SCOTUS Thread 2015: With pure applesauce comes great jiggery-pokery
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Fake, sadly. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Are there examples of Scalia ruling against conservative positions on constitutional grounds?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Are there examples of Scalia ruling against conservative positions on constitutional grounds? I know he's ruled against various police actions on occasion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:09
|
|