|
This is getting weird, I've talked to some people who support SSM who are saying they worry that it was too far for the supreme court to step, and  my constitution. What the gently caress?What I mean is, at first I assumed it was only anti-SSM people who were being all legislating from the bench , which they ssay straight-faced while not mentioning that incidentally they think the supreme court was totally within its bounds when it issued all the rulings they agree with, and what do you mean I'm being inconsistent. Is their rhetoric just catching on with people who support SSM but don't know much about the supreme court?Like as far as I can tell this is a pretty obvious, normal application of SCOTUS's basic powers ever since its inception, or at least Marbury v Madison. There is a law (or multiple state laws in this case), it violates the constitution (14th amendment is specifically called out here), it is struck down. This is like 8th grade civics class 
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Probably has less to do with this issue in particular as it is having had rulings they disliked in the past, liked Citizens United, leading them to have complaints with the structure of the Supreme Court. Hell, just look at how many people here have complained about how long we've been stuck with Scalia's repugnant rear end. It worked out this time, but they're concerned about having something of this magnitude go against them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Probably has less to do with this issue in particular as it is having had rulings they disliked in the past, liked Citizens United, leading them to have complaints with the structure of the Supreme Court. Hell, just look at how many people here have complained about how long we've been stuck with Scalia's repugnant rear end. It worked out this time, but they're concerned about having something of this magnitude go against them. Citizens United was of a much greater magnitude than gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Citizens United was of a much greater magnitude than gay marriage. Nope (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Not even going to use more than one word to argue this time? No out of context quotes from lawsuits or links to local news sources? Go back to GBS you ignorant gently caress. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
alnilam posted:This is getting weird, I've talked to some people who support SSM who are saying they worry that it was too far for the supreme court to step, and It's basically a concern that instead of allowing the legislative process to work out, constitutionalizing it will turn it into an issue like abortion. It's not a likely outcome, but it's not actually crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Citizens United was of a much greater magnitude than gay marriage. I think the typo of 'liked Citizens United' instead of 'like Citizens United' probably messed up my intent more than it should have. Their concern is that having the ability to make huge sweeping policy decisions (such as Citizens United or gay marriage) placed in the hands of 9 people who get appointed for life can be kind of troubling, even when it's currently in their favor. Not that I would want an elected SCOTUS, or a fresh one for every president, but I have to hope that there's some better alternative out there. And yes, Citizens United was very big and blows chunks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Not even going to use more than one word to argue this time? No out of context quotes from lawsuits or links to local news sources? I provided exactly as much evidence as you
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Their concern is that having the ability to make huge sweeping policy decisions (such as Citizens United or gay marriage) placed in the hands of 9 people who get appointed for life can be kind of troubling, even when it's currently in their favor. Not that I would want an elected SCOTUS, or a fresh one for every president, but I have to hope that there's some better alternative out there. As much as I disagree with Citizens United ruling (and the fact that we have to contrast the gay marriage ruling with that decision shows how one-sided the government has been of late when it comes to enacting sweeping reforms; here, let's enact a huge conservative policy that touches every American personally with basically no opposition then throw a few token decisions to the liberals that cause huge shitstorms), I don't really have a problem with the way the SCOTUS is set up. It acts the way it should: as a long-term check that balances the other, more capricious arms of our government. Is it perfect? No. But neither are any of the other arms of the government, and together they're right a shocking percentage of the time. In the macro, right now, not so much, but poo poo, Plessy vs Ferguson got overturned eventually, which gives me hope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I provided exactly as much evidence as you Obergefell directly affects no more than 2% of American citizens. Citizens United affects every American corporation and politician, and fundamentally changes the ways in which political campaigns are run, so it directs affects every American of voting age. Your turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Obergefell directly affects no more than 2% of American citizens. Citizens United affects every American corporation and politician, and fundamentally changes the ways in which political campaigns are run, so it directs affects every American of voting age. It did none of those things. Small businesses and local politicians aren't going to give a poo poo about independent expenditures. It didn't "fundamentally change" anything either. A few campaign strategists get to throw a lot more money at attacking each other, but anyone with a brain can tell you the marginal utility of a hundredth TV ad in a row is almost nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Politicians now have a significantly greater incentive to seek out and please the tiny handful of absurdly wealthy billionaires willing to cough up the cash that a nationwide - or even statewide - campaign requires. Citizens United is not the issue on its own, but it exacerbates a major structural problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Politicians now have a significantly greater incentive to seek out and please the tiny handful of absurdly wealthy billionaires willing to cough up the cash that a nationwide - or even statewide - campaign requires. Citizens United is not the issue on its own, but it exacerbates a major structural problem. It made a previously-shady practice legal, essentially codifying corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It did none of those things. Small businesses and local politicians aren't going to give a poo poo about independent expenditures. It didn't "fundamentally change" anything either. A few campaign strategists get to throw a lot more money at attacking each other, but anyone with a brain can tell you the marginal utility of a hundredth TV ad in a row is almost nothing. hmm yes tv ads are ineffective, great point i bet you have a lot of other excellent ideas
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Crossposting from the picture thread since you guys might be able to answer it better: "In spring 1954, as the Supreme Court was deliberating on Brown v. Board of Education, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invited Chief Justice Earl Warren to a stag dinner at the White House. He seated Warren at the same table as John W. Davis, the lawyer who had argued against school desegregation before the court. Eisenhower proceeded to tell the chief justice what a “great man” Davis was. As it happened, Eisenhower had authorized his Justice Department to file an amicus brief in the case opposing Davis and public-school segregation. And he specifically allowed his solicitor general, Lee Rankin, to tell the justices during oral argument that “separate but equal” schools were unconstitutional. Yet he sympathized with the segregated South. “These are not bad people,” he told Warren at the dinner. “All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big, overgrown Negroes.” Warren was appalled and wrote in his memoirs that he never forgave Eisenhower for that remark." Related question: Could we see another Earl Warren? As in, could we see a "Almost stereotypical Republican: passionately anti-Communist, pro-business, anti-New Deal, anti-gambling, anti-pornography, and tough on crime" turn around to become one of the most powerful forces for Progressive causes this country has even seen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
joeburz posted:hmm yes tv ads are ineffective, great point i bet you have a lot of other excellent ideas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k Barry Goldwater learned this the hard way sixty years ago... centaurtainment fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Crossposting from the picture thread since you guys might be able to answer it better: Highly unlikely - we probably won't even see another Souter, but part of this is that ideological factionalization among potential nominees (and all politically inclined lawyers) has intensified and started earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Kennedy's opinion on SSM is really unambiguously legislation from the bench- he made no real effort to present the outcome in terms of existing law. This is genuinely a bad thing, and makes it harder to construct a coherent legal framework around the holding, and damages the authority of the court. The dignity material that drove Thomas nuts was genuinely an especially bad offender in this regard. To be clear, the outcome is great- wrapping it in inspirational language that is difficult for lower courts or attorneys to use in working with the legal framework is not. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Kennedy's opinion on SSM is really unambiguously legislation from the bench- he made no real effort to present the outcome in terms of existing law. This is genuinely a bad thing, and makes it harder to construct a coherent legal framework around the holding, and damages the authority of the court. The dignity material that drove Thomas nuts was genuinely an especially bad offender in this regard. Whoa, where have you been? How'd the DC bar go?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Whoa, where have you been? How'd the DC bar go? Failed by, after curving, one half of a point. I'm not going to worry about it until after the PhD is complete. I've been in the lawgoons thread, the DnD crowd (especially when a big decision hits) drive me nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Politicians now have a significantly greater incentive to seek out and please the tiny handful of absurdly wealthy billionaires willing to cough up the cash that a nationwide - or even statewide - campaign requires. Citizens United is not the issue on its own, but it exacerbates a major structural problem. Ironically it has contributed greatly to making the Republican nomination process a total circus wherein every candidate has to tilt at windmills to get the nomination and provide juicy soundbytes for the general, and these were the guys who thought they would reap the benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Failed by, after curving, one half of a point. I'm not going to worry about it until after the PhD is complete. I've been in the lawgoons thread, the DnD crowd (especially when a big decision hits) drive me nuts. Ah, I've only recently ventured back to the lawthread in an attempt to avoid Dragon Age spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
joeburz posted:hmm yes tv ads are ineffective, great point i bet you have a lot of other excellent ideas Citizens United is not responsible for your illiteracy either
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Ah, I've only recently ventured back to the lawthread in an attempt to avoid Dragon Age spoilers. I've missed you, your honor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
joeburz posted:hmm yes tv ads are ineffective, great point i bet you have a lot of other excellent ideas It's not that they're ineffective, it's that once they reach a certain saturation point people start tuning out. I imagine most forms of television advertising, political or not, face a similar issue. However I don't think that obviates the threat that near-unlimited soft money could pose to the democratic process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Citizens United is not responsible for your illiteracy either I didn't mention citizens united, i just replied to your statement in that incorrect post because everything you say is garbage
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
joeburz posted:I didn't mention citizens united, i just replied to your statement in that incorrect post because everything you say is garbage "Replied to your statement" implies your post was somehow responding to something I actually wrote
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Pssst.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not a false premise The premise was that "the federal government works during regular business hours and isn't open nights and weekends." This is an unambiguously false for at least some portion of the federal government. All I'm saying is that your argument doesn't rely on it. Dead Reckoning posted:The problem with a national ID system is that it wouldn't solve the issues you're complaining about. I have never complained about a problem in this thread. You may be thinking of someone else. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Crossposting from the picture thread since you guys might be able to answer it better: No, Roberts isn't going to become a progressive torchbearer just because the Tea Party is a bunch of insane neo-Confederate racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It's not that they're ineffective, it's that once they reach a certain saturation point people start tuning out. This is precisely why it matters. If people didn't reach a saturation point, it wouldn't matter that campaigns that bought a handful of ads were up against greater numbers from their opponents, because every message would be heard. Massive disparity in volume of advertising increases the chance an individual begins to tune out the adverts before hearing both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's basically a concern that instead of allowing the legislative process to work out, constitutionalizing it will turn it into an issue like abortion. alnilam posted:Like as far as I can tell this is a pretty obvious, normal application of SCOTUS's basic powers ever since its inception, or at least Marbury v Madison. There is a law (or multiple state laws in this case), it violates the constitution (14th amendment is specifically called out here), it is struck down. This is like 8th grade civics class It's not going to "damage the authority of the court," it's going to damage the authority of the legislature because the legislature will once again demonstrate its inability to do anything about it, and because of that, will further politicize control of the court. Heavy_D posted:This is precisely why it matters. If people didn't reach a saturation point, it wouldn't matter that campaigns that bought a handful of ads were up against greater numbers from their opponents, because every message would be heard. Massive disparity in volume of advertising increases the chance an individual begins to tune out the adverts before hearing both sides. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Citizens United was particularly egregious because it overturned a century of precedent, and was also a case where the court decided on its own to widen the scope of the ruling. Because initially the arguments before the court were more narrow, but then Roberts asked for new arguments because he wanted to help his business buddies out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Alright, since Vox mentioned it: Lawgoons, if Kennedy is "legislating from the bench" in Obergefelle how is Loving any different? Is it? Is this good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Citizens United was particularly egregious because it overturned a century of precedent, and was also a case where the court decided on its own to widen the scope of the ruling. Because initially the arguments before the court were more narrow, but then Roberts asked for new arguments because he wanted to help his business buddies out. Nope, the 100-year-old Tillman Act was not overturned and remains valid. And the reason for the expansive ruling was well explained: quote:The Government suggests we could find BCRA’s Wellstone Amendment unconstitutional, sever it from the statute, and hold that Citizens United’s speech is exempt from §441b’s ban under BCRA’s Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37–38 (Sept. 9, 2009). The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment operates as a backup provision that only takes effect if the Wellstone Amendment is invalidated. See McConnell, supra, at 339 ( Kennedy , J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment would exempt from §441b’s expenditure ban the political speech of certain nonprofit corporations if the speech were funded “exclusively” by individual donors and the funds were maintained in a segregated account. §441b(c)(2). Citizens United would not qualify for the Snowe-Jeffords exemption, under its terms as written, because Hillary was funded in part with donations from for-profit corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Alright, since Vox mentioned it: Lawgoons, if Kennedy is "legislating from the bench" in Obergefelle how is Loving any different? Is it? Is this good or bad? It's pretty apparent if you read both cases, although some of that is length- Loving was 12 or so pages published, and covered all relevant grounds, including a subsequent standard and the arguments of both parties. Unlike Warren, Kennedy spends a tremendous amount of time discussing how this is an explicit change in the law that is more important than democratic means, because "dignity harm fundamental rights" (with rights being used in multiple different ways). Again, this isn't about the outcome, it's about the method. Kennedy could have provided sufficient justification for the decision as a direct application of the reasoning in Loving in less than a page.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
It's funny that no one wrote a concurrence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
The legal reasoning is actually perfectly fine. It's just not equal protection which seems to be confusing people. I can sum it up in four sentences. Marriage is a fundamental right. Gay marriage is marriage. Laws that ban gay marriage thus burden a fundamental right. Therefore laws that ban gay marriage are unconstitutional. It really isn't a problem for a coherent framework of law - Kennedy dressed up a very simple argument in some flowery words. It's not useful precedent for gays in other circumstances, and it's use as precedent is fairly limited in general to issues regarding marriage, but that isn't because of some flaw in the legal reasoning - it's because the decision was that marriage is protected, not that gays are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The legal reasoning is actually perfectly fine. It's just not equal protection which seems to be confusing people. I can sum it up in four sentences. This would be true if the distinction between content and dicta were explicit. As it is, I look forward to the explication of dignity as a new arm of fundamental rights jurisprudence. If Kennedy had said made your argument, and not spent a lot of time making it very explicit that he was stating a new dimension of a right rather than expressing something that had previously been a right not properly expressed in the lower courts, then this would have been a better decision. vvvvvv You're proving my point here. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Well, that is an interesting point. Dignity as a right. Hm. Do you think it might have application to searches and/or Minority Report precrime sorts of things? Some police departments are attempting predictive policing now, you know. And there's the matter of, in the digital age, the personal being mixed with the portable. Porn on the phone and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 07:30
|
|
