|
Zeeman posted:Which is hilarious, but also could make it easy for the Court to say that this wasn't in good faith Yeah, I just don't think you could fit Satan and a 9" on the third layer of a three tiered white cake unless you started with a much wider than normal base cake.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
qkkl posted:They're going to rule that since the Constitution says nothing about LGBT rights then the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of LGBT people. A liberal court might rule that the "life, liberty, and property" clause trumps the religious freedom clause. The what now? qkkl posted:If the former does happen we might actually see a new Amendment get ratified. Because 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislators care about what, exactly, related to this issue?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Reminder for constitutional amendments, to pass something proposed by the GOP, you'd need a state as blue as Washington state or Oregon to agree, and for an amendment proposed by the Democrats, you'd need a state as red as Nebraska or Montana to agree. (Those states are roughly at the 75th percentile in either direction)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Wasn't the last one 7-2? Or am I mis-remembering? It was, although if you want to give Breyer and Kagan the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were joining the majority to help wheedle the "narrow" decision out of Kennedy instead of reversing on gay rights entirely. But on the other hand, Trinity Lutheran was 7-2 also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
In a 5-4 decision based on the long-established precedent of Dredd Scott...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:The complaint is here, btw: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf quote:All people—no matter who they are, what they believe, or what protected characteristics they have—are welcome in Phillips’s shop and may purchase anything available for sale. But as a devout man of faith, Phillips cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with his religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Yeah, I just don't think you could fit Satan and a 9" on the third layer of a three tiered white cake unless you started with a much wider than normal base cake. It's usually a good idea to have a flared base, just in case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It's usually a good idea to have a flared base, just in case.  (especially username/post combination)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Wolf Pussy posted:The what now? The 14th amendment, and the fact that sex/gender isn't a fully protected class in the Constitution. edit: Wait a second, it looks like race isn't a fully protected class either. It might actually be possible for the SCOTUS to rule that religious liberty trumps laws that protect people from being racially discriminated against. qkkl fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Aug 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
qkkl posted:The 14th amendment, and the fact that sex/gender isn't a fully protected class in the Constitution. Laws which discriminate on the basis of race must survive strict scrutiny, which is extremely difficult for the government to do. Laws which discriminate on the basis of sex must survive heightened scrutiny, which is not easy but can be done if the need is obvious and compelling. Stuff like sexual orientation/identity though, has no heightened protection and the government has to only articulate a rational basis (anything better than "we hate gays because they are icky"), which is usually easier to do. Marriage was one of the few times the government arguably ever failed to show that it was anything but arbitrary animus. edit: oh wait you aren't talking about laws imposed by the government, but about the private conduct of one citizen vs another. Yeah, there's not much in the constitution for that, but some state constitutions are stronger than the federal constitution, like Colorado. If you refuse to sell anything in your private store because of a potential customer's race, the federal constitution just shrugs at that. Rigel fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Aug 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
qkkl posted:The 14th amendment, and the fact that sex/gender isn't a fully protected class in the Constitution. Important note about Masterpiece Cake Shop and both of these cases: The law in question is Colorado's state law that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including transgender status) is illegal. The Supreme Court had no problem completely sidestepping the fact that yes, the baker's behavior was absolutely illegal, and ruling that he's retroactively allowed to discriminate illegally because a civil rights commissioner was rude to him about it later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
and if you have to ignore all the religious animus of the president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and if you have to ignore all the religious animus of the president. That was the best worst part because it's just another case of the conservative wingof the SCOTUS doing whatever the gently caress they want, consistency be damned. They know that not only will they get away with it but the GOP will be rewarded by them doing so (see: Bush v. Gore, Shelby County...etc).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
qkkl posted:The 14th amendment, and the fact that sex/gender isn't a fully protected class in the Constitution. It's possible for scotus to rule anything how they want really, isn't that the whole point of the court?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Important note about Masterpiece Cake Shop and both of these cases: The law in question is Colorado's state law that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including transgender status) is illegal. The Supreme Court had no problem completely sidestepping the fact that yes, the baker's behavior was absolutely illegal, and ruling that he's retroactively allowed to discriminate illegally because a civil rights commissioner was rude to him about it later. Is everyone being careful not to hurt the guy's feelings this time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
The court won't care. It was a thin, barely-coherent premise last time, and they'll find another this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:It's possible for scotus to rule anything how they want really, isn't that the whole point of the court? You could make the argument that died after Bush v Gore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean pretty much. The idea was supposed to be that the Justices need to use precedent, but the Roberts Court threw that out the window years ago. Even before Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court has abused its unique ability to overrule precedent loads of times. It's just another tradition that can be ignored anytime the judges feel like. The main limiting factor on the Supreme Court is the checks-and-balances system between the various branches of government. The judges can rule however they want, but the President and Congress can always just ignore it (see also: Andrew Jackson), or actively gently caress with them in response (see also: FDR). Because the Court lacks real power and can't directly act against the other two branches themselves, they need to be sensitive to political pressure, avoid overreaching in their decisions, and maintain a vaguely-convincing pretense of basing their rulings solely in hard legal analysis. In theory, anyway. In practice, the checks and balances in the system have essentially broken down, and we're pretty much just waiting for the collapse. Fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Well if one party controls the entire government there won’t be any political pressure
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Important note about Masterpiece Cake Shop and both of these cases: The law in question is Colorado's state law that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including transgender status) is illegal. The Supreme Court had no problem completely sidestepping the fact that yes, the baker's behavior was absolutely illegal, and ruling that he's retroactively allowed to discriminate illegally because a civil rights commissioner was rude to him about it later. Ahh, the ever critical states right to have their laws ignored by SCOTUS for no constitutional reason. I wonder what happens as people start considering SCOTUS, and by extension the entire concept of 'rule of law' illegitimate. I can't imagine that a court-packing in 2021 will help with that belief, even when it fixes the obvious problems with the current court. West Virginia will make a good bellweather for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well if one party controls the entire government there won’t be any political pressure Yeah, but it's not like that would ever happen!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Harik posted:Ahh, the ever critical states right to have their laws ignored by SCOTUS for no constitutional reason. They tossed the fine because one of the committee members was biased so the baker's right to due process was violated. Think of it this way: If a murder conviction is tossed due to judicial misconduct that doesn't mean murder is suddenly legal. However since he did the same thing again we'll get to see if the supreme court actually does want to strike down the law...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They tossed the fine because one of the committee members was biased so the baker's right to due process was violated. Think of it this way: If a murder conviction is tossed due to judicial misconduct that doesn't mean murder is suddenly legal. Most importantly: They did this while simultaneously giving the President of the United States a pass on his openly racist and aggressive views that had far more to do with his actions than Colorado properly enforcing a law that the SCOTUS didn't bother to rule on the legality of. Some committee member didn't like a bigot? Well that's violating their rights. The POTUS has a long and clearly documented history of racial animus towards certain groups? Not a problem and his actions to oppress those groups is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They tossed the fine because one of the committee members was biased so the baker's right to due process was violated. He wasn't biased, he just said religious beliefs have been used as a fig leaf for discrimination throughout history, and aren't a valid justification for breaking anti-discrimination law (which is 100% true see Heart of Atlanta Hotel) The court just strawmanned that into "Christians are all bigots", it's more like if a conviction is tossed because the judge ruled "but she cheated on me" isn't a valid defense to murder no matter how many men before him claimed it is, and the supreme court said "whoa u must hate men, case dismissed" and then did that every time a guy murdered his wife. Murdering your wife isn't technically legal you guys, the supreme court just rules in favor of the murderer every single time tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
boy john roberts, i dunno
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Is there a drinking game involving Merrick Garland mentions at today’s hearing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
So far you would still be able to drive. Bunch of dick waving, no questions. The guy talking right now (schoolhouse rock dude) is pretty drat correct. Camera is on the judge, not sure who it is. e: Ben Sasse ilkhan fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
oh my god if Sasse mentions school house rock one more time in this hearing...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:oh my god if Sasse mentions school house rock one more time in this hearing... e: now you're drunk on Garland mentions. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
How much does it suck to be staff that just has to sit there on camera while having to listen to all these awful speeches. Can't even look at your phone or just read a book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
I've gotta admit, I didn't think they'd be so crazy as to invoke Bork like this. Truly shameless.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Goddamn i hate his Kermit Peterson loving voice. I want to punch that voice. Lord what do I sacrifice for this fucker to get run out on a rail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
What is the thread's opinion on term limits for the SC?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:What is the thread's opinion on term limits for the SC? 18 year limits with 9 staggered terms would be very nice - time it so each term limit ends at the beginning of year 1 and year 3 of a Presidential term. However, it would require a Constitutional amendment, so you may as well wish for an amendment mandating Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism while you're at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:What is the thread's opinion on term limits for the SC? In theory, yeah, an 18-year term without possibility of reappointment would be a good option. A mandatory retirement age of 75 could also work. In practice, constitutional amendment required, so we can all whistle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
ulmont posted:18 year limits with 9 staggered terms would be very nice - time it so each term limit ends at the beginning of year 1 and year 3 of a Presidential term. You'd have to mandate action on Congress's part to because the current GOP would do the same thing with any non-
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You'd have to mandate action on Congress's part to because the current GOP would do the same thing with any non- Mandating action is pointless because they can just ignore the mandate. You might as well just amend the Constitution to add "Stop being lovely, Congress" to the end - it'll be just about as effective at changing Congress's behavior.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Jiro posted:How much does it suck to be staff that just has to sit there on camera while having to listen to all these awful speeches. Can't even look at your phone or just read a book. Mostly it’s sitting there paralyzed with fear that your senator is going to gently caress up the questions you wrote for them and listening to see if there’s anything the witness says that you need to try to get your Senator to follow up on. (Unrelated staff aren’t sitting there, only the nominations/Judiciary staff.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
In Constitutional Amendment context we can make it so that Congress has six months(or whatever time we want here) to vote the nominee down and if they don't then they are installed on the count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
You could put a caveat to the effect of that seat will always be tied to that president. So if vacancy X opens up under President Y, that replacement is always his pick even if his term ends before it's filled. It would avoid another Garland travesty because the President, in this instance Obama, would always get claim to Scalia's seat in perpetuity the minute the old coot croaked. Then whatever future President is in office once our Hypothetical Justice Garland dies gets claim to Garlands seat until it's filled and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 07:59
|
|
