Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-13-2019, 06:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Exactly so. Despite all the pedantry in this thread about what is and is not in the Constitution, conservative wingnut Neil Gorsuch has already expressed reservations about ruling in favor of LGBT employment rights because of the alleged "social upheaval" it would cause. Which is of course fundamentally misguided on two different grounds. One, it misses the fact that LGBT rights are now in the mainstream of social values, except only for narrow-minded fringe Bible-thumping zealots like himself. Second, he's unwittingly revealed himself to be thinking like a legislator and not a constitutional judge, because to a constitutional literalist it should never be within the purview of a Justice to think in terms of societal values and outcomes, but only in terms of the law as written. But yes, that ship sailed long ago. Citizens United and Heller were two of the most activist and constitutionally groundless decisions every ruled by the SCOTUS.
Upholding the 1st and 2nd amendments is now activist and constitutionally groundless? In what world?
  #52  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:32 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Citizens United and Heller were two of the most activist and constitutionally groundless decisions every ruled by the SCOTUS.
Constitutionally groundless? Did you forget Roe v. Wade? Emanations and penumbras?
  #53  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Upholding the 1st and 2nd amendments is now activist and constitutionally groundless?
Depends on the interpretation. Meaning, depends on whether we have Republican or Democratic justices on the SCOTUS, and/or which SCOTUS justices are better at making their legal interpretation verbiage sound better.

Meaning, this is all just politics, for the most part, no matter how much we want to pretend that it's based on actual objective principles.
  #54  
Old 10-13-2019, 08:36 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Depends on the interpretation. Meaning, depends on whether we have Republican or Democratic justices on the SCOTUS, and/or which SCOTUS justices are better at making their legal interpretation verbiage sound better.

Meaning, this is all just politics, for the most part, no matter how much we want to pretend that it's based on actual objective principles.
What’s there to interpret with

Quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Citizens United is clearly freedom of the press.
  #55  
Old 10-13-2019, 09:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What’s there to interpret with







Citizens United is clearly freedom of the press.
Says you. And the (Republican) SCOTUS. Obviously it matters what they say, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily anything more than just another political call to benefit the wealthy and powerful.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #56  
Old 10-13-2019, 10:34 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Again, thank you for these references. The first one is exactly what I was looking for, a decision by a Federal circuit court, which stated that firing due to inter-racial marriage was a form of racial discrimination and therefore protected under Title VII. The article refers to "associational discrimination" as the legal concept involved, if I understand that correctly. That seems to me to be an excellent precedent for the case we are discussing, and I only hope there have been more like that, including from other circuits, since 2008, and that the justices find it/them persuasive.

The other two are just news accounts of lawsuits, without any reference to how the cases were decided, and so not much use in this discussion. But the first one provides what I have been requesting and hoping for, some reason to believe that the Supreme Court might be willing to, in effect, expand the legal definition of sex discrimination in employment.
One thing that occurred to me after I wrote this is that, if SCOTUS rules against the plaintiffs, it could call any Circuit Court decisions like this one into question, and encourage future appeals to challenge the Circuit Courts even on the inter-racial marriage issue (i.e. whether firing someone because of inter-racial marriage is actually racial discrimination). Going before SCOTUS is always a risk, which is another reason to use that tactic sparingly.

I do agree with Jragon, though, that it is good to have as much redundancy as possible across branches, and levels, of government.
  #57  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:01 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Says you. And the (Republican) SCOTUS. Obviously it matters what they say, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily anything more than just another political call to benefit the wealthy and powerful.
Isnt this getting into a bit of a hijack?

I mean, we could debate that dec. It would be interesting. But not, I think, here.
  #58  
Old 10-14-2019, 12:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Isnt this getting into a bit of a hijack?



I mean, we could debate that dec. It would be interesting. But not, I think, here.
Fair enough.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #59  
Old 10-15-2019, 11:05 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
But yes, that ship sailed long ago. Citizens United and Heller were two of the most activist and constitutionally groundless decisions every ruled by the SCOTUS.
Citizens United was a pretty straightforward decision based on the First Amendment. Freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Had Citizens United been a liberal not-for-profit, instead of a conservative not-for-profit, virtually everyone who complains about that decision now would either support it or would never have heard of it.

"Constitutionally groundless" is a stunningly ridiculous thing to say. The First Amendment says Congress cannot do what it did.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017