Why are most legal types of the opinion that overturning the Slaughter House cases will be a slam dunk for gay marriage to be legalized nationwide?
I mean, if they wanted to they could use the due process clause to do the same thing. Why is PorI so much of a stronger weapon?
Tranlsated:
:mad: “I am NOT a poopy-head! YOU’RE the poopy-head!”:mad:
It seems like someone says this every gun thread, with the result being that several pages are wasted as people argue back and forth about penises and insecurities and the actual issues get ignored. So these comments are going to be off-limits for the rest of this thread. That means nobody else is to insinuate that gun owners are “compensating,” or that they’re cowboy maniacs. And people on the other side of the argument are not to respond to comments like this.
WTF are you talking about?
No, he’s right about that. There are, unfortunately, a large number of people who choose that route. Those people are the type that use the (in)famous quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson about the tree of liberty being refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots. They always leave out the alleged (the quote is apocryphal) last part: and tyrants.
I’m very concerned about those people. They tend to give gun-rights advocates like myself a bad reputation. And what for? It it to demonstrate some sort of strength? I respectfully submit that absolutists do more damage to our cause, as it were, than people who believe that gun ownership is a Constitutional right yet are not militant about it.
That said, tomorrow (actually today) should strike a blow against said parties, because they will have the carpet pulled out from underneath them. What they have demanded will be affirmed by the Supreme Court, and with any luck they will go away and stop making people like me look bad.
That won’t stop the insults, mind you, but in the next decade maybe people will come to grips with the way things are rather than the way they otherwise might wish they would be.
Last, as a caveat, if the decision doesn’t go the way I think it will (though I have no idea how that could happen), I’ll accept it and we’ll go from there.
Only a few hours to the decision. I’m still very excited. It’s not every day you get to see an Amendment Incorporated. I can’t even remember the last time. And as I said in the OP, if they reinstate PorI this will be a big win for a lot of people who rightfully deserve recognition. It’s funny how a gun case could be the biggest win ever for same-sex marriage, but there it is. Be hopeful.
Not much chance of that. Partly because like the Truthers and the Birthers and the-income-taxes-are-illegal types, I’m sure that they’ll just ignore little things like facts and legal rulings. And partly because they are thugs, and I see no reason to expect that thugs will stop acting like thugs just because you give them what they have threatened violence to get. As long as a Democrat is in the Oval Office they’ll go around threatening and sometimes indulging in violence; they did it under Clinton, and now they are doing under Obama.
The argument, which makes sense, is that under the PorI clause states cannot reject same-sex marriages because what is legal in one state must be recognized in every state, as privileges will then transfer from state to state. Thus, if it is legal in one state it is universally legal.
That’s the theory, anyway (as I understand it). The courts will have to shake it out, but I think that Justices Harlan (the first) and Black are right on target about that. Slaughter-House killed that idea, but it is well night time it is resurrected. Just imagine what that will do for concealed carry “shall issue” laws as well.
We’ll see in a few hours.
They did as well under both Bushes and Reagan. You may be certain that they are not out to get Democrats, they are doing nothing more than demanding rights they think are absolutely fundamental, they’re just being jerks about it. What is this idea that these people only exist to mess with Democrats? They’ve been around for decades.
Not to anywhere near the same extent.
Because they are an extension of the Republican party. And because they are mouth-frothing crazy about the “Demoncrats”.
So much for a conciliatory gesture. Why do I bother?
Please, by all means, continue with your rhetoric.
No, he isn’t. He took the actions of a very small minority of extremists and assigned such behavior to everyone who endorses gun rights. He did so with no cite and no explanation about exactly who he was talking about. This is a form of bigotry and lying by omission.
Really, does he need a cite? You know who he’s talking about, you need only be a member of gun-rights message boards to understand what he’s talking about.
While I agree that it’s a minority of gun owners that take this position, it is significant enough that it makes me cringe when I see the ultimate manifestation of that position.
Let’s not hijack this thread into irrelevancies. Rather, let’s stick to the case at hand and the decision due in a few hours. Do a happy dance, because you’re about to see a big victory.
No. That would be an incredibly broad interpretation of the clause (not to mention kind of bizarre).
The PorI clause is a potential vehicle by which the Bill of Rights, and other rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution, can be incorporated and applied to the states. It’s cited in support of the total incorporation view, which was pushed aside in favor of the selective incorporation view, which relies on the due process clause of A14. As a practical matter, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the selective incorporation view (is it really necessary to require the states to bring criminal charges via a grand jury?). But if the Supreme Court decides to adopt the total incorporation view, they may find that the PorI clause is a more logical vehicle for it (and may allow them to move away from deciding any messy substantive due process questions, depending on how the PorI clause is interpreted).
In terms of gay marriage, I don’t believe gay marriage has been recognized by the federal courts as a fundamental right for purposes of A14, which leaves the individual states free to decide whether or not to allow it. Incorporation means the states are barred from infringing upon that which the federal government is barred from infringing upon; it has nothing to do with what rights an individual state has decided to grant. If California’s Constitution gives you the right to get a free haircut on your birthday, would other states have to start giving free haircuts too?
Interesting. So, if I own a legal brothel in Nevada, under the “new and improved” view of PorI, then I could open one in downtown Atlanta, GA because neither the state of GA, or the city of Atlanta would have the power to pass a law against it since it was legal in Nevada?
That seems sort of odd. It would be like every state must follow the lead of the least restrictive state when it comes to everything.
New York wants me to pay a state income tax? No way, Bub, Florida doesn’t
make me and that is a privilege that I have as a FL resident. I deserve that same privilege in NY.
I had always thought that PorI, even in the beginning, covered such rights that were deemed fundamental by traditional of our history and the concept of ordered liberty. So, national CCW would be out. Gay marriage would still be in the same position, debate wise, that it is now.
I any event, it is an interesting development. What do the Vegas bookies or the wise legal sages of the SDMB think the chances are of the Court actually overturning Slaughter House?
I don’t see this happening, even if P&I is restored. To do so would fundamentally change the criminal law of many states, because of the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment right to indictment by Grand Jury. I don’t know how they’d swing it, but I have no doubt they would.
Not that I wouldn’t like to see it happen - I’ve thought for a long time about a thread asking for opinions on the worst Supreme Court decision for long term effects, and the Slaughterhouse Cases are right up there for me.
Thank you. I also ask that you consider your warning to become a matter of precedent for future gun control threads in Great Debates.
I’m telling you guys, there is no way, no how this is going to be decided broadly. It’s going to be a simple incorporation and not involve any other part of the Bill of Rights. If I was a betting woman, I’d bet anyone here an Outback dinner.*
[sub]* Start mine with a Bloomin’ onion and Foster’s 22-ounce “Big Bloke”, then move to the house salad with blue cheese dressing, 9-ounce sirloin, baked sweet potato (no toppings), and a Chocolate Thunder from Down Under to put the final nail in the diet coffin.[/sub]
It’s done. The 2nd Amendment is Incorporated in a (surprise, surprise) 5-4 decision, with dissents from Stevens and Breyer, Breyer’s being joined by Ginsberg and Sotomayor.
Alito’s opinion was joined by Scalia, Kennedy and Roberts in favor of Incorporation via the Due Process Clause, with Thomas holding out for PorI.
We win!
Here’s the opinion, all 214 pages of it.
Looks like I have some serious reading to do.
Wooo hooo!!!