Except the vast, vast majority of your posts are arguments, not you correcting facts. And your factual corrections are not the ones people tend to have problems with.
The problem people are having with you right now has nothing to do with factual corrections. You did what you do all the time: mixed up legality and morality. You asked what “you” think: and Hamlet responded with what he thought.
Hamlet is not required to think the same thing the legal system of the United States does.
Hell, you fucking know that most of us think that Hobby Lobby was decided wrongly.
Nope. It is the view that the legal system has adopted. Society tends to believe that murderers shouldn’t go free based on technicalities.
And society expects the legal system to be lawful good–they call it the justice system for a reason. But you’ve just got through arguing that it’s supposed to be lawful neutral. So you (and the legal system, as much as you represent it) are the one out of step with society.
And, yeah, judges could say that the right to life means they protect against abortion. But they weighed both options and did not make that decision. The case was not remotely decided based on originalism, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
Or possibly that the government wanted to resolve the case solely as a general issue of whether a corporation could exercise a religious belief, and the sincerity of Hobby Lobby’s owners in the specific case would have been irrelevant to the general issue?
In the United State, a representative democracy, society speaks through:
(A) The enactment of laws via its elected representatives
(B) The decisions of its judicial system applying those laws
(C) BigT’s keen insight and pronouncements into what society actually wants
I can demonstrate that society has spoken very definitively on the present-day issue of slavery.
Therefore the only question that I might have been answering is whether slavery was “cool,” at the time, and that seems self-evidently to solicit a personal opinion and not a societal one. “Cool,” is a highly subjective judgement; even Fonzie could not claim that every single person found him cool.
The exclusionary rule isn’t a particularly strong example of something there’s been a lot of legislative activity around, though, is it? It’s fiddly and technical and dependent upon evidence gathering techniques; in other words, it’s the kind of principle that practically speaking is just always going to be evolving. One might reasonably argue that it’s the sort of question that ultimately “society” is never going to speak on definitively. Exclusionary principles are gonna need to be made up.
So if BigT wants to argue that the judiciary’s ethical perspective informs actual constitutional principles in a non-neutral way, wouldn’t you agree that the question of what to do about a trial when certain evidence has to be suppressed is pretty good support for the proposition?
Should it have been accepted in the sense of acknowledging it was legal? Yes.
Or do you mean should it have been accepted in the sense that it was unchangeable since it was legal? No. Laws that are wrong should be changed.
But this sentiment does not imply that any method of change is acceptable. The bedrock of a representative democracy is not, “I know best,” even if in fact you do know best. If you know best it becomes your path to convince your fellow citizens of their error.
And in fact, the Constitution was amended to end slavery.
Yes… but this is generally a case in which courts have some legislative role: the crafting of evidentiary rules is the kind of area in which courts exercise of supervisory authority over lower courts is palatable… and, indeed, it’s ALSO the kind of thing that would yield to a legislative determination of a different solution – as long as that solution was equally protective of Constitutional guarantees.
I just don’t get this. You steal a car, lots of places, you can’t vote. You beat somebody up, you don’t get to have a gun. Both involve suspending “Constitutional rights”, but its the second one that bothers him?
Well, anyway, all those abusive dudes who want to change that, they can just all get together and demand an amendment. Which will never happen, so good luck with that, neener neener! Its still the law, so I win. Right?
The distinction is most likely between a felony and a misdemeanor. What loses voting rights is not the theft of a car, but the felony conviction.
Here, the law acts to suspend a right based on a misdemeanor conviction. His first question was, “Can you give me another area in which a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) violation suspends a constitutional right?”
(The text in red is my editorial addition, intended to highlight the substance of the question that you just don’t get).
So what he’s asking is: what is the basis for the government to classify misdemeanor domestic violence as qualifying for loss of Second Amendment rights, but not misdemeanor theft or misdemeanor sexual assault?
They don’t necessarily need an amendment. This is a matter of federal law possibly conflicting with the Constitution, which is what the Court is being asked to decide. What level of scrutiny should be applied to the law, and does the law survive that level of scrutiny?
If the Court decides to uphold the law, the aggrieved abusive dudes can seek relief in the ordinary legislative process. Congress can repeal the law easier than passing a Constitutional amendment to adjust the process.
All that said, it seems to me the Court already addressed this a couple years ago in Castleman. I’m explaining all the above to you because, as you explained, you didn’t get it.
And those who don’t like the idea of taking away the right to vote due to a felony conviction should be especially concerned about taking away a right (even a different one) due to a misdemeanor conviction. It should be obvious that the precedent would open the door for even greater restrictions on voting.