• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do YOU see a difference?

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,768
Reaction score
23,380
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
".... there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order."

And

"It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests."
 
For those who are confused, premier boot licker nwratcon is comparing language from Plessy with Dobbs, but it doesn't work because just about anything can be a "legitimate state interest".

Government law is a disaster, because it is written by a bunch of veritable idiots. If you want good law, you need people who understand the subject matter, not a bunch of morons who won a popularity contest.
 
For those who are confused, premier boot licker nwratcon is comparing language from Plessy with Dobbs, but it doesn't work because just about anything can be a "legitimate state interest".

Government law is a disaster, because it is written by a bunch of veritable idiots. If you want good law, you need people who understand the subject matter, not a bunch of morons who won a popularity contest.

160 Representatives and 63 Senators have law degrees. If anything, that's a bit high. I'd like more doctors, scientists, and even business people, because understanding of the sectors which law affect is at least as important as understanding how law should be written. There are committees to deal with details.
 
160 Representatives and 63 Senators have law degrees. If anything, that's a bit high. I'd like more doctors, scientists, and even business people, because understanding of the sectors which law affect is at least as important as understanding how law should be written. There are committees to deal with details.

A lawyer, scientist, teacher or what is just as adept at making bad law as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fmw
What prompted this thread was the hypocrisy of Justice Alito's opinion, which denigrated Plessy v Ferguson as properly overruled, then followed its very logic in his language.

Only he went further, and that's not an exaggeration. By expressly adding dicta that essentially told State legislatures that their legislation would be unreviewable, he was inviting them to be as draconian as they pleased.

This was the same logic that invited the Jim Crow legislation that plagued the nation for nearly a century. It was the combination of the Slaughterhouse cases, the Civil Rights cases, both cited with approval, and Plessy that essentially gutted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and killed Reconstruction and the process of civil rights enforcement for 100 years.

This Court is embarked on a similar crusade, gutting any federal legislation that enforces civil rights, and imposing Lochner-level strictures on federal regulation. The Plessy and Lochner eras, are uniformly considered the worst Courts in US history, and produced opinions as reviled as Dred Scott. This Court is now viewed as historically bad, and is the most unpopular in recorded history.
 
160 Representatives and 63 Senators have law degrees. If anything, that's a bit high. I'd like more doctors, scientists, and even business people, because understanding of the sectors which law affect is at least as important as understanding how law should be written. There are committees to deal with details.
Some posters are uninterested in details, or accuracy, or reason. They just regurgitate bile into any thread they enter and leave others to clean up the mess. It's a pathetic effort to garner attention, like toddlers screaming in grocery store aisles.
 
What prompted this thread was the hypocrisy of Justice Alito's opinion, which denigrated Plessy v Ferguson as properly overruled, then followed its very logic in his language.

Only he went further, and that's not an exaggeration. By expressly adding dicta that essentially told State legislatures that their legislation would be unreviewable, he was inviting them to be as draconian as they pleased.

This was the same logic that invited the Jim Crow legislation that plagued the nation for nearly a century. It was the combination of the Slaughterhouse cases, the Civil Rights cases, both cited with approval, and Plessy that essentially gutted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and killed Reconstruction and the process of civil rights enforcement for 100 years.

This Court is embarked on a similar crusade, gutting any federal legislation that enforces civil rights, and imposing Lochner-level strictures on federal regulation. The Plessy and Lochner eras, are uniformly considered the worst Courts in US history, and produced opinions as reviled as Dred Scott. This Court is now viewed as historically bad, and is the most unpopular in recorded history.

Alito is a piece of work. In Brnovich, Alito's comment on the lower court decision that the AZ election law requirement "...would adversely affect black, Hispanic, and Native American voters." was that though there may be adverse impact, the requirement was a "mere inconvenience". There is no legal definition, in the context of civil rights, of what is a "mere inconvenience". Therefore, the court can decide in future that any adverse impact is a mere inconvenience. To me, that was the worst of the decision, and one of the worst in history of civil rights, that could come back to bite civil rights again and again.
 
Alito is a piece of work. In Brnovich, Alito's comment on the lower court decision that the AZ election law requirement "...would adversely affect black, Hispanic, and Native American voters." was that though there may be adverse impact, the requirement was a "mere inconvenience". There is no legal definition, in the context of civil rights, of what is a "mere inconvenience". Therefore, the court can decide in future that any adverse impact is a mere inconvenience. To me, that was the worst of the decision, and one of the worst in history of civil rights, that could come back to bite civil rights again and again.
That is intentional. The current Court, now led by Alito, is engaged in a project to dismantle civil rights entirely. Brnovich and Dobbs may be its starkest examples, but there is a consistent theme going back to Roberts' arrival.

Right wingnuts are cheering it now, but they have no perception of what is coming (except for the diehard authoritarians in their ranks). Those of us who actually follow the courts and understand how civil rights work have been worrying about it for decades.
 
That is intentional. The current Court, now led by Alito, is engaged in a project to dismantle civil rights entirely. Brnovich and Dobbs may be its starkest examples, but there is a consistent theme going back to Roberts' arrival.

Right wingnuts are cheering it now, but they have no perception of what is coming (except for the diehard authoritarians in their ranks). Those of us who actually follow the courts and understand how civil rights work have been worrying about it for decades.

"Decades" is right. Too many on the Dem side act as though this is all recent. It is deplorable that elected Dems act that way and still haven't figured out this is total war while they are simply observing as if it's all, at most, academic. I'm not even so sure the Dem are taking notes or learning anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom