Everyone is Mad at the SCOTUS!

[Paschendale]

so you are declaring marriage a right?

states dont have rights, they have powers ..only.

I don't need to declare it a right. The government needs to come up with a compelling reason why it isn't a right. Remember the 9th amendment? The lack of enumeration of a right does not mean we don't have it. And the 5th and 14th amendments ensure the right to marry, or haven't you read Loving?

 

[Master PO]

I don't need to declare it a right. The government needs to come up with a compelling reason why it isn't a right. Remember the 9th amendment? The lack of enumeration of a right does not mean we don't have it. And the 5th and 14th amendments ensure the right to marry, or haven't you read Loving?

well why could not the state come up with a compelling reason, as to why a privilege is not being extended to all citizens of a state, ..that would be the better argument.

i know of no right, that places a compulsory means on people or governments to provide a service....the service of marriage.

 

[Gina]

can you show me where the federal government has the authority to institute laws against only certain states, and only against certain counties in those states?

all laws the federal government passes, must apply equally, ...were does a government bureaucrat get the authority to rule over the voting regulations of counties in America?

It obviously had standing over the last 50 years since it was only struck down now because the court believe there was no need of it.

Declaring that "our country has changed in the past 50 years," Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four other conservatives said the 1965 law cannot be enforced unless Congress updates it to account for a half-century of civil rights advances.

They didn't do that because VRA was always unconstitutional.

 

[Hard Truth]

This liberal doesn't think that the civil rights ruling is necessarily bad. My understanding is that they would have upheld greater scrutiny of certain states if the decision to do so was backed up with current statistics.
(I'm also one of the few liberals who think the court ruled correctly in the Citizens United case)

 

[Master PO]

It obviously had standing over the last 50 years since it was only struck down now because the court believe there was no need of it.

that may be... but its unconstitutional because supreme law say all laws must be equal for everyone.

you cannot single a person, groups or certain states out.

who ever would have though of a bureaucrat, (an UNelected official) being able to determine vote regulations for some states........the founders are is rolling in their graves.

 

[Paschendale]

well why could not the state come up with a compelling reason, as to why a privilege is not being extended to all citizens of a state, ..that would be the better argument.

The state can certainly try. But there isn't any such reason to come up with.

i know of no right, that places a compulsory means on people or governments to provide a service....the service of marriage.

Marriage isn't a service. It's a status. And it has been entirely the legislative acts of congress and state governments that have attached services to that legal status.

that may be... but its unconstitutional because supreme law say all laws must be equal for everyone.


you cannot single a person, groups or certain states out.

That's not even a little bit true. You can. You just need compelling reasons to do so. That's what constitutional scrutiny is all about.

 

[Gina]

that may be... but its unconstitutional because supreme law say all laws must be equal for everyone.

you cannot single a person, groups or certain states out.

who ever would have though of a bureaucrat, (an UNelected official) being able to determine vote regulations for some states........the founders are is rolling in their graves.

It's their ruling, it's unconstitutional now, now that "things have changed" they can throw out a law passed by congress and approved many times over the years. There is much to chew over in that sentence.

 

[Master PO]

It's their ruling, it's unconstitutional now, now that "things have changed" they can throw out a law passed by congress and approved many times over the years. There is much to chew over in that sentence.

many things they do is unconstitutional.

 

[Gina]

many things they do is unconstitutional.

By the power given them the constitution, the court is constitutional. I think we would both agree, for different reasons, that we disagree with their interpretation of it.

 

[YoungConserv]

Due process. The divide in the Court is less left-right and more Procedural Due Process v. Substantive Due Process, but cable news always goes to "other stories" during confirmation hearings when Lochner shows up in the discussion and the press seldom talks about it because it is too legal wonky.

But they are no longer standing on anything crafted by elected officals but just a pile of case law precident.

 

[YoungConserv]

i'm a bit disappointed that they punted Prop 8, but overall, it was a pretty good day for equal protection. another case will make its way through the courts in a few years, and then the matter will be settled as per Loving v Virginia.

If your equal protection your against the progressive income tax right?

 

[Master PO]

The state can certainly try. But there isn't any such reason to come up with..

i mean the state would have to prove that the privilege of marriage is being denied for a reason, and the state would have to explain that reason

Marriage isn't a service. It's a status. And it has been entirely the legislative acts of congress and state governments that have attached services to that legal status.

in order for a marriage to take place, a 3rd person must preform that ceremony......nothing can be right if it compels another human being to do anything...including preforming a service of marriage...this would exclude.......... private individuals or churches from marrying SS couples.

becuase no person can be put into servitude unless a crime is committed.

That's not even a little bit true. You can. You just need compelling reasons to do so. That's what constitutional scrutiny is all about.

oh, how can you single out people or groups, states with special laws, only for them?

 

[Helix]

If your equal protection your against the progressive income tax right?

of course not. that's like arguing that since i like bananas, i must also like hammers.

 

[Fisher]

But they are no longer standing on anything crafted by elected officals but just a pile of case law precident.

Depends on who you mean by "They". The SCOTUS is standing on the Constitution which predates case law precedence. Lochner is probably one of the most relevant Supreme Court cases there is next to Marbury v. Madison simply because courts run toward it or away from it or in one direction while pretending to be going in the other. It takes wonks to see its relevance today because the politics are uninteresting and rulings are seldom specifically mentioning it. Justices tend to be pro-Lochner or anti-Lochner and it is true for both liberals and conservatives.

Lochner v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YoungConserv]

of course not. that's like arguing that since i like bananas, i must also like hammers.

How you say your for equality under the law how is a progressive tax code equality under the law?

 

[YoungConserv]

Depends on who you mean by "They". The SCOTUS is standing on the Constitution which predates case law precedence. Lochner is probably one of the most relevant Supreme Court cases there is next to Marbury v. Madison simply because courts run toward it or away from it or in one direction while pretending to be going in the other. It takes wonks to see its relevance today because the politics are uninteresting and rulings are seldom specifically mentioning it. Justices tend to be pro-Lochner or anti-Lochner and it is true for both liberals and conservatives.

Lochner v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right but marberryv Madison was a power grab by the court it has given them power way outside of their article three constraints.

 

[YoungConserv]

By the power given them the constitution, the court is constitutional. I think we would both agree, for different reasons, that we disagree with their interpretation of it.

Actually the court has gone way outside its article 3 restrictions. It has no constitutional power to interpret the constitution.

 

[Helix]

How you say your for equality under the law how is a progressive tax code equality under the law?

because taxes are our bill for societal structure. the more we use and benefit from the structure, the more we pay. as one climbs the ladder, he or she pays a progressively higher rate to strengthen the rungs below so that others may climb. the progressive tax system is not a denial of equal protection under the law, and frankly, it has nothing to do with either equal protection or this topic.

 

[Fisher]

Right but marberryv Madison was a power grab by the court it has given them power way outside of their article three constraints.

Well Harlan's dissent is the basis of a power grab that followed the Lochner-era if that is your particular Point of View about Marbury--not one I agree with though--and Holmes' dissent is the basis of other Points of View.

 

[YoungConserv]

because taxes are our bill for societal structure. the more we use and benefit from the structure, the more we pay. as one climbs the ladder, he or she pays a progressively higher rate to strengthen the rungs below so that others may climb. the progressive tax system is not a denial of equal protection under the law, and frankly, it has nothing to do with either equal protection or this topic.

How is it not unequal protection I am treated differently based on my income if we did that in criminal law would that be ok?

 

[Helix]

How is it not unequal protection I am treated differently based on my income if we did that in criminal law would that be ok?

i already explained this.

 

[YoungConserv]

i already explained this.

So if we had diffrent federal drug laws based on income that would be fine right?

 

[Helix]

So if we had diffrent federal drug laws based on income that would be fine right?

another failed analogy.

taxes rates are based on income and property. as long as everyone on that tier is levied the same rate, there is no equal protection issue.

 

[YoungConserv]

another failed analogy.

taxes rates are based on income and property. as long as everyone on that tier is levied the same rate, there is no equal protection issue.

How on earth do you figure that? I see the very existance of those years as a equal protection problem.

 

[Master PO]

How you say your for equality under the law how is a progressive tax code equality under the law?

the founders were against a direct tax on the people......look what compulsory taxes do.

"the power to tax is the power to destroy"