• 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!

Everyone is Mad at the SCOTUS!

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

That was a debatable argument for the 1790s, and was settled way back in 1803. If you can't move beyond the year 1803, you have a lot of problems with this country.
 
How on earth do you figure that? I see the very existance of those years as a equal protection problem.

congress is granted the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the rates are uniform among the states.

your analogy doesn't work because being born gay, black, white, short, tall, et cetera is something inherent that can't be changed. wealth isn't like that. if we charged different tax rates by race or sexual orientation, that would not be equal protection. levying a higher rate as one earns more income does not violate equal protection.

conversely, the essential civil right of marriage is not uniform among the states, and homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. therefore, they are denied an essential civil right depending on where they reside. that is not equal protection under the law.
 
I would be if I could see any overarching principle guiding their decisions like say the constitution, but I can't so that's disturbing.

There is an overarching principle.....perceived popular opinion.
 
Are they Right? Or are they People right? I will go with them, since the people seem to be very hypocritical on the two recent rulings.

1. On Tuesday June 25, 2013 The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. According to many liberals and blacks this is evil and bad! For it MAY allow voting discrimination to come back. Especially with the south’s (mainly Texas’) evil voting ID laws. The liberal and black communities fail to mention that John Roberts basically believes that the world has moved past racism and voting discrimination. For all intents and purposes it has! With no evidence to support these claims the liberal hero of Obamacare, John Roberts, is now part of an evil right wing conspiracy to control the election cycle! Even though, these same liberals think that the GOP is working with the Democrats on immigration just to get Hispanic votes…

2. Today, June 26, 2013 The Supreme Court of the United States struck down DOMA. Now, 12 states and the District of Columbia authorize same-sex marriages. Liberal cable news anchors seemingly forgetting last night that they accused the SCOTUS of being part of a racist right wing conspiracy theory, are hailing the decision which gives access to federal benefits to same sex marriage couples…in California.

This is almost the same thing is it not? It's just a different states rights issue. Gay Marriage benefits and voting.

Nothing new here. The SC long since stopped basing their decisions on the constitution. They just decide what they want and invent a legal reason to make it so. This has been going on since Madison.
 
I don't recall many libertarians crying about Citizens United. Libertarians are selectively full of ****.
 
congress is granted the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the rates are uniform among the states.

your analogy doesn't work because being born gay, black, white, short, tall, et cetera is something inherent that can't be changed. wealth isn't like that. if we charged different tax rates by race or sexual orientation, that would not be equal protection. levying a higher rate as one earns more income does not violate equal protection.

conversely, the essential civil right of marriage is not uniform among the states, and homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. therefore, they are denied an essential civil right depending on where they reside. that is not equal protection under the law.

When exactly has the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals are a protected class deserving a higher level of scrutiny again?
 
When exactly has the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals are a protected class deserving a higher level of scrutiny again?

the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government has to recognize marriages, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a basic civil right. if homosexual marriages are available or unavailable based purely on geographical location, then there is no longer equal protection under the law. some are granted basic civil rights, while others are not. it's analogous to letting heterosexuals marry in in Wyoming, Illinois, Alaska, and North Carolina while allowing the rest of the states to ban heterosexual marriage. those residing in that set of states would enjoy federal recognition, while everyone else would not. that's not equal protection.
 
the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government has to recognize marriages, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a basic civil right. if homosexual marriages are available or unavailable based purely on geographical location, then there is no longer equal protection under the law. some are granted basic civil rights, while others are not. it's analogous to letting heterosexuals marry in in Wyoming, Illinois, Alaska, and North Carolina while allowing the rest of the states to ban heterosexual marriage. those residing in that set of states would enjoy federal recognition, while everyone else would not. that's not equal protection.

Actually the issue of SS couples moving after marriage to a state where it is not recognized was not specifically addressed in the ruling...
 
the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government has to recognize marriages, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Loving v Virginia established marriage as a basic civil right. if homosexual marriages are available or unavailable based purely on geographical location, then there is no longer equal protection under the law. some are granted basic civil rights, while others are not. it's analogous to letting heterosexuals marry in in Wyoming, Illinois, Alaska, and North Carolina while allowing the rest of the states to ban heterosexual marriage. those residing in that set of states would enjoy federal recognition, while everyone else would not. that's not equal protection.

So, in other words, you cannot provide a single case where homosexuals were granted protected class status or received a higher level of scrutiny by the SCOTUS? I didn't ask you for your logic, just the basis for it. Maybe stop pretending that gays are blacks would be a good place to start.....
 
So, in other words, you cannot provide a single case where homosexuals were granted protected class status or received a higher level of scrutiny by the SCOTUS? I didn't ask you for your logic, just the basis for it. Maybe stop pretending that gays are blacks would be a good place to start.....

sexual orientation is absolutely analogous to race. neither can be changed, and neither can be a basis for denial of basic civil rights.
 
That was a debatable argument for the 1790s, and was settled way back in 1803. If you can't move beyond the year 1803, you have a lot of problems with this country.

It still is a valid argument the age of a illegal action doesn't make it any less illegal.
 
It still is a valid argument the age of a illegal action doesn't make it any less illegal.

It's not illegal. The sooner you stop listening to libertarian foolishness the better, or at the very least, decry nearly every USSC decision, please.
 
congress is granted the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the rates are uniform among the states.

your analogy doesn't work because being born gay, black, white, short, tall, et cetera is something inherent that can't be changed. wealth isn't like that. if we charged different tax rates by race or sexual orientation, that would not be equal protection. levying a higher rate as one earns more income does not violate equal protection.

conversely, the essential civil right of marriage is not uniform among the states, and homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. therefore, they are denied an essential civil right depending on where they reside. that is not equal protection under the law.

Where is this concept of only the things you can't change are given equal protection found in the constitution?
 
It's not illegal. The sooner you stop listening to libertarian foolishness the better, or at the very least, decry nearly every USSC decision, please.

Where in article three does scotus get interpretive power over the constitution?
 
sexual orientation is absolutely analogous to race. neither can be changed, and neither can be a basis for denial of basic civil rights.

You can say that until you turn blue in the face, but so far, even today, the SCOTUS still has not used anything more than a rational basis test which means so far, gays are not treated as a class the way blacks are. They almost tripped over using another test in striking down a Colorado Constitutional Amendment awhile back, but they still are not treating gays the same as women, let alone blacks, in terms of the equal protection clause. Sodomy laws were stricken down because there was no rational basis to say that gay sodomy is worse than straight sodomy, not because gays are defacto blacks .....
 
I must say that some things in SCOTUS have become very predictable. There are only 4 justices that you need to watch.

Breyer - almost always liberal EXCEPT for police powers
Kennedy - The only near centrist on te court, as O'Connor was before
Robertson - Conservative but he'll surprise you

I'm also curious how Alioto will end up over the long term. He's pretty sharp. For now though, like Robertson, an occasional surprise

Scalia, Thomas - 100% rightist
Sotomayer, Ginsburg - 100% leftist

Think anyone will quit while Obama is still in office?
 
Why am I made at the SCOTUS? Lets see..

1. Abuse of the commerce clause
2. Abuse of the welfare clause
3. Abuse of the taxing and spending clause
4. Abuse of the necessary and proper clause
5. Abuse of the supremacy clause
6. Abuse of the executive order
7. Abuse of the first amendment
8. Abuse of the second amendment
7. Abuse of the fourth amendment
8. Abuse of the fifth amendment
9. Abuse of the fourteenth amendment(since when does it say "private business")

and much more. This stuff in the OP is either minor like striking something down on the basis of it being outdated or striking something down that is right to strike down. Though I haven't actually read the later decision, so I can't pass judgment on the validity of their argument. The former however has nothing to do with their job. Who cares if a law is outdated and who exactly cares if the supreme court thinks it is? What they ruled on needed to be ruled unconstitutional on constitutional ground, period.
 
Last edited:
I must say that some things in SCOTUS have become very predictable. There are only 4 justices that you need to watch.

Breyer - almost always liberal EXCEPT for police powers
Kennedy - The only near centrist on te court, as O'Connor was before
Robertson - Conservative but he'll surprise you

I'm also curious how Alioto will end up over the long term. He's pretty sharp. For now though, like Robertson, an occasional surprise

Scalia, Thomas - 100% rightist
Sotomayer, Ginsburg - 100% leftist

Think anyone will quit while Obama is still in office?

Every once in awhile up becomes down in SCOTUS rulings.

Roberts, not Robertson BTW.
 
I don't recall many libertarians crying about Citizens United. Libertarians are selectively full of ****.

Because it falls under the first amendment. :shrug:
 
Where is this concept of only the things you can't change are given equal protection found in the constitution?

Have you even read it?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As long as the tiered rates are the same in every state, there is no equal protection issue. It's entirely different from granting one sexual orientation the basic civil right of marriage while allowing individual states to deny that right to the other.
 
Have you even read it?



As long as the tiered rates are the same in every state, there is no equal protection issue. It's entirely different from granting one sexual orientation the basic civil right of marriage while allowing individual states to deny that right to the other.
So is there a diffrent definition of person that is dependent on income level that I'm not aware of?
 
You can say that until you turn blue in the face, but so far, even today, the SCOTUS still has not used anything more than a rational basis test which means so far, gays are not treated as a class the way blacks are. They almost tripped over using another test in striking down a Colorado Constitutional Amendment awhile back, but they still are not treating gays the same as women, let alone blacks, in terms of the equal protection clause. Sodomy laws were stricken down because there was no rational basis to say that gay sodomy is worse than straight sodomy, not because gays are defacto blacks .....

And this is a temporary situation. It's my guess that we'll see sexual orientation as a legal equivalent to race or gender in the coming years. That doesn't change the fact that now homosexual couples enjoy federal legal rights in some states but may be denied these same rights in others.
 
So is there a diffrent definition of person that is dependent on income level that I'm not aware of?

I've explained this repeatedly. As long as the tiered rate is collected equally among all of the states, there is no equal equal protection issue. The civil right of marriage and legal benefits that go along with it is not equal among the states for homosexuals.

This is the last post I will write addressing your failed analogy.
 
congress is granted the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the rates are uniform among the states.

your analogy doesn't work because being born gay, black, white, short, tall, et cetera is something inherent that can't be changed. wealth isn't like that. if we charged different tax rates by race or sexual orientation, that would not be equal protection. levying a higher rate as one earns more income does not violate equal protection.

conversely, the essential civil right of marriage is not uniform among the states, and homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. therefore, they are denied an essential civil right depending on where they reside. that is not equal protection under the law.

What? States have many different laws from taxation to gun laws. Simply because something is not uniform among the states does not make it unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom