HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
in the post you quoted
you and a handful of other people who are also incorrect, doesn't change constitutional law.
then check your eyes. Neither SS or medicare are unconstitutional.I don't see the constitution or SCOTUS referenced at all in the post.
again, you and a handful of other constitutional illiterates are statistically zero. More people believe in bigfoot.Whether or not we are correct isn't the point. My claim was that he wasn't alone. Please focus on that. I could just as easily say you are alone, but I have no data to back it up.
And yet, that's exactly what this court is doing. You're not paying attention, or too bound up with ideological purity to care. The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk (NYT, Opinion, Subscription). "In two disturbing rulings closing out the Supreme Court’s term, the court’s six-justice conservative majority, over the loud protests of its three-liberal minority, has shown itself hostile to American democracy." That's not hyperbole.
In numerous recent decisions, most specifically Shelby County, and yesterday's Brnovich, they gutted the voting rights act. Neither of those decisions are dictated by, or frankly consistent with, the Constitution, and represent unprecedented judicial activism, comparable to the infamous Dred Scott decision. Again, not hyperbole. They are creating judicial law out of whole cloth.
........................................................
Oh, yes, the Constitution is strong enough to "survive" this Supreme Court.
But, sadly, it will NOT survive the next Supreme Court that is packed with Obama and Clinton supporters.
Moreso than it would be with more Democrat appointees, who actually don't see it as their job to maintain and support the Constitution. Leftist judges think it's their job to change with the times, which is specifically not their job.
Take a refresher course in American government, pay attention especially to Separation of Powers and get back to us when you can discuss the constitution rationally.
Perhaps you should provide "background" to give some backbone to your bullshit accusation.
And how are textualists "actively hostile" to the Constitution which they regard as sacrosanct, as opposed to the usual lefties who impose their woke agendas on our founding document?
then check your eyes. Neither SS or medicare are unconstitutional.
again, you and a handful of other constitutional illiterates are statistically zero. More people believe in bigfoot.
Just to pinpoint how sad right wingers posts are. Here is stating a position, and backing it up with facts and an argument. Below is what you get from the right. And people say "both sides". ONe side has actual facts, the other side just bullshit projections. If they had any shame they would be embarrassed
it isn't my word. it's the supreme courts.Just taking you at your word.
of course I didYou certainly didn't accomplish what you said you did.
I haven't provided a point of view, unless you consider constitutional law a point of view? which would be strange.As to the second point, you are entitled to your POV.
presented it already. US constitution and the US supreme court.You have no data to back it up (because if you did, you would present it).
it isn't my word. it's the supreme courts.
of course I did
I haven't provided a point of view, unless you consider constitutional law a point of view? which would be strange.
presented it already. US constitution and the US supreme court.
The Supreme Court ruling validated AZ's election law, and reversed a lower court's decision claiming these AZ provisions were "racially discriminatory."I am a conservative.
And I can't argue against your claim.
I also can't support it either.
It would be good to have a pro-active article(s) on why the Az case isn't what the OP claims.
This in reasoned terms.
General welfare has nothing to do with it, the Necessary and Proper Clause does. The founders wrote the Necessary and Proper Clause into the Constitution. So you're on your own.Of course it does... you're saying the government can do pretty much anything they want under general welfare, whereas I and our Founding Fathers say they can't.
I'm sorry, did you just post a NYT opinion piece of hyperbolic whining as some kind of real thing?Just to pinpoint how sad right wingers posts are. Here is stating a position, and backing it up with facts and an argument. Below is what you get from the right. And people say "both sides". ONe side has actual facts, the other side just bullshit projections. If they had any shame they would be embarrassed
So that to you is a good excuse to continue?That process didn't just show up.
Unfortunately, that game started a long time ago.
It has only gotten worse.
Which minority?And some groups count on the activism of the court to get a "minority" agenda into the general governmental process.
Your point then?But, the constitution could not anticipate the world as it is today vs. what it was back in 1788.
The Supreme Court ruling validated AZ's election law, and reversed a lower court's decision claiming these AZ provisions were "racially discriminatory."
One was a provision that restricted early ballot collection by third parties, a.k.a. "ballot harvesting," and another that discards ballots cast in-person at the wrong precinct. Since neither of these provisions involved race, it cannot be construed as "racially discriminatory." Both dealt specifically with the integrity of AZ's elections, which is something Democrats cannot tolerate.
Everyone who is not intent on committing election fraud supports the Supreme Court decision. What is especially telling are those who do not agree with the decision.
Supreme Court Got It Right in Arizona Voting Law Decision
In rejecting challenges to two Arizona laws on voting procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court produced a clear opinion faithful to the statutory text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, says Pacific Legal Foundation staff attorney Chris Kieser, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioners in the...news.bloomberglaw.com Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Election Rules
The court, in a 6-3 vote, overturned an appeals-court decision that the Arizona regulations discriminated against minority voters, giving states more room to tighten voting laws.www.wsj.com SCOTUS Deals Blow to Dems, Upholds Arizona Election Integrity Laws
The US Supreme Court upheld Arizona's two controversial voting rules in a 6-3 decision on Thursday, dealing a major blow to Democrats.www.westernjournal.com Supreme Court Rules for Election Integrity, Arizona Attorney General Says
A Supreme Court decision upholding two election laws is a win for the “integrity of elections,” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich says.www.dailysignal.com
So that to you is a good excuse to continue?
Which minority?
I'm not going to provide a lot of background on this one, to keep the discussion as open as possible, but my premise, essentially, is this: the current SC majority is actively hostile to basic tenets of the Constitution, from separation of powers to separation of church and state, including basic civil rights, democratic voting, equality under the law, and so many others. The floor is open.
And yet, that's exactly what this court is doing. You're not paying attention, or too bound up with ideological purity to care. The Supreme Court Is Putting Democracy at Risk (NYT, Opinion, Subscription). "In two disturbing rulings closing out the Supreme Court’s term, the court’s six-justice conservative majority, over the loud protests of its three-liberal minority, has shown itself hostile to American democracy." That's not hyperbole.
In numerous recent decisions, most specifically Shelby County, and yesterday's Brnovich, they gutted the voting rights act. Neither of those decisions are dictated by, or frankly consistent with, the Constitution, and represent unprecedented judicial activism, comparable to the infamous Dred Scott decision. Again, not hyperbole. They are creating judicial law out of whole cloth.
Similarly, in Citizens United .......at odds with 250 years of precedent. That is per se judicial activism,
Hmmm... what a substantive argument. Is so.Claiming it isn't hyperbole does not make it so.
Understanding requires reading the sources and contemplating the content. The information is provided.Not saying what it is in terms of hyperbole....without more information.
You are wrong. See above. Discussion does require actually thinking about the subject, not merely "reacting". Again, "nu-uhn" is not a response.However, we can say (let me know if I am wrong):
What the voting rights act was intended to do was to protect the franchise of disenfranchised voters. It still serves that purpose, and the threat it was intended to protect from still exists (as has been demonstrated in spades by current Republican disenfranchisement efforts). The Supreme Court ignored this and simply pretended that, because it is old, it is no longer applicable. It was, and is, and odd position for the Court to take, given that the precedents of the Court are, in some cases, centuries old and still valid. The same is true of the Voting Rights Act.To demonstrate this, you need to first describe what the voting rights act was intended to address, protect, or create.
Not being alone in error is not an argument, as your mother probably pointed out to you as a child. "If everyone else is jumping off a cliff, does that mean you should too?" Most of your posts so far have consisted of "I disagree" and "I don't understand, I'm not going to do my own thinking." That's not exactly a basis for discussion of any depth.Saying Un-uh isn't really a great argument.
And he is NOT alone in his point of view.
In citing to numerous opinion pieces - some of which I have excerpted or summarized because of inaccessibility - numerous examples of the hypothesis have been demonstrated. I recognize that viewpoints can become myopic when based upon ideology, but the substance is, in fact, there.So back to the assertions of the OP.
The hostility has been claimed, but in reading through I don't see it has been proved.
Looking through the thread, I see opinion pieces and some argument in articles. (some articles can't be accessed).
I am trying to piece together the point/counter-point through the other comments.
I'd like to summarize going forward.
There is a fundamental difference, though, in protecting the rights of the minority against the incursion of a majority (something embedded in the structure of the Constitution) and pushing the interests of the minority onto the majority, as this Court is doing. I can see a counter-argument, but it is a weak one. Let's take as a for-instance: same-sex marriage.And some groups count on the activism of the court to get a "minority" agenda into the general governmental process.
Right, because corporations are people too....You're making shit up.
No it's not. PTHTHTHPPPT! (Great argument, that.)Of course it is.
I genuinely have a hard time taking this argument seriously. The whole point of the structure of the Voting Rights Act is to prevent disenfranchisement of minorities. I think we can agree on that. Shelby was a precursor to Brnovich. I think we can also agree on that. The premise of both decisions are fundamentally bankrupt: that discrimination no longer exists. That is most obviously not true, and the Court was well aware of this reality when they made the decisions. Your highlighted sentence is obviated by Brnovich, the whole point of which is to pretend that the realities of disenfranchisement don't exist and any excuse to so pretend is acceptable.I'll just focus on Shelby and Citizens here.
...
Shelby deals with a very specific issue, preclearance. All Congress has to do is to pass a law requiring ALL states' laws to be subject to preclearance. This would clearly be constitutional. Even without preclearance, all laws passed by states remain subject to challenge in federal courts should they violate they violate the US Constitution, via XIV or XV Amendment.
Right, because corporations are people too....
I genuinely have a hard time taking this argument seriously.
Hmmm... what a substantive argument. Is so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?