• 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!

Marbury v Madison.

, the Court has no power to enforce its decisions, but must rely on the President and the states for that.

but as long as the states and president back up the court it in effect has all the power it needs which is too much for 9 not elected ninnys.
 
but as long as the states and president back up the court it in effect has all the power it needs which is too much for 9 not elected ninnys.

There are several ways in which Congress, particularly, and the President to a lesser degree, can trim the Supreme Court. I may go into them a little in another post, if anyone is interested.

By the bye, for anyone who doesn't know about Thomas Jefferson's campaign to have Congress impeach Samuel Chase, it's an interesting story. Not because he was drunk on the bench, not because he took bribes, or because of any other unseemly behavior--but just because Jefferson and his political allies were outraged by the way he voted. If there is some reason for any justice to be sure the same medicine could never be administered again, I don't know what it is.
 
Last edited:
There are several ways in which Congress, particularly, and the President to a lesser degree, can trim the Supreme Court. I may go into them a little in another post, if anyone is interested.

By the bye, for anyone who doesn't know about Thomas Jefferson's campaign to have Congress impeach Samuel Chase, it's an interesting story. Not because he was drunk on the bench, not because he took bribes, or because of any other unseemly behavior--but just because Jefferson and his political allies were outraged by the way he voted. If there is some reason for any justice to be sure the same medicine could never be administered again, I don't know what it is.

apparently you've given up defending the Court merely because it was ahead of the curve on Jim Crow???
 
Not judicial review of the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The Supreme Court asserted its power to conduct that kind of review for the first time in Marbury.

The constitution itself contradicts your legal wisdom
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

I may not be a lawyer, or pretend to be one on the internet, but even I know that the acts of Congress you speak of are laws of the United States which are covered under Art III Sec 2
 
Last edited:
:roll: Pretty sure that you know I mean.

Yes, I do and I know that your understanding is wrong.

Everyone is a member of a protected class (several classes actually) so everyone is equally protected by those laws. You are protected against discrimination based on membership in a protected class. So is everyone else. There is nothing there that is contrary to the principle of equal protection because those laws provide equal protection for everyone. If you believe otherwise, as you imply, then please identify who is not given equal protection.
 
Yes, I do and I know that your understanding is wrong.

Everyone is a member of a protected class (several classes actually) so everyone is equally protected by those laws. You are protected against discrimination based on membership in a protected class. So is everyone else. There is nothing there that is contrary to the principle of equal protection because those laws provide equal protection for everyone. If you believe otherwise, as you imply, then please identify who is not given equal protection.

Really? Then please do tell me how fat people are protected from being fired or not hired due to being fat.
 
Really? Then please do tell me how fat people are protected from being fired or not hired due to being fat.

No one is protected from discrimination based on weight. Fat people have the same rights as skinny people.

It is equal protection
 
No one is protected from discrimination based on weight. Fat people have the same rights as skinny people.

It is equal protection

So, you can discriminate against someone that is fat, but not black. You can discriminate against someone that is skinny, but not gay.

Your argument is one of Separate but Equal. It's about as valid as when religious folks tried to ban marriage for homosexuals. In fact, you used the same exact argument.

"No one is protected from discrimination based on marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals."
 
So, you can discriminate against someone that is fat, but not black. You can discriminate against someone that is skinny, but not gay.

Correct. Everyone --white, black, green and purple --is equally protected against racial discrimination. No one is protected from discrimination based on weight

Equal protection
Your argument is one of Separate but Equal. It's about as valid as when religious folks tried to ban marriage for homosexuals. In fact, you used the same exact argument.

"No one is protected from discrimination based on marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals."

I dont know why you put quotation marks around that because I have never said anything on DP about discrimination based on marriage. Not once. Not ever

SSM bans are NOT discrimination based on marriage or marital status. SSM bans are discrimination based on SEX, which is illegal. Bans on sex discrimination are consistent with equal protection because everyone is protected against being discriminated against on account of their sex.
 
So, you can discriminate against someone that is fat, but not black. You can discriminate against someone that is skinny, but not gay.

Your argument is one of Separate but Equal. It's about as valid as when religious folks tried to ban marriage for homosexuals. In fact, you used the same exact argument.

"No one is protected from discrimination based on marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals."


equal protection = equality by law, which is not part of American government
 
Correct. Everyone --white, black, green and purple --is equally protected against racial discrimination. No one is protected from discrimination based on weight

In other words there is discrimination happening with in anti-discrimination laws. It only protects some classes while ignoring others. Again, all that you're describing is Separate but Equal. Which is in violation of the equal protection clause. All classes must be equal in law. Which means that anti-discrimination laws must protect against ALL classes, not just some. Trying to limit it to race, religion, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation means that other classes will not have the same protections as race, religion, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation has. That is a simple fact no matter how its spun.

Equal protection


I dont know why you put quotation marks around that because I have never said anything on DP about discrimination based on marriage. Not once. Not ever

SSM bans are NOT discrimination based on marriage or marital status. SSM bans are discrimination based on SEX, which is illegal. Bans on sex discrimination are consistent with equal protection because everyone is protected against being discriminated against on account of their sex.

Think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that you said those words. I said that you used the same exact argument that those that were/are against SSM used.

And no, despite the rhetoric being used that is not why SCOTUS ruled SSM bans as unconstitutional. They ruled it that way because marriage is a fundamental Right held by the people and the 14th Amendments equal protection clause protected gays rights to marriage. Not to mention SSM is gender neutral. It includes both males and females. It's nothing more than a meme.
 
The thing about equal protection is that it was tied to the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and limited to judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court court should abide by the phrase from Caldwell v. Texas, "equal justice under the law," that sits above the entrance to the Supreme Court or have it removed.
 
In other words there is discrimination happening with in anti-discrimination laws. It only protects some classes while ignoring others. Again, all that you're describing is Separate but Equal

Wrong again. The law protects people, not classes and they protect ALL people equally which *IS* equal protection

Which is in violation of the equal protection clause. All classes must be equal in law. Which means that anti-discrimination laws must protect against ALL classes, not just some. Trying to limit it to race, religion, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation means that other classes will not have the same protections as race, religion, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation has. That is a simple fact no matter how its spun.

Please quote where the constitution or court decision or legal doctrine which says equal protection requires the infinite number of possible classifications (weight, eye color, ability to do the job, etc) be free from discrimination?

I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that you said those words. I said that you used the same exact argument that those that were/are against SSM used.

I dont know of anyone who has argued that SSM bans are discrimination based on marriage. The argument has been that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isnt true) and sex (which is true)

And no, despite the rhetoric being used that is not why SCOTUS ruled SSM bans as unconstitutional. They ruled it that way because marriage is a fundamental Right held by the people and the 14th Amendments equal protection clause protected gays rights to marriage. Not to mention SSM is gender neutral. It includes both males and females. It's nothing more than a meme.

Umm, wrong. SCOTUS ruled that SSM bans are unconstitutional precisely because they infringe on equal protection by denying the right to marry to one class of people while granting that right to another class of people.

And of course SSM bans are sex discrimination. The sexual orientation of the people getting married doesnt matter. SSM bans prevent heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex just as much as it prevents homosexuals from doing so
 
Wrong again. The law protects people, not classes and they protect ALL people equally which *IS* equal protection



Please quote where the constitution or court decision or legal doctrine which says equal protection requires the infinite number of possible classifications (weight, eye color, ability to do the job, etc) be free from discrimination?



I dont know of anyone who has argued that SSM bans are discrimination based on marriage. The argument has been that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isnt true) and sex (which is true)



Umm, wrong. SCOTUS ruled that SSM bans are unconstitutional precisely because they infringe on equal protection by denying the right to marry to one class of people while granting that right to another class of people.

And of course SSM bans are sex discrimination. The sexual orientation of the people getting married doesnt matter. SSM bans prevent heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex just as much as it prevents homosexuals from doing so

I don't have time to address all of this. For now I'm just going to point out that you are contradicting yourself in the parts that I bolded. Or are you willing to admit that you're attempting to take my statements out of context and/or ignoring what you know I actually mean. I mean seriously, do I REALLY have to type out "classes of people" every single time I'm referring to just that? :roll:
 
Wrong again. The law protects people, not classes and they protect ALL people equally which *IS* equal protection


Please quote where the constitution or court decision or legal doctrine which says equal protection requires the infinite number of possible classifications (weight, eye color, ability to do the job, etc) be free from discrimination?

I dont know of anyone who has argued that SSM bans are discrimination based on marriage. The argument has been that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isnt true) and sex (which is true)

Umm, wrong. SCOTUS ruled that SSM bans are unconstitutional precisely because they infringe on equal protection by denying the right to marry to one class of people while granting that right to another class of people.

And of course SSM bans are sex discrimination. The sexual orientation of the people getting married doesnt matter. SSM bans prevent heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex just as much as it prevents homosexuals from doing so


Wrong again. The law protects people, not classes and they protect ALL people equally which *IS* equal protection.

Are you relying on the meaning and intent of the equal protection clause or twentieth century Supreme Court’s determination of the meaning and intent of the equal protection clause?

Please quote where the constitution or court decision or legal doctrine which says equal protection requires the infinite number of possible classifications (weight, eye color, ability to do the job, etc) be free from discrimination?

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding the equal protection clause regarding class or race other than being written specifically for the freed slaves.

I dont know of anyone who has argued that SSM bans are discrimination based on marriage. The argument has been that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isnt true) and sex (which is true)

Are you referring to the type of scrutiny that a suspect class would need to use the equal protection clause, which is only a rational basis scrutiny vis-à-vis Kennedy’s suggestion of the need for animus towards gays to have a higher scrutiny?

Umm, wrong. SCOTUS ruled that SSM bans are unconstitutional precisely because they infringe on equal protection by denying the right to marry to one class of people while granting that right to another class of people.

I think the basis of Kennedy’s opinion was based on substantive due process and the fundamental right doctrine, which is problematic because substantive due process did not arise until Lochner v New York in 1905 and was used as an economic doctrine until the late 1930s, and Kennedy had to redefine the fundamental right doctrine.
 
I don't have time to address all of this. For now I'm just going to point out that you are contradicting yourself in the parts that I bolded.

Nothing contradictory there. In both cases, I refer to protections for the rights of PEOPLE, not classes. Classes have no rights; Only people do


Or are you willing to admit that you're attempting to take my statements out of context and/or ignoring what you know I actually mean.

I havent taken anything out of context and I know exactly what you mean. You are arguing that equal protection requires anti-discrimination laws for any and every class. Fortunately, it does not.

There is nothing in our legal system that makes that a requirement for equal protection. No court case, no legal decision, no constitutional clause, no legislation, or anything that makes protection for all classes a requirement for equal protection. You made it up out of thin air.

If you think I am wrong about this, then please document the existence of this requirement

I mean seriously, do I REALLY have to type out "classes of people" every single time I'm referring to just that? :roll:
You should write accurately and refer to protections for people, not classes. Classes are not protected; People are
 
Yes, I do and I know that your understanding is wrong.

Everyone is a member of a protected class (several classes actually) so everyone is equally protected by those laws. You are protected against discrimination based on membership in a protected class. So is everyone else. There is nothing there that is contrary to the principle of equal protection because those laws provide equal protection for everyone. If you believe otherwise, as you imply, then please identify who is not given equal protection.

That is not accurate. In equal protection challenges, the Supreme Court applies its "strict scrutiny" standard only when evaluating government action which involves either a fundamental right or a suspect classification of persons. The Court has recognized only three such classifications: race, national origin, and possibly alienage. When the classification would burden a person because on his status as a member of a racial or national origin minority--and possibly as an alien, although the Court has not made clear that strict scrutiny applies in that case--the government action is almost certain to be invalid.

The Court also recognizes a couple "quasi-suspect" classifications: gender and birth legitimacy. When reviewing government action based on either of these classifications, it applies an intermediate standard of review and will invalidate the action unless is is substantially related to an important government interest.

If any other classification is involved, though, the government action will be upheld unless the challenger proves it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. So, for example, in Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992), the Court upheld a California law under which the petitioner had had to pay several times as much property tax as her neighbor, even though their houses and properties were very similar. The law's basis for this unequal treatment was simply that the neighbor had been there for some years and the petitioner was a relative newcomer.

Throughout the U.S., many tens of thousands of laws discriminate against this or that class of persons in various ways, and yet are completely constitutional. The notion that the Supreme Court interprets the guarantee of equal protection of the laws literally is just plain false, however much that fact may peeve social justice warriors.
 
That is not accurate.

It is entirely accurate

In equal protection challenges, the Supreme Court applies its "strict scrutiny" standard only when evaluating government action which involves either a fundamental right or a suspect classification of persons. The Court has recognized only three such classifications: race, national origin, and possibly alienage. When the classification would burden a person because on his status as a member of a racial or national origin minority--and possibly as an alien, although the Court has not made clear that strict scrutiny applies in that case--the government action is almost certain to be invalid.

The Court also recognizes a couple "quasi-suspect" classifications: gender and birth legitimacy. When reviewing government action based on either of these classifications, it applies an intermediate standard of review and will invalidate the action unless is is substantially related to an important government interest.

If any other classification is involved, though, the government action will be upheld unless the challenger proves it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. So, for example, in Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992), the Court upheld a California law under which the petitioner had had to pay several times as much property tax as her neighbor, even though their houses and properties were very similar. The law's basis for this unequal treatment was simply that the neighbor had been there for some years and the petitioner was a relative newcomer.

Throughout the U.S., many tens of thousands of laws discriminate against this or that class of persons in various ways, and yet are completely constitutional.

Nothing you said here is relevant to the point I made.

The notion that the Supreme Court interprets the guarantee of equal protection of the laws literally is just plain false, however much that fact may peeve social justice warriors.

The poster getting peeved about is not a SJW and leans to the right. Your understanding about posters beliefs (both mine and Kal) is as flawed as your understanding of the law
 
Are you relying on the meaning and intent of the equal protection clause or twentieth century Supreme Court’s determination of the meaning and intent of the equal protection clause?



There is nothing in the Constitution regarding the equal protection clause regarding class or race other than being written specifically for the freed slaves.



Are you referring to the type of scrutiny that a suspect class would need to use the equal protection clause, which is only a rational basis scrutiny vis-à-vis Kennedy’s suggestion of the need for animus towards gays to have a higher scrutiny?



I think the basis of Kennedy’s opinion was based on substantive due process and the fundamental right doctrine, which is problematic because substantive due process did not arise until Lochner v New York in 1905 and was used as an economic doctrine until the late 1930s, and Kennedy had to redefine the fundamental right doctrine.

I agree with most of what you said. But just as a point of fact, I think you'll find that substantive due process can be clearly traced at least to the Slaughter-House Cases, 30-plus years before Lochner and the start of the "substantive due process era." That 1873 decision was followed by Allgeyer and several other cases from the late 1800's in which the Court laid the foundation for that era. Some legal scholars trace SDP doctrine back further yet, finding its roots in one part of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
 
Nothing contradictory there. In both cases, I refer to protections for the rights of PEOPLE, not classes. Classes have no rights; Only people do




I havent taken anything out of context and I know exactly what you mean. You are arguing that equal protection requires anti-discrimination laws for any and every class. Fortunately, it does not.

There is nothing in our legal system that makes that a requirement for equal protection. No court case, no legal decision, no constitutional clause, no legislation, or anything that makes protection for all classes a requirement for equal protection. You made it up out of thin air.

If you think I am wrong about this, then please document the existence of this requirement


You should write accurately and refer to protections for people, not classes. Classes are not protected; People are

If you are referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, it regarding only class, and more specifically, the freed slaves as a class. There were four major pieces of legislation and one amendment, and the debates revolved around the freed black slaves as a class: The Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the debates in the 39th Congress regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Enforcement Act of 1870, and 42 USC 1981(a) May 31, 1870.
 
If you are referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, it regarding only class, and more specifically, the freed slaves as a class. There were four major pieces of legislation and one amendment, and the debates revolved around the freed black slaves as a class: The Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the debates in the 39th Congress regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Enforcement Act of 1870, and 42 USC 1981(a) May 31, 1870.

Kal and I are discussing anti-discrrimination laws and whether or not they violate the Equal Protection clause
 
I agree with most of what you said. But just as a point of fact, I think you'll find that substantive due process can be clearly traced at least to the Slaughter-House Cases, 30-plus years before Lochner and the start of the "substantive due process era." That 1873 decision was followed by Allgeyer and several other cases from the late 1800's in which the Court laid the foundation for that era. Some legal scholars trace SDP doctrine back further yet, finding its roots in one part of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

I have read law reviews referencing Scott and the Slaughter House cases. They are outliers and have no compelling evidence to support their conclusions. Lochner is the first time the doctrine was used. It was limited to economic rulings and was used the Supreme Court to strike down various programs of FDR's New Deal.

The interesting thing about the Slaughter House cases is Bingham and Howard and a couple of other nincompoops were under the impression that the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, which is laughable by itself. They thought that section five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government enforcement power to apply this. They were in the minority and no one else fell for that. In a short explanation, the ruling in the Slaughter House cases slapped that premise down by using the actual meaning and intent of the comity clause. The Congress started trying to incorporate the First Amendment in 1870 and tried throughout that decade with no success, which framed Bingham et al's extreme minority position nicely.
 
Back
Top Bottom