, 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.
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???
Is it equal protection when some classes have extra protection while other classes do not?
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 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;
Classes dont have protection; People do
: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.
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
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.
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."
Correct. Everyone --white, black, green and purple --is equally protected against racial discrimination. No one is protected from discrimination based on weight
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You should write accurately and refer to protections for people, not classes. Classes are not protected; People areI mean seriously, do I REALLY have to type out "classes of people" every single time I'm referring to just that? :roll:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?