This week SCOTUS will make rulings on 4 cases that could be historic.

Fisher v. University of Texas
The petitioners argued that racial preferences in admissions to the University of Texas violate the 14 Amendment of the Constitution .The court could make a narrow ruling ,or it could overturn all similar cases in favor of racial preferences.

Shelby County v. Holder
Deals with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). We have discussed this one at length . Does Section 5 violate the 15th Amendement ? The court will decide.

Then there are the 2 cases about homosexual "marriage" .

U.S. v. Windsor
Challenges the legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .Specifically ;does Sec 3 of DOMA violate the 5th amendment ?

Hollingsworth v. Perry
Will ask if restrictions on homosexual marriages in the states violates the 14th amendment .

Looks like they just ruled against racial preference. Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

Looks like they just ruled against racial preference. Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

Looks like SCOTUS punted on this one.. Next term they will consider 'Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action'. Perhaps then they will make a major ruling .
They sent the Fisher case back to the Fifth Circuit Court with instructions that the appeals court ruled in error .That court ruled that UT Austin had wide latitude in intepreting the decision of SCOTUS in the 'Grutter v. Bollinger' case ,where the court rejected the use of racial quotas; but said that schools could consider race as part of a "holistic" review of a student's application.

Thanks, I missed all that with just one ear tuned to the TV blurb news.

Here's hoping that colleges really have stopped discrimination against non-whites. I think it was a good decision, even though I always have felt that 'affirmative action' was necessary for a time.

The 14th amendment Sec 1 was intended to end racial preferences . Whether affirmative action was 'necessary' or not does not change the reality that it violates the very principle of the 14th .

I always felt uneasy about affirmative action.
I liked it better than handing out reparations. SOMETHING was due.
The Constitution and the Amendments were written sparsely so that they could and would be constantly open to interpretation, as they always have been.
More fundamental rights had been violated for 100 years before the 14th. Some give and take was needed. You can stand by the Constitution without bowing before it.

There is a mechanism for changing the constitution and it isn't via a reinterpretation of the same words. "Equal protection of the laws" is pretty clear.

I liked it better than handing out reparations. SOMETHING was due.General Sherman had the right idea 'special field orders #15' aka '40 acres and a mule '.
He had settled 10,000 former slaves on productive lands that they would own ;but Andrew Johnson reversed the order ,and returned the land to the plantation owners.

General Sherman had the right idea 'special field orders #15' aka '40 acres and a mule '.
He had settled 10,000 former slaves on productive lands that they would own ;but Andrew Johnson reversed the order ,and returned the land to the plantation owners.

There you have it. Sometimes we do have to make up for lost time.

My first ancestor here was a German in 1709, who harvested pitch for Queen Anne's Navy, in exchange for land below Albany that he never got. It was to come out of hundreds of square miles given earlier to a man named Livingston, but Livingston wasn't having any of it, and even tried to get the natives to help, but they helped the starving settlers instead. His descendants are James and Livingston Taylor. I suppose I could claim reparations and then give them to the tribes who helped.

There you have it. Sometimes we do have to make up for lost time.

My first ancestor here was a German in 1709, who harvested pitch for Queen Anne's Navy, in exchange for land below Albany that he never got. It was to come out of hundreds of square miles given earlier to a man named Livingston, but Livingston wasn't having any of it, and even tried to get the natives to help, but they helped the starving settlers instead. His descendants are James and Livingston Taylor. I suppose I could claim reparations and then give them to the tribes who helped.

And meanwhile, my dad who served in the navy faces losing everything - including the farm that's been in the family for decades - to pay for VA nursing home care.

And meanwhile, my dad who served in the navy faces losing everything - including the farm that's been in the family for decades - to pay for VA nursing home care.

Are VA benefits like Medicare?
I'm sorry he didn't sell/give it to his children 5+ years before.

Reparations may very well have had their place in 1865 . Special order 15 attempted to penalize the southern landowners who were largely responsible for both the slave trade ,and the rebellion .Sherman wasn't suggesting that Northern farmers surrender any land . Attempts at reparations usually lead to the corruption that was the 'Pigford v. Glickman' settlement .
What would've helped blacks post-Civil War was the so called 'radical reconstruction ' if only it could've lasted . What would've helped blacks would've been SCOTUS not blowing the Plessy v Ferguson decision ,which codified segregation in opposition to the 14th amendment . For that matter , SCOTUS blew the Dred Scott decision too.

Are VA benefits like Medicare?
I'm sorry he didn't sell/give it to his children 5+ years before.

He did what he could, and if anyone deserves the government taking care of them in their time of need it is our vets. But I digress from the subject.

The 14th amendment Sec 1 was intended to end racial preferences . Whether affirmative action was 'necessary' or not does not change the reality that it violates the very principle of the 14th .

Tom, in your haste you forgot to include in you assessment of Section 1 the last bit

";nor deny and persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

From the examples you have given, the interpretation seems to be that people who are situated equally should be treated equally. However, " equal protection of the laws" means that if you decide to treat people differently then you need to provide a justification for doing so.

Tom, in your haste you forgot to include in you assessment of Section 1 the last bit

";nor deny and persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

From the examples you have given, the interpretation seems to be that people who are situated equally should be treated equally. However, " equal protection of the laws" means that if you decide to treat people differently then you need to provide a justification for doing so.

Not quite sure what you mean." Equal protection under the law "means what it means . It doesn't mean "except when you decide not to " . Segregation laws were violations of the 14th ;and racial preferences are also ,despite the good intent. Governments do a lot of harm with good intentions .

Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion on this case . Here are the highlights :

I write separately to explain that I would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), and hold that a State's use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.

Attaining diversity for its own sake is a nonstarter. As even Grutter recognized, the pursuit of diversity as an end is nothing more than impermissible "racial balancing."... Rather, diversity can only be the means by which the University obtains educational benefits; it cannot be an end pursued for its own sake. Therefore, the educational benefits allegedly produced by diversity must rise to the level of a compelling state interest in order for the program to survive strict scrutiny.

It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society... The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf

Expect at least another decision today. The court has 6 more cases to complete before the term is up.

not quite sure what you mean." Equal protection under the law "means what it means . It doesn't mean "except when you decide not to " . Segregation laws were violations of the 14th ;and racial preferences are also ,despite the good intent. Governments do alot of harm with good intentions .

"Means what it means" is a tautology. This seems to be something like the line Thomas is pushing when he talks about ends being pursued for their own sake. However, I would like to address Thomas' quotes in detail a bit later.

Equal protection "under the law" must be different to equal protection "of the laws". If it were the same thing then there would be no need to add. "nor deny any persons....equal protection of the laws".

If you make a law that everyone will be treated equally it will always be the case that some will be treated more equally than others. This situation usually comes about by circumstances.

Protection of the laws means that there exists a provision for protecting people from inequalities that come about when you try enforce equality. Another way of saying this could be that processes of law protect people from the unfairness of government legislation. This working in two ways is one point that Thomas seems to miss.

Well then what you are saying is that there was no constitutional basis for the reversal of Plessy in 'Brown v Board of Education '. However ,there is case load going back to the 1891Caldwell v. Texas case where equal protection ,or equal justice have been used in the decision interpreting what is now commonly called the 'Equal Protection Clause ' of the 14th .

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote in the Caldwell v Texas case the following, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."

well then what you are saying is that there was no constitutional basis for the reversal of Plessy in 'Brown v Board of Education '. However ,there is case load going back to the 1891Caldwell v. Texas case where equal protection ,or equal justice have been used in the decision interpreting what is now commonly called the 'Equal Protection Clause ' of the 14th .

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote in the Caldwell v Texas case the following, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."



I am not saying that at all.

Where am I arguing for separate educational institutions?

Where am I arguing against equal justice under the law?

Then what exactly are you saying ? Frankly it sounds like an academic debating exercise .
Seems like we are counting the angels on a pin trying to determine the nuiances between equal protection of the law and equal protection under the law. The phrases have been interchangeable since John Bingham drafted the Equal Protection Clause and mean the same thing.

SCOTUS has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/index.html), namely Sec. 4 - the preclearance section.


Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating the key enforcement provision that applies to all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.
Voices from the voting war

Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool in protecting minority voters from local governments that would set unfair, shifting barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warn, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.

But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations instead of perpetuating the problem. Go ahead lefties, whine away.

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations. Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

I'll give you their reasoning, but for me it takes away a tool your side uses to perpetuate the problem.


(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4's coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.

What, you want to keep us in the stone(d) age?

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

You say that as if Dems don't gerrymander and discriminate.

Then we both have to stop the practice.

Then we both have to stop the practice.

At least you acknowledge it isn't just us.

The left isn't taking this well (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/left-fumes-over-scotus-ruling-93332.html?hp=l8) as expected. I thought they loved progress.

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

I support the decision . I'll comment in more detail when I read the opinion.

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

I believe that works both ways as well. And the thing is, blacks have more to fear from your side than ours... unless they just like being used as tools and selling their souls to the devil.

Initial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for Congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with Sec 5 . Of the Voting Rights Act. However ,the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way I read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the Voting Rights Act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the Roberts decision is this :

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest andmost delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J. concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
As I recall ;2009 both houses of Congress was majority Dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of SCOTUS about Sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving Obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if Congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the Voting Rights Act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

LOL, and you really think blacks are not smart enough to see where their own interest lies? Or any other minority group for that matter?

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

intial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with sec 5 . Of the voting rights act. However ,the court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way i read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the voting rights act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the roberts decision is this :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
as i recall ;2009 both houses of congress was majority dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of scotus about sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the voting rights act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

Exactly!! Personally the law could be expanded as well as updated.

You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them.
Funny ;that is exactly the problem our nanny state has .it presumes to know what's best for us.

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on...

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on... What's the right doing?

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, there are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.
you must be speaking to someone else. You know my view of how the markets should work has nothing to do with the corporations that have grown in size and scope specifically because they are the cronies of the "ruling class" . What you fail to realize is that is the inevidible outcome of policies you support.

As for the rest ;can you tell me when there is sufficient "safety net " ? Or will the need continue to grow until everyone's pocket is picked empty . One in Seven Americans are on that food stamp program you want to expand. When is enough enough ? Rome did not survive 'bread and circuses '.Why do you think we will ?

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, their are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

Here's the thing Tal, I don't ignore your corporate complaints - I'm just not obsessed by them and know your side is just as deep in the corporate muck as anyone.

As for the kids, you guys will either kill 'em or if they survive the womb, take control from their parents anyway because they don't belong to them so good luck with that, the government is so adept at running things. (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/yeesh-national-zoo-misplaces-red-panda-for-a-day-latest-in-a-series-of-sometimes-tragic-animal-mishaps/)

Anyway, as tom said SCOTUS left the door open for changes, but it is time to stop living in the past on race relations... something a good liberal SHOULD say.

you must be speaking to someone else. You know my view of how the markets should work has nothing to do with the corporations that have grown in size and scope specifically because they are the cronies of the "ruling class" . What you fail to realize is that is the inevidible outcome of policies you support.

As for the rest ;can you tell me when there is sufficient "safety net " ? Or will the need continue to grow until everyone's pocket is picked empty . One in Seven Americans are on that food stamp program you want to expand. When is enough enough ? Rome did not survive 'bread and circuses '.Why do you think we will ?

We both agree the capitalist business model is broken, or corrupted, and seen its effects but I am unclear of what you mean by policies I support is the cause, so clarification may help me understand.

As for a sufficient safety net, I do mean big enough to insulate us from the actions by the ruling elites which could be shortened by more jobs and the security a job brings families, without which, there is no opportunity to recover from those decisions.

The difference between falling out of the middle class, and being trapped in poverty, or the working poor.


Here's the thing Tal, I don't ignore your corporate complaints - I'm just not obsessed by them and know your side is just as deep in the corporate muck as anyone.

As for the kids, you guys will either kill 'em or if they survive the womb, take control from their parents anyway because they don't belong to them so good luck with that, the government is so adept at running things. (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/yeesh-national-zoo-misplaces-red-panda-for-a-day-latest-in-a-series-of-sometimes-tragic-animal-mishaps/)

Anyway, as tom said SCOTUS left the door open for changes, but it is time to stop living in the past on race relations...something a good liberal SHOULD say.

I don't obsess just make adjustments but as far as race relation go things may be better, but still a long way to go. We will see what the right does with its new power, and if indeed they have stopped living in the past on race relations.

I don't obsess just make adjustments but as far as race relation go things may be better, but still a long way to go. We will see what the right does with its new power, and if indeed they have stopped living in the past on race relations.

Dude, we moved on long ago, but then I've said that only a hundred times or so. I'm certain that once the next election ramps up here in a week or two you guys will once again claim we're racists, hear all manner of dog whistles and such just like always.

We both agree the capitalist business model is broken, or corrupted, Corrupted by government interference ;absolutely . Broken ;no .


but I am unclear of what you mean by policies I support is the cause,

"Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince "James Madison

The nanny state allows and needs large powerful corporate interests.Their policies ;especially progressive taxation with thousands of cut outs is but one of the polices supported that maintain the status quo. But taxation is just one of the means. Bailouts, stimulus, special loans, too big to fail policies, mandates, barriers to entry ,exemptions, government sponsored enterprises (GSE) are just some of the other polices that create and encourage the market as it exists today. It is a LONG stretch to call it capitalism . It is crony socialism .

Now we disagree as its corporations that have corrupted business and government, and we all suffer from its corruption. They write their own rules and control the economy rather than be a part of it.

Legalized robbery, and greed aided and abetted by congress.

then what exactly are you saying ? Frankly it sounds like an academic debating exercise .
Seems like we are counting the angels on a pin trying to determine the nuiances between equal protection of the law and equal protection under the law. The phrases have been interchangable since John Bingham drafted the Equal Protection Clause and mean the same thing.


That's probably because it is an academic debate that is taking place inside SCOTUS.

What I am saying is that the Founders in their wisdom were aware there would be people who want to say that everyone should be equal whether they like it or not. This is why you have a Bill of Rights that expresses equality before the law and PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

In my understanding equality before the law is not the same as protection of the law. Equity before the law means treating everyone equally. Equal protection of the law acknowledges that when the law is applied equally it can sometimes result in a situation where the opposite occurs. If such a situation is identified then it is possible to make a legal argument to justify why some people should be treated differently.

Now we disagree as its corporations that have corrupted business and government, and we all suffer from its corruption. They write their own rules and control the economy rather than be a part of it.

Legalized robbery, and greed aided and abetted by congress.

Did someone force you to buy their stuff?

Did someone force you to buy their stuff?Is that what you think the issue is? People buying stuff from corporations?

Oh boy, your small town is showing. You could be running from one company, and going to the competition and still be buying from that same company with a different name. Insurance companies and energy companies have been doing it for decades.

Grocery stores are greatly successful by changing the names and packaging of their products. Don't believe the commercials and marketing strategy. Dig deeper, Google it.

That's probably because it is an academic debate that is taking place inside SCOTUS.

What I am saying is that the Founders in their wisdom were aware there would be people who want to say that everyone should be equal whether they like it or not. This is why you have a Bill of Rights that expresses equality before the law and PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

In my understanding equality before the law is not the same as protection of the law. Equity before the law means treating everyone equally. Equal protection of the law acknowledges that when the law is applied equally it can sometimes result in a situation where the opposite occurs. If such a situation is identified then it is possible to make a legal argument to justify why some people should be treated differently.

Just for a point of correction... there was not a founder alive when the 14th was drafted .

I'll again stand by my point that the 14th Equal Protection clause was intended to END racial preferences... not to create more racial preferences . And I made that comment in response to Joy's defense of 'affirmative action'.
Would affirmative action be one of your examples where the law was being applied equally ?Does equal protection of the law means some people are more protected than others based on some government formula of "need " ? No ,you are wrong about the Bill of Rights . They are designed to protect individuals from their government ,not to promote equality . They talk about what the government cannot do to you ,not what the government can do to promote equality by creating preferences .

The founders had no problem with writing all men are created equal, but they left a whole lot of people out of who and how it was applied. It sure didn't apply to black people who were defined as less than white people by law, or most women.

Even later, new laws were needed to protect the rights of people who were still being denied their rights. I see this being no different because we have been down this path before.

just for a point of correction... there was not a founder alive when the 14th was drafted .

I was talking about the Bill of Rights in general. Nonetheless, I did overlook the time span involved. Thanks for the correction.




I'll again stand by my point that the 14th Equal Protection clause was intended to END racial preferences ...not to create more racial preferences .



I'm not saying it wasn't intended to end racial preferences. I am not saying that it hasn't created racial preferences. At the moment this is irrelevant to the point I am making. This is why I made reference to equal protection of the law having validity when it comes to creating a situation where racial preferences becomes a problem of equity of the law.

If you want to talk about how the law is actually working at the moment then we can do that later on.



And I made that comment in response to Joy's defense of 'affirmative action'.
Would affirmative action be one of your examples where the law was being applied equally ?


No, it would be an example of, "protection of the laws" It would be an example of showing that SCOTUS has recognized an interpretation that there is protection of the law. Isn't this the reason we have the problems at the moment? It is because they actually do acknowledge this aspect of the 14th?



Does equal protection of the law means some people are more protected than others based on some government formula of "need "


No, I would say that in the main it would be based on circumstances rather than need.



No ,you are wrong about the Bill of Rights . They are designed to protect individuals from their government ,not to promote equality . They talk about what the government cannot do to you ,not what the government can do to promote equality by creating preferences .

Specifically in relation to the 14 Amendment Section 1.Equity under the law and equity of the law is no good in your book when it comes to promoting equity?

Equity as in freedom from bias or favoritism ? The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. SCOTUS has read into it remedies they support but are not actually implied . They ran into the same problem in their reading of the 15th amendment in the Voting Rights Act . But that is another discussion .Because if you get me started on that then I'll have to rant about their seizing unconstitutional power in the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.

Edit.. Thomas Jefferson's reaction to Marbury...

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis,
Now you know where my description of SCOTUS as black robed unelected oligarchs comes from.

equity as in freedom from bias or favoritism ? The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. SCOTUS has read into it remedies they support but are not actually implied . They ran into the same problem in their reading of the 15th amendment in the Voting Rights Act . But that is another discussion .Because if you get me started on that then I'll have to rant about their seizing unconstitutional power in the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.

edit .. Thomas Jefferson's reaction to Marbury...

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis,
now you know where my description of SCOTUS as black robed unelected oligarchs comes from.

Now I think we are getting somewhere with this.

Yes, I know all about this and your position. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here. From my point of view you hit the nail on the head when you said." SCOTUS has read into it remedies they support, but are not actually implied".

Yes, they do read remedies into their decisions because they, like everyone else, are a persons of their time.

Tom, there is no ideal interpretation of any constitution. We cannot extract ourselves from any historical situation. Today SCOTUS is a body that exists for its time. In future historical periods constitutions will be interpreted for that time. It has always been the case and probably continue to be the case.

This has always been the problem with language. There is bit more I would like to add but I will stop for the moment.

Now I think we are getting somewhere with this.

Yes, I know all about this and your position. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here. From my point of view you hit the nail on the head when you said." SCOTUS has read into it remedies they support, but are not actually implied".

Yes, they do read remedies into their decisions because they, like everyone else, are a persons of their time.

Tom, there is no ideal interpretation of any constitution. We cannot extract ourselves from any historical situation. Today SCOTUS is a body that exists for its time. In future historical periods constitutions will be interpreted for that time period. It has always been the case and probably continue to be the case.

This has always been the problem with language. There is bit more I would like to add but I will stop for the moment.

That's why I concluded with my commentary about the power SCOTUS seized for themselves. They are an unelected ,appointed for life, branch of the government . The system was designed for the branches to be co-equal . With the Marbury decision they upset the balance. 'We the People ' are left with agreeing or disagreeing with their interpretations with no other recourse.
The real correct course would be the People being the final arbiters of what is constitutional. That is what Jefferson was saying .

That's why I concluded with my commentary about the power SCOTUS seized for themselves. They are an unelected ,appointed for life, branch of the government . The system was designed for the branches to be co-equal . With the Marbury decision they upset the balance. 'We the People ' are left with agreeing or disagreeing with their interpretations with no other recourse.
The real correct course would be the People being the final arbiters of what is constitutional. That is what Jefferson was saying .

Again, I agree that what you are saying is largely true. The interesting thing from my point of view is the little 'bits' tacked onto the end of constitutional sentences. For example, "the general welfare and " protection of the laws". Depending on your political perspective you see these 'bits' of information as relevant or irrelevant.

It just so happens that we live in a time and place where we make mountains out of molehills.

In a way I can support the courts decision, because the balance to that decision is congressional actions. However unlikely that will be given the political climate,

Okay the stigma of federal oversight has been removed for now at least, and no voting jurisdiction is compelled to preclear any changes or new laws to its voting process. Once the dust settles though I think we will see even more opportunities for push back to state over reach and discriminatory practices.

Conservative republicans in Texas are already salivating about what new changes they want.

Daily Kos: Texas Wastes No Time Jumping On The SCOTUS Decision - Attorney General Abbot Pumps Up & Gloats (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/25/1218828/-Texas-Wastes-No-Time-Jumping-On-The-SCOTUS-Decision)


"With today's decision, the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbott said in a statement to the Dallas Morning News. "Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

Conservative republicans in Texas are already salivating about what new changes they want.

Daily Kos: Texas Wastes No Time Jumping On The SCOTUS Decision - Attorney General Abbot Pumps Up & Gloats (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/25/1218828/-Texas-Wastes-No-Time-Jumping-On-The-SCOTUS-Decision)

Salivating? I've never seen Abbott salivating or "smug" as Kos puts it, but their pathetic interpretation is predictable:


Texas GOP, shows no shame in its agenda to keep their most likely voters in the majority, and suppress the voting rights of blacks, hispanics, the elderly and the poor - all of whom most likely voted for President Obama, and would continue to vote for a U.S. President and Congress who would protect their civil and economic rights.

Having voters required to have photo identification sound reasonable to many who might not understand this law can be, and has been, abused in the hands of the politically corrupt.

Texas Republican lawmakers once again show there true color(s). That color would be White.

Wasn't it just yesterday I said you'd be back to playing the race card soon enough?

In a way I can support the courts decision, because the balance to that decision is congressional actions. However unlikely that will be given the political climate,
My point is that congressional action is the ONLY constitutional action . It should not be up to SCOTUS to make the call. I disagree with the Congress blanket renewals of the Act without any thought put into it... but we elect the clowns . Actually I agree with Justice Thomas' concurring opinion that Sec 5 is also unconstitutional. But it shouldn't be up to the court to force Congress to make legislation any more than it was their job to order executive action when it came to issues like Boston busing .

DOMA is unconstitutional sayeth the court. There you go. If I read this right though it's not over as the issue of whether states may continue with their own definitions of marriage is unanswered according to Roberts' dissent.

Scalia was scathing in his dissent saying the case should never have been before them and the majority overstepped their bounds.


This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the
Role of this institution in America.

The Court is eager—hungry —to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?

The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then
Our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.”

But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, knuckle dragging Scalia. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I agree with Scalia for the same reason I stated in comment # 58 .

The court just refuse to hear the California gay marriage case (the constitutional amendment voted for by the people of California aka Prop 8 )... which means that the lower court ruling that declared the California amendment unconstitutional stands.

Hello again,

Looks to me like the question of gay rights is OVER for all time. You?

excon

Hello again,

Looks to me like the question of gay rights is OVER for all time. You?

excon

Not at all, read Roberts' dissent.

Like Speech said yesterday we have come a long way, and things have gotten better with race relations so I hope he feels the same about gender relations.

Like Speech said yesterday we have come a long way, and things have gotten better with race relations so I hope he feels the same about gender relations.

We've had that discussion, I made my concessions years ago.

From Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/detail-on-united-states-v-windsor-in-plain-english/):


Details on United States v. Windsor: In Plain English

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage,” for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

A follow-up rom Kevin Russell at SCOTUSBlog:


To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.

The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage. Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHO Kevin Russell is, but he doesn't understand the equal protection clause. I've TRIED to decipher what he's saying, but it's INDECIPHERABLE. It has NOTHING to do with congress disrespecting what a state did... NOTHING!

Excon

Hello again,

Looks to me like the question of gay rights is OVER for all time. You?

excon

Not even close. There is nothing (yet) that requres states to recognize gay marriage. Only the federal government is now obligated to recognize it for residents of states and the District of Columbia that allow it. It is not at all clear what the status will be of gay couples who marry in one state where gay marriage is legal and then move to another where it is not. For example a gay couple who marries in NY are now able to file federal income taxes as married, but if they then move to TX where gay marriage is not recognized they may not be allowed to continue to file as married on their federal income tax. I see many more court cases coming over issues like this.

I see many more court cases coming over issues like this.Hello e:

I didn't say that there isn't some cleaning up to do. I'm just saying, for all practical purposes, the argument AGAINST same sex marriage has been LOST.

By the way, a regular old fashioned LEGAL marriage between a man and a women IS recognized in EVERY state. I don't know why a LEGAL gay marriage wouldn't qualify under the same law..

Excon

The state doesn't have to recognize gay marriage and has nothing to do with federal tax returns. The IRS cannot deny filing federal taxes of legally married couples regardless of the state laws. At least that's my take on the ruling.

Hello e:

I didn't say that there isn't some cleaning up to do. I'm just saying, for all practical purposes, the argument AGAINST same sex marriage has been LOST.

By the way, a regular old fashioned LEGAL marriage between a man and a women IS recognized in EVERY state. I dunno why a LEGAL gay marriage wouldn't qualify under the same law..

excon

I think the states will have no choice . The 'Full Faith and Credit ' clause will be the next same sex battle that will work it's way up the court system.

. The IRS cannot deny filing federal taxes of legally married couples regardless of the state laws.

It is unsettled at best. The problem is that the federal government cannot make the decision as to whether the couple is married or not - they must acquiesce to the determination of the state where the couple resides. In my example if the couple are residents of TX, TX determines whether they are married or not, and as it stands now even though the couple was legally married in NY they are not considered married by TX where they live. Thus they can't file for federal benefits as a married couple, whether it means filing a joint federal tax return, applying for social security benefits, veterans benefits etc. Like I said - batten down the hatches for more law suits!

Hello tal:

Certainly, a gay couple will file a state tax return. Is the state required to accept it? I don't know if they are or not. If they decide to divorce, is the state required to let them use their courts and laws? I don't know if they are or not.

What I DO know, is that IF the states DON'T treat gay marriages exactly like they do regular marriages, they'll get sued under the equal protection clause, and the states will LOSE.

We DON'T have second class citizens in this country...

excon

A marriage license has always been sufficient for federal benefits no matter the state and that should/will apply to same sex marriages. I notice all the SCOTUS rulings so far have left further relief for people of standing to pursue relief through the courts. I don't see states challenging the federal law.

I notice all the SCOTUS rulings so far have left further relief for people of standing to pursue relief through the courts.
Oh how big of them !

I don't see states challenging the federal law.

There is no federal law now . It was ruled unconstitutional . So it does go back to States power . Also ,there is NO federal law that makes the Federal government recognize marital benefits for gay couples . That will be another court case .

Certainly, a gay couple will file a state tax return. Is the state required to accept it? I dunno if they are or not. If they decide to divorce, is the the state required to let them use their courts and laws? I dunno if they are or not.

Again, with these rulings nothing changes at the state level. We have discussed this in previous threads - a gay couple who moves to a state where gay marriage is not recognized is not considered to be married. So no - they cannot file a joint state income tax return and they cannot get divorced in that state, because you have to be married to be divorced, and the state says they aren't married. So to get a divorce they have to go to a state where gay marriage is recognized.

Extra credit question: if a gay married couple moves to a state where their marriage is not recognized, and they split up without a divorce (because they can't get a divorce in that state), and then one of them gets married to someone of the opposite sex - is it bigamy? Answer: in Texas - no - but if they visit NY they could be subject to arrest.

oh how big of them !


There is no federal law now . It was ruled unconstitutional . So it does go back to States power . Also ,there is NO federal law that makes the Federal government recognize marital benefits for gay couples . That will be another court case .

The court held that legally married couples cannot be discriminated by the federal government and have to be treated as any other married couple. I doubt they would fight that as they didn't defend DOMA in the first place. Bet that a lot of old gay couples though will be looking for their money back.

The court held that legally married couples cannot be discriminated by the federal government and have to be treated as any other married couple. I doubt they would fight that as they didn't defend DOMA in the first place. Bet that a lot of old gay couples though will be looking for their money back.

Yeah I just read some more of the decision . This will keep the IRS busy .

I shoul add something about my previous answer: the court specifically left in place a part of DOMA that allows a state to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. This is why a legally married gay couple can't file a joint state income tax return in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.

That's my understanding also. With the divorce rate at about half, you other question about getting a divorce in states that don't even recognize gay marriage appears unanswerable at the moment.

I shoul add something about my previous answer: the court specifically left in place a part of DOMA that allows a state to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. This is why a legally married gay couple can't file a joint state income tax return in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.

Yes ,and that is part of the reason I think the next Federal Court battles on this issue will be based on the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause ' (which Congress tries to bypass in Sec 2 of DOMA). Well that ,and Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion that anyone who opposes same sex marriage is a bigot animated by a passion to demean and denigrate.(that includes evidently the 85 bipartisan majority of Senators who voted for DOMA and the President (Clintoon ) who signed it into law

Oh yeah ,let's not forget that according to the Prop 8 decision, only State executives have standing to defend state laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage ;even if they refuse to do so.

I think the court rulings on same sex marriage were right. What will happen in the states where gay marriage is still illegal? I don't think that redneck states in the South and Utah will ever legalize it until the court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws just like the Lawrence vs Texas ruling that struck down anti sodomy laws. This ruling was a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

To sum up... 4 decision ;each side of the political divide happy with 2 each . We are left as spectators cheering or booing accordingly as SCOTUS makes dictatorial decisions they have no business making . Scalia's dissent in the DOMA decision could just as easily been made in in dissent of the Racial preferences and Voting Rights cases.

To sum up ... 4 decision ;each side of the political divide happy with 2 each . We are left as spectators cheering or booing accordingly as SCOTUS makes dictatorial decisions they have no business making.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm an oddball, but I'm actually OK with all 4 decisions. In two of them they basically punted - deciding not to decide on the CA gay marriage issue and leaving in tact the lower court's ruling on affirmative action in college admissions - hardly dictatorial. The other two were about federal laws (voting rights act and DoMA), and so absolutely appropriate to be ruled on by the supremes. I thought killing DoMA would be a no brainer, and I actually thought would get struck down with better than a 5-4 majority. As for the voting rights act - I understand Ruth Bader Ginsburg's characterization in her dissent that getting rid of the 1965 rules which applied to only some states is like getting rid of your umbrella in a rain storm because you're dry, but I don't understand how the rules could legally continue to apply to some areas of the country but not others. Congress should have cleaned the law up years ago, and their inaction is the main reason it was overturned.

Hello again, tom:

Help me out here.. I've heard you rail about SCOTUS and your belief that they DON'T have the power to rule on the Constitutionally of our laws... But, if THEY didn't, who would? And, if NOBODY would, who would STOP congress from passing UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws?

excon

Hmmm. Maybe I'm an oddball, but I'm actually OK with all 4 decisions. In two of them they basically punted - deciding not to decide on the CA gay marriage issue and leaving in tact the lower court's ruling on affirmative action in college admissions - hardly dictatorial. The other two were about federal laws (voting rights act and DoMA), and so absolutely appropriate to be ruled on by the supremes. I thought killing DoMA would be a no brainer, and I actually thought would get struck down with better than a 5-4 majority. As for the voting rights act - I understand Ruth Bader Ginsburg's characterization in her dissent that getting rid of the 1965 rules which applied to only some states is like getting rid of your umbrella in a rain storm because you're dry, but I don't understand how the rules could legally continue to apply to some areas of the country but not others. Congress should have cleaned the law up years ago, and their inaction is the main reason it was overturned.

My point wasn't about if you agree or disagree .I have my opinion on the merits of all the decisions . Ex understands that my complaint is about the role of SCOTUS . Speech linked to Scalia's dissent in comment 59 ;and I spoke briefly about the same issue when I posted Jefferson's reaction to 'Marbury v Madison' in comment 54 and 58 .

But I'll repeat his comment here :

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis

Ex ;to answer your question ;SCOTUS is no more qualified than you or I to determine what is constitutional . The founders placed there biggest trust in the people ;and placed the most power of government to the elected branches . By having a lifetime unaccountable final arbiter to decide which laws are valid is to reduce our government to the equivalent of a constitutional monarchy.

Hello again, tom:


The founders placed there biggest trust in the people So, the people COULD vote away the 2nd Amendment?? South Carolina COULD vote in slavery?

Excon

But it's OK with you when SCOTUS can make those same decisions ? I will remind you that some of their decisions have been quite brutal ,oppressive , wrong and unconstitutional . The only difference is that their decisions stand ;no recourse except the cumbersome process of amendment .

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. Jefferson to Judge William Johnson,

Hello again, tom:


But it's OK with you when SCOTUS can make those same decisions ?At least they're interpreting a document, even if they do it wrongly on occasion, instead of passing laws based on ideology, hate or recrimination.

Excon

You think there's no political consideration in their decisions ? Then why are they so often divided along ideological lines ? You would think that if it was just a matter of "interpretation " that ideology would play no factor.
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.
Jefferson to Judge Spencer Roane

Hello again, tom:


you think there's no political consideration in their decisions ?There is today. But, it wasn't always so. If we're lucky, those days will return.

How do you explain Brown v Board of Education? They weren't ALL liberal.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

There is today. But, it wasn't always so. If we're lucky, those days will return.

How do you explain Brown v Board of Education? They weren't ALL liberal.

excon

When wasn't it always so ? 'Brown v Board of Ed ' reversed a horrible SCOTUS decision that became the legitimate law of the land for almost 60 years .
SCOTUS had previously decided that "separate but equal" was constitutional in Plessy Then, without any change in the constitution, they decided that it was unconstitutional.

How is something both constitutional and unconstitutional under the same constitution? Nothing changed ;both cases were identical . And yet 60 years later ;different justices being influenced by the politics of their times came up with completely different results .

So what happens in the future when another set of judges decides that " separate but equal" is cool again ? Won't matter too much how many progressive laws are in place then . It will be the decision of a very slim majority of justices that will make that decision .

Well, one particular segment is happy with SCOTUS...

Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/polygamists-celebrate-supreme-courts-marriage-rulings)

When asked about polygamy the emperor said "my position is evolving " .

We are all evolving, some faster than others.

We are all evolving, some faster than others.

So you're for equal protection for polygamist marriages?

So you're for equal protection for polygamist marriages?Sure, why not?

Hello again,

Do I have to get gay married now?

excon

Sure, why not?

I thought there was no such slippery slope.

Do you think it is possible this subject has become ad nausium, the institution of marriage has been dragged through the dust and we can expect any number of fringe applications for marriage. I won't give them credence by enumerating them.

However I expect an application from Ex to marry his big green plant

when wasn't it always so ? 'Brown v Board of Ed ' reversed a horrible SCOTUS decision that became the legitimate law of the land for almost 60 years .
SCOTUS had previously decided that "separate but equal" was constitutional in Plessy Then, without any change in the constitution, they decided that it was unconstitutional.

How is something both constitutional and unconstitutional under the same constitution? Nothing changed ;both cases were identical . And yet 60 years later ;different justices being influenced by the politics of their times came up with completely different results .

So what happens in the future when another set of judges decides that " separate but equal" is cool again ? Won't matter too much how many progressive laws are in place then . It will be the decision of a very slim majority of justices that will make that decision .

Tom, not happy with my previous explanations for this? You know 20-20 hindsight and that type of thing. Explanation that have been canvassed in the long and short term.

The point is that they are no less fallible than anyone else in the elected branch. The theory that they are some kind of anointed institution that is above the weaknesses of man and above the politics of the day has been proven over and over again to be a fantasy .
I've read the constitution ,and the Federalist Papers ,and the writings of the founders on the constitution many times and have yet to find anything to suggest that SCOTUS has anything near the power they seized. Instead ,the founders were very suspicious of an unelected body or person who had the final decision on what the law will be... I think it was called Monarchy back then.
So if we demonstrate that over and over again that SCOTUS is no better than the elected branches of government ;then that alone should consign them to nothing more than the co-equal branch they were designed to be. Article 3 Sec 2 grants them the power to rule on cases invoving the laws of the land . It does NOT give them the authority to decide which of those laws are constitutional.

The point is that they are no less fallible than anyone else in the elected branch. The theory that they are some kind of annointed institution that is above the weaknesses of man and above the politics of the day has been proven over and over again to be a fantasy .
I've read the constitution ,and the Federalist Papers ,and the writings of the founders on the constitution many times and have yet to find anything to suggest that SCOTUS has anything near the power they seized. Instead ,the founders were very suspicious of an unelected body or person who had the final decision on what the law will be ... I think it was called Monarchy back then.
So if we demonstrate that over and over again that SCOTUS is no better than the elected branches of government ;then that alone should consign them to nothing more than the co-equal branch they were designed to be. Article 3 Sec 2 grants them the power to rule on cases invoving the laws of the land . It does NOT give them the authority to decide which of those laws are constitutional.


Tom, as far as I am concerned you are wasting your time. You are preaching to the converted.

I was attempting to answer the question as to how something can be constitutional and one time and unconstitutional at another.

Tom, as far as I am concerned you are wasting your time. You are preaching to the converted.

I was attempting to answer the question as to how something can be constitutional and one time and unconstitutional at another.

Well that was a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is it either is or isn't .

well that was a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is it either is or isn't .

No it wasn't. I asked the question in a historical context. In one time but not another.

Nothing rhetorical about that.

I don't care what times it is... The 14th amendment has not changed since it's passage in 1868 . SCOTUS in 1896 said 'separate but equal ' was constitutional and in 1954 said it wasn't . So either SCOTUS must've made the wrong call in 1896 ;and that in turn delayed 'civil rights ' by almost 60 years... or as Jefferson said ,the constitution is 'mere wax in the hands of the judiciary'. If that is so ,then the consitutition is nothing more than toilet paper that SCOTUS has to supreme authority to wipe their a$$ with .

I dont care what times it is ..... The 14th amendment has not changed since it's passage in 1868 . SCOTUS in 1896 said 'separate but equal ' was constitutional and in 1954 said it wasn't . So either SCOTUS must've made the wrong call in 1896 ;and that in turn delayed 'civil rights ' by almost 60 years .... or as Jefferson said ,the constitution is 'mere wax in the hands of the judiciary'. If that is so ,then the consitutition is nothing more than toilet paper that SCOTUS has to supreme authority to wipe their a$$ with .


You keep asking the same question over and over again. The reason is because you are not prepared to take anything on board that might challenge your... well you know.

I don't believe I asked any question in my last comment. I made a statement based on my observations. I'll say it another way. What I see is a court where the justices see the court as their chance to impose their personal version of utopia on everyone, regardless of the Constitution. Unfortunately, utopia is a subjective condition that changes over time.

I don't believe I asked any question in my last comment. I made a statement based on my observations. I'll say it another way. What I see is a court where the justices see the court as their chance to impose their personal version of utopia on everyone, regardless of the Constitution. Unfortunately, utopia is a subjective condition that changes over time.

You're right, not this time. But "black robed oligarchs" is a common theme.

Is it too hard to acknowledge that both political wings of SCOTUS are actually doing this?

Yes it is... when you have a fanatic's blinders on.

You're right, not this time. But "black robed oligarchs" is a common theme.

Is it too hard to acknowledge that both political wings of SCOTUS are actually doing this?

Guess you didn't read comment #83

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3494182-post83.html)

Geeze it really gets boring when the fall back answer is "well both sides do it "

guess you didn't read comment #83

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3494182-post83.html)

Geeze it really gets boring when the fall back answer is "well both sides do it "

No, I missed it.Sorry if you find this approach boring. I just get the feeling that you might tell me that the proper role of SCOTUS is to be apolitical.

Nope I've been saying the proper role of SCOTUS is to be the final Appellate court and not a court that has the power to negate the laws passed by Congress.

The bad ones should be negated.

The constitutional way to do that is for the people to vote in Reps to reverse the laws or for the people to amend the constitution . SCOTUS doing that gives them too much power .

Hello again, tom:


SCOTUS doing that gives them too much power .It does.

But, WITHOUT their power, the states have the power to VIOLATE the Constitution willy nilly. We might as well NOT have a Constitution if it means NOTHING.

Excon

Then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.

then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.

Go for it. :D

Not me . I don't like the status quo . I think Congress should exercise their constitutionally delegated authority to make law ;and the court should stick to their role as defined in Article 3

then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.Hello again, tom:

Since I'm happy with the status quo, and it's you who wants CHANGE, it would seem incumbent on YOU to propose an amendment..

Excon

Amend the constitution to what ? It is already written the way it should be and would work fine without the court's usurpations . If SCOTUS would conduct their business in a constitutional way this wouldn't be an issue.

But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including ,but not limited to the amendment process .They could impeach justices that void the law they pass. They can reject appointments to the Supreme Court.They can change the number of justices on the US Supreme Court
They can change the appellate jurisdiction of any court, including the US Supreme Court
They can establish or dismantle any Federal court except the Supremes. The President has the power to refuse to execute a court's decision.

not me . I don't like the status quo . I think Congress should exercise their constitutionally delegated authority to make law ;and the court should stick to their role as defined in Article 3

Good luck making the Congress do its job, and with that constitutional amendment.

The failure of the congress is what the mess is. SCOTUS knows this already, so do most people. Maybe they will believe you because they damn sure don't believe me.

Good luck making the Congress do its job, and with that constitutional amendment.

The failure of the congress is what the mess is. SCOTUS knows this already, so do most people. maybe they will believe you because they damn sure don't believe me.

You don't believe that for one second . All I have to say is 'Citizens United ' to get your side frothing at the mouth.

But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including
Hello again, tom:

Maybe the president, like me, SHUDDERS at the prospect of South Carolina having the POWER to enslave their people. Not that they would, of course...

Who am I kidding? The south would IMMEDIATELY recreate their glory days...

Excon

you don't believe that for one second . All I have to say is 'Citizens United ' to get your side frothing at the mouth.

ARG!! You have unleashed the demons of hell upon us >frothing< :(

Hello again, tom:

Maybe the president, like me, SHUDDERS at the prospect of South Carolina having the POWER to enslave their people. Not that they would, of course...

Who am I kidding?? The south would IMMEDIATELY recreate their glory days...

excon

Would that be the same South Carolina that elected Nikki Haley as Governor ?

She is a winger too so what does that have to do with it? Wingers always have an example of how inclusive they are but beyond the one example what else do the right wing in SC have going for it?

I was debunking Ex's over the top exaggeration about the people of South Carolina . Clearly he has not been there since the early 1960s

No response just trying to stop instant email notifications I'm getting from this OP

Did anyone notice that Antonin Scalia actually quoted a line from "The Simpsons" when he called the Doma ruling "legalistic argle-bargle"? In the classic Simpsons episode "Last Exit To Springfield" news reporter Kent Brockman says "Nuclear Power plant strike, argle-bargle or fooferaw". That is hilarious. Wonder if CNN will pick up on it and run with it.

no response just trying to stop instant email notifications I'm getting from this OP

Did you unsubscribe to the thread?

Try that first before attempting to make changes. Then come back and choose no email notifications. Also check your profile for the default setting of no email notifications.

Did anyone notice that Antonin Scalia actually quoted a line from "The Simpsons" when he called the Doma ruling "legalistic argle-bargle"? In the classic Simpsons episode "Last Exit To Springfield" news reporter Kent Brockman says "Nuclear Power plant strike, argle-bargle or fooferaw". That is hilarious. Wonder if CNN will pick up on it and run with it.

Below is the relevant transcript


"Lord, an opinion with such scatter-shot rationales as this one (federalism noises among them) can be distinguished in many ways. And deserves to be. State and lower federal courts should take the Court at its word and distinguish away.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ 'bare . . . desire to harm'” couples in same-sex marriages."

Or it could've been unrelated to the Simpsons. It was instead a carefully chosen phrase of disgust. It comes from the Scottish phrase "argy-bargy" or 'lively discussion".
Argy-bargy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argy-bargy)
We on the AMHD participate in argy-bargy all the time.
'Argle-bargle' is a variation of this that is called a rhyming reduplication similar to okey-dokey ,hocus-pocus,jeepers-creepers ,or mumbo-jumbo.
It wasn't exactly language typically used in legalese discourse . However ,it was intentionally used to express his disgust in the level of discourse .All you have to do is read the majority opinion by Kennedy to see what he was talking about. As Scalia puts it...
"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
Kennedy's majority opinion is chock full of such contempt for Congress. In Kennedy's view ,you can't be opposed to gay "marriage " unless you are a hateful homophobe. That is what Scalia was responding to .

Did you unsubscribe to the thread?

Try that first before attempting to make changes. Then come back and choose no email notifications. Also check your profile for the default setting of no email notifications.

Thanks .My defaults were fine. It was only this OP.. I corrected the notification status at the bottom of my comment and it seems to have worked.

Amend the constitution to what ? It is already written the way it should be and would work fine without the court's usurpations . If SCOTUS would conduct their business in a constitutional way this wouldn't be an issue.


But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including ,but not limited to the amendment process .They could impeach justices that void the law they pass. They can reject appointments to the Supreme Court.They can change the number of justices on the US Supreme Court



But wouldn't this turn SCOTUS into a political football?

Impeach someone for their legal and professional opinion because it doesn't agree with someone's politics at the time?



They can change the appellate jurisdiction of any court, including the US Supreme Court
They can establish or dismantle any Federal court except the Supremes. The President has the power to refuse to execute a court's decision.

Don't federal courts of appeals rule on the constitutionality of a case? If so, won't you be turning this court into a de facto SCOTUS.

But wouldn't this turn SCOTUS into a political football?

Impeachment is inherently a political process.I'll change my comments slightly from above.. I would change the constitution to set term limits .

SCOTUS ruled that the original Roosevelt New Deal was unconstitutional . Roosevelt was of course furious ,and actively promoted changing the number of justices on the court. He almost made it happen ,except that Congress would not go along with it. However ,sufficiently chastened and intimidated by the Executive ,SCOTUS did not challenge Roosevelt again.
One of the problems I see is that the other branches of government have not exercised their constitutional powers over SCOTUS . John Marshall's vision of the role of SCOTUS is so ingrained into the system that it is almost like the other branches have forgotten that they don't have to lie down when SCOTUS tells them to.

Don't federal courts of appeals rule on the constitutionality of a case? they do despite the lack of constitutional mandate to do so.

If so, won't you be turning this court into a de facto SCOTUS. SCOTUS as the constitution is written is nothing more than the final appellate court.

All I know is Clarence Thomas must really hate black people.

House Dem: Justice Clarence Thomas is 'worse' than Snowden (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/house-dem-justice-clarence-thomas-is-worse-than-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden/article/2532511?custom_click=rss)

SCOTUS as the constitution is written is nothing more than the final appellate court.

Tom, this doesn't work in practice.The conformity to a law versus the constitutionality of a law?

If you go with the former then then there is no need for the latter. It's almost a paradox.

Tom, this doesn't work in practice.The conformity to a law versus the constitutionality of a law?

If you go with the former then then there is no need for the latter. It's almost a paradox.
That is the assumption because no one has ever seen it in practice as intended by the founders (except for the 12 years of Washington and Adams terms).

that is the assumption because no one has ever seen it in practice as intended by the founders (except for the 12 years of Washington and Adams terms).

If you are going to have a constitution then you need someone to rule on constitutionality. You seem to be saying there is no discernible difference between conformity to a law and constitutionality of a law.

The founders were brilliant men of their times, Tom, but the growth of the nation has changed the situations somewhat I would say. I doubt they would have foreseen the civil war and slavery ending after they wrote all men are equal.

But if all branches of government do their job as co equal functions of governing proper balance is again restored. Balance is what I think the founders intended, no matter the situation.

If you are going to have a constitution then you need someone to rule on constitutionality. Hello again,

DUH!!

And, if you don't, I have NO DOUBT that South Carolina would ENSLAVE its citizens. For SOME yet UNEXPLAINED reason, tom believes the VOTERS would NEVER pass unconstitutional laws. And, if they did, then it's up to THEM to reverse it, as though they would... And, I don't think they would.

Nahhh... That idea would make the a mockery of the Constitution.

Excon

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
Jefferson

Stop making excuses for congressional inaction. And be realistic about the speed of the process and the crap that politics throws in the game as we grapple with the reality of what's fair, and effective.

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are... then all your claims that themselves imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

Excon

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are .....then all your claims that their self imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

I think it's more how that intent is interpreted and the real life effects on people that you have a problem with because any system of governance by any nation has to be tweaked to be effective and reflect the changing reality.

As for the court being unelected that's a good intent for taking politics out of it even though the prez nominates, the congress has to approve. Indeed the very process of going through lower courts before it gets to SCOTUS, is part of a greater process.

I will submit the only ones trying to glean the intent of the founders is stuck in the past. They too had opinions, but the intent was to clearly establish a process for civilized resolution of conflicts that was fair and open.

Checks, and balances.

Tal how can you talk checks and balance when there is none from the arbitrary dictates of SCOTUS ? One of their decisions led directly to a Civil War (Dred Scott ) ;and many others like Roe v Wade has torn apart any hope of compromise in our political process.

I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

excon

I know I'll never convince you . I think you should watch this Thom Hartmann video. Makes no difference to me that he makes this argument from the lefty perspective. I can just as easily find conservatives who make the same case .

Thom Hartmann: The story of the 5 Kings who rule America - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWecRfLov4&feature=player_embedded)

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I want to know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why?? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

Your take on South Carolina is obsolete. But that is besides the point .If there is one thing U.S. history teaches us about the courts, it is that we can't always rely on them to be a bulwark for Constitutional liberty . The Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ignored the protection of life outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment instead choosing to rely on it's own judicial review. Judicial review has elevated the Court's “opinions” to Constitutional law, and that may be the most dangerous legacy of judicial review over the long run.

So I ask you instead ;how can we grant absolute judicial review to SCOTUS (as they have seized for themselves ) and be assured that they will always reach the correct constitutional decision.. since it is you who are in favor of their absolute power over the laws of the land .

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I wanna know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why??? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

Wouldn't it be the same way as it happened in California? The people spoke. Then those that objected took it to the courts. What that did was raise it to the publics attention. From there due process was sought. It is still in question as to what if anything has been violated. California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.

Hello again, dad:


California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.Got it. Just tell me how the citizens of California would be protected if the people voted, say, to put a fence around the Castro district.

Look.. I can be as silly as I want about what the people might vote for. I just want to KNOW what remedy ANYONE would have in California IF the voters voted for a clearly unconstitutional law.

If you tell me it's another VOTE, I'll tell you that another vote is NOT going to happen, and somebody's constitutional rights are going to be violated. Who knows? The people might vote to OUTLAW all the guns in the state - every last one of them... Wouldn't YOU like a remedy to an unconstitutional law like that?? What might that remedy BE?

Excon

By the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

Hello again, tom:

I'm waiting... It's a simple question. Are you avoiding it because there IS no answer?? That the Constitution IS what the voters SAY it is??

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.

excon

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.
Umm for one thing there is this thing called the 'supremacy clause . There is also the 14th amendment that prevents it . Now the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution. As you know ,since the time of Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion ,the Presidency has not been shy to use force to enforce the national law.

Edit... I of course meant the 13th amendment

by the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

It's the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to took on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

Its the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to toke on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

So you don't believe in the bill of rights ;specifically the 10th amendment . I'll say it again.. you are not comfortable with the concept of constitutional law as has been ratified in this country . You would prefer a strict democracy over a Republic.

Equality under either is what I am comfortable with, so your opinion is no less, or more, valid as mine.

I have been arguing and debating with conservatives a long time and I am cool with that too. I mean why get upset over pop, and soda water? We can share the danged thing can't we?

Hello again, tom:

the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution.So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

Are you talking about the governor?

Excon

Hello again, tom:
So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

excon

Scroll down to the Smack Board why don'tcha.

Face it ,for every supposition you can come up with ,you and I can speak of REAL trampling on the rights of citizens by SCOTUS . The difference is that with their usurpation ,their decision stands against appeal and accountability .

I don't know why you have the Congress and the Senate, after all, you only need one star chamber to run the country

The Senate is a result of the Federalism concept . You wouldn't know it now ,but originally the Senate was to be totally the "states house " with every state getting the same number of Senators ,and the Senators being in most cases assigned their position by the state legislators. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913
The reason for the bicameral legislature is that there was no way that smaller states were going to agree to a single legislature where the states had representation based on the population. The founders had a bit of an impasse that threatened to derail the whole process . They eventually compromised in what became known as the 'Connecticut Compromise'.

The Senate is a result of the Federalism concept . You wouldn't know it now ,but originally the Senate was to be totally the "states house " with every state getting the same number of Senators ,and the Senators being in most cases assigned their position by the state legislators. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913
The reason for the bicameral legislature is that there was no way that smaller states were going to agree to a single legislature where the states had representation based on the population. The founders had a bit of an impasse that threatened to derail the whole process . They eventually compromised in what became known as the 'Connecticut Compromise'.

Yeah, yeah, we get it, you bequeathed this B/S to us and now we have a senate that is supposed to represent states rights, unfortunately it is full of minor parties representing anything but states rights, still I suppose we should be happy the koalas and emus have a voice even if the abo's don't. Camel, isn't that a horse designed by a compromise. I didn't want to know how you came to have a senate, I wanted to know why you still have a parliament considering your Supreme Court is indeed supreme in deciding what the law is. Why don't you make it quicker and have the judges write the law

Legislation from the bench... hmmm .Why not ? That's what is effectively done now. (and before I get the typical "both sides do it " response... yes I know)

I see you agree with me short cut the B/S

In a post-constitutional America what difference does it make ?

Hello again, tom:

I'm going to stick to how it is... I've asked you how it would work under the "constitutional" plan, and you gave me some gobbledy gook about the court, and/or the executive branch.

Since you can't tell me HOW the residents of South Carolina would be protected from an electorate who thinks they should be enslaved, I'm guessing there ain't one.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... That's a place where I wouldn't want to live.

excon

You can speculate all you want to . I'll give you real cases. What did SCOTUS judicial review do to keep Japanese Americans from being interned in concentration camps ?

Hello again, tom:

I don't want to know how the present system FAILED.. I want to know how the "constitutional" model you support, WON'T.

Again, you didn't tell me. Therefore, it appears that there AREN'T any protections from unconstitutional laws.

That AIN'T a place where I want to live.

excon

And the place you want to live is a place where SCOTUS redefines the definition of 'public use ' is anything that the government says it means... giving the government the unbridled power to seize your property on any pretext ?

Hello again, tom:

Neither of them sound too good. But, don't tell me that under your scenario my private property would be any better protected. The people could VOTE it away.

excon

Really ? Did the people of New London "Vote " to seize the land ? No the government did it... and all the constitutional protections you think you have meant nothing . I'll tell you instead that the only protection the people of New London have is the ballot box .

That's not SCOTUS, it's the local and states rights to imminent domain that seize property and yes I have been through it, and dealt with the "fair market" pricing of compensation.

No different than the building of the Keystone pipeline that goes through private property, so of course you are against that being built.

That's not SCOTUS, it's the local and states rights to imminent domain that seize property and yes I have been thru it, and dealt with the "fair market" pricing of compensation.

No different than the building of the Keystone pipeline that goes thru private property, so of course you are against that being built.

SCOTUS found it constitutional ;and it had NOTHING to do with infrastructure or compelling public interest.

Yes I'm in favor of the Keystone pipeline in the same way I'm in favor of bridges ,highways and railroads being built . That is a huge difference from a private condomium complex.

The pipeline is a private business enterprise too.

So are rail roads but they have an infrastructure public purpose

I think I covered this in an "it's come to this" post but since SCOTUS was involved...

For 64 years the federal government has been saving us from cheap raisins and by confiscating excess raisins. One farmer has been breaking the law for 11 years and took it to court.


Raisin grower stickin' it to the man gets partial victory. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/one-growers-grapes-of-wrath/2013/07/07/ebebcfd8-e380-11e2-80eb-3145e2994a55_story.html)

KERMAN, Calif. — In the world of dried fruit, America has no greater outlaw than Marvin Horne, 68.

Horne, a raisin farmer, has been breaking the law for 11 solid years. He now owes the U.S. government at least $650,000 in unpaid fines. And 1.2 million pounds of unpaid raisins, roughly equal to his entire harvest for four years.
...

When Horne’s case reached the Supreme Court this spring, Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether it might be “just the world’s most outdated law.”

“Your raisins or your life, right?” joked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last month, the high court issued its ruling and gave Horne a partial victory. A lower court had rejected Horne’s challenge of the law. Now, the justices told that court to reconsider it.

Horne does not have the persona of a live-wire revolutionary. He used to be a tax auditor for the state. Now, in his second career, he watches fruit dry.

“If I knew we were going to go through all this, I would have just pulled the grapes out and put in almond” trees, he said.

But get Horne talking about the national raisin reserve, and the spirit stirs. Suddenly he can’t find a metaphor hairy enough to express his contempt. It’s robbery. It’s socialism. It’s communism. It’s feudalism. It’s . . .

“You have heard of the rape of the Sabine women? This is even worse,” Horne said, referencing a legendary mass abduction from Roman mythology. “The rape of the raisin growers.”

Stand your ground farmer Horne, kill the raisin reserve.

That would be big if the courts reversed the Wickard decision. Much of the unconstitutional power grab by the Federal Government has been based on the precedent established in the Wickard case... in fact ,a reversal of Wickard would topple a mountain of legal precedent. Marijuana advocates should be cheering at the prospect (although Raich v. White addressed that issue ,a reversal of Wickard would remove the rationale for Raich ) .

All I hear from you is divisioon, is dirresion, in fact Tom it is just Plain I don't agree. Well THAT'S FINE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO NOT AGREE but please let the rest of us remain in ignorance

that would be big if the courts reversed the Wickard decision. Much of the unconstitutional power grab by the Federal Government has been based on the precedent established in the Wickard case ...in fact ,a reversal of Wickard would topple a mountain of legal precedent. Marijuana advocates should be cheering at the prospect (although Raich v. White addressed that issue ,a reversal of Wickard would remove the rationale for Raich ) .

An overturning of the Wickard decision? Sounds like a practical application of the law. You don't need to justify this on constitutional grounds. Isn't Scalia indicating as much?

Tom, there aren't federalists under every bed.

Tom, there aren't federalists under every bed.
Sad but true . Even in the early days there were loyalists to a constitutional monarchy;and to an American version of the Jacobins .


An overturning of the Wickard decision? Sounds like a practical application of the law. You don't need to justify this on constitutional grounds. Isn't Scalia indicating as much?

Although I don't think that SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to make that call; I am forced to comment on the system that we have rather than the system that was supposed to be. The Wickard decision represents one of the worse calls in SCOTUS history giving the national government broad powers over the economy that they have no constitutional authority to have.