Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

We both agree the capitalist business model is broken, or corrupted,

---

Corrupted by government interference ;absolutely . Broken ;no .

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tombder55

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

"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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

. 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.

Quote:

---

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 !

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.