|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A blockbuster article published by CNET Saturday night alleges that the National Security Agency has the power to listen to Americans' phone calls without a warrant.
That bold assertion lit up social media, but also drew skepticism, with many arguing that it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding.
The core of the CNET article focused on an exchange between Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and FBI Director Robert Mueller at a hearing on Thursday. (Watch above.) During questioning, Nadler claimed that in a separate, closed-door briefing, he had been told that NSA analysts could listen to the contents of a phone call at analysts' discretion.
Given the apparent illegality of listening to Americans' phone calls without warrants, some questioned whether Nadler understood the briefing he cited. As of late Saturday night, several publications were not able to reach the congressman for comment.
Mother Jones's Kevin Drum writes that "information from that telephone" could mean one of many things, and that Nadler may have been "confusing the ability of an analyst to get subscriber information for a phone number with the ability to listen to the call itself." Normative's Julian Sanchez wrote that Nadler may have been referring to a more limited set of circumstances than the CNET article implied.
Source
|
On June 16 2013 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 05:35 HunterX11 wrote:On June 16 2013 05:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On June 16 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote:
He said, "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." That seems rather clear to me? You may be right, but at the same time it seems to conflict with him previously saying all Americans should be protected, maybe he just meant orientation shouldn't get any more special protections than race/gender. I am not a big fan of Mr. Rubio but I will reserve judgement until he clarifies his position. Right now there is zero federal protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, however, unlike race and gender. There are many states in which your boss can openly fire you for being gay, and there's nothing you can do about it. If Macro Rubio doesn't even know how At Will employment works, then he certainly isn't qualified to be in the U.S. Senate. From the vid it sounds like he's not in favor of special protections of any kind (laissez-faire on the issue). Though it doesn't sound like he's interested in changing the status quo either.
Even Rand Paul eventually backpedaled on the whole anti-Civil Rights thing when pressed, just as pretty much any politician in America would.
|
Paul has/had a very good point about the Civil Rights Act. Throw racism around all you want. If I wanted my bar to serve only Koreans, it's different than asking Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus. Public space or private space. Property rights are a joke these days.
Difference between Rubio and Paul's situation is Rubio has no position to fall back on.
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
|
I'll never understand the Libertarian idea that the government is both a gigantic hurdle that can't be overcome and a useless institution that shouldn't even try because it will never succeed. The same line of thought that says investors are fooled by government market interventions (like Fed interest rates) but are perfect surveyors of the market otherwise.
|
On June 17 2013 02:16 aksfjh wrote:
I'll never understand the Libertarian idea that the government is both a gigantic hurdle that can't be overcome and a useless institution that shouldn't even try because it will never succeed. The same line of thought that says investors are fooled by government market interventions (like Fed interest rates) but are perfect surveyors of the market otherwise.
Attack attack attack :D I actually had 5 or so names I expected to reply to this with some form of slander or ad hom. Not disappointed. This was a very specific point, on a very specific topic. Perhaps you should make a [D]Libertarian Platform or stroll over to the Euro Crisis thread if you want to discuss economics or just shit on the Paul's. This was Property Rights/Interstate Commerce clause interpretation.
Free Market advocacy= Slavery
Civil-Rights Act could have been better=Racist
Doesn't put Isreal first=Anti-Sematic
It's not that it gets old, it's just that I would expect better. However Stephano is playing Tod, so even I am slacking...just a bit.
Government is like fire..a useful tool, but a dangerous master.
|
Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled By The States
The Supreme Court may rule on gay marriage this week. Advocates both for and against are glad the issue didn't reach the court any sooner.
They didn't want a repeat of the abortion issue. With its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the high court stepped in and guaranteed a right to abortion but also triggered a backlash that has lasted for 40 years.
With same-sex marriage, by contrast, legislators and voters in nearly every state had the chance to make their feelings known before the Supreme Court weighs in.
"People forget that durable rights don't come from courts, they come from consensus and strong support from society," says Jonathan Rauch, author of Denial, a recent memoir about growing up gay. "We are winning the right to marriage in a bigger, deeper way by winning it in the court of public opinion."
Link
I think that's a good point.
|
On June 17 2013 04:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled By The States
The Supreme Court may rule on gay marriage this week. Advocates both for and against are glad the issue didn't reach the court any sooner.
They didn't want a repeat of the abortion issue. With its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the high court stepped in and guaranteed a right to abortion but also triggered a backlash that has lasted for 40 years.
With same-sex marriage, by contrast, legislators and voters in nearly every state had the chance to make their feelings known before the Supreme Court weighs in.
"People forget that durable rights don't come from courts, they come from consensus and strong support from society," says Jonathan Rauch, author of Denial, a recent memoir about growing up gay. "We are winning the right to marriage in a bigger, deeper way by winning it in the court of public opinion." LinkI think that's a good point.
yes, it is.
however, it also could have backfired in a terrible way.
|
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama doesn't think the National Security Agency's collection of phone records violates customer privacy and he will defend that view in the coming days, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Sunday.
During an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," McDonough was asked if Obama had privacy concerns relating to the NSA's analysis of the phone metadata of millions of Americans.
"He does not," said McDonough, emphasizing that all three branches of government play a role in overseeing the agency's surveillance programs.
"The president is not saying, 'Trust me,'" he continued. "The president is saying, 'I want every member of Congress, on whose authority we are running this program, to be briefed on it, to come to the administration with questions and to also be accountable for it.'"
Obama leaves Sunday night for a three-day trip to Europe, but McDonough said he will weigh in on the NSA surveillance programs "in the days ahead." The president has press conferences scheduled during his European trip, so it's possible he may address the issue while overseas.
Obama hasn't publicly discussed revelations of the NSA's activities since former contractor Edward Snowden stepped forward last week as the source behind leaks of classified information about the agency's surveillance programs.
Source
|
On June 17 2013 02:40 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 02:16 aksfjh wrote:
I'll never understand the Libertarian idea that the government is both a gigantic hurdle that can't be overcome and a useless institution that shouldn't even try because it will never succeed. The same line of thought that says investors are fooled by government market interventions (like Fed interest rates) but are perfect surveyors of the market otherwise. Attack attack attack :D I actually had 5 or so names I expected to reply to this with some form of slander or ad hom. Not disappointed. This was a very specific point, on a very specific topic. Perhaps you should make a [D]Libertarian Platform or stroll over to the Euro Crisis thread if you want to discuss economics or just shit on the Paul's. This was Property Rights/Interstate Commerce clause interpretation. Free Market advocacy= Slavery Civil-Rights Act could have been better=Racist Doesn't put Isreal first=Anti-Sematic It's not that it gets old, it's just that I would expect better. However Stephano is playing Tod, so even I am slacking...just a bit. Government is like fire..a useful tool, but a dangerous master.
You make a good point, but you turned the concepts around. It should have said:
Free Market is like fire... A useful tool, but a dangerous master.
Government is what will always be there, the free market is a tool for the government. In our international society "government" has little to do with the individual nations here and a lot more to do with international agreements. My point is that true free market is not a given, governing of sorts is! Hopefully that is the way things will continue to be. In case of "civil rights", most of it is enshrined in international deals and dropping those deals is not advisable.
The specific strawmen you list are extremes and I generally do not like this kind of overarching knee-jerk reactions when the nature should depend of how these opinions are used as vehicles for actual policy. Anything will do good and bad, but instead of focusing on these religious opinions, they should be seen in context, specific and compared to specific alternatives to actually hold real value. Just sticking to an overarching religion and throwing it on the people is the worst way of governing.
|
On June 17 2013 01:25 BioNova wrote:Paul has/had a very good point about the Civil Rights Act. Throw racism around all you want. If I wanted my bar to serve only Koreans, it's different than asking Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus. Public space or private space. Property rights are a joke these days. Difference between Rubio and Paul's situation is Rubio has no position to fall back on. + Show Spoiler +
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Fortunately these days pretty much everyone agrees that allowing segregation is a worse infringement of rights than putting conditions on property rights (like saying you can't segregate). Even so, segregation is still a real issue even when it comes to very public things like schools.
|
Washington Post has another big article on the history of NSA programs.
The legal challenge for the NSA was that its practice of collecting high volumes of data from digital links did not seem to meet even the relatively low requirements of Bush’s authorization, which allowed collection of Internet metadata “for communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States,” the NSA inspector general’s report said.
Lawyers for the agency came up with an interpretation that said the NSA did not “acquire” the communications, a term with formal meaning in surveillance law, until analysts ran searches against it. The NSA could “obtain” metadata in bulk, they argued, without meeting the required standards for acquisition.
[Jack] Goldsmith and [Jim] Comey did not buy that argument, and a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official said the NSA does not rely on it today.
As for bulk collection of Internet metadata, the question that triggered the crisis of 2004, another official said the NSA is no longer doing it. When pressed on that question, he said he was speaking only of collections under authority of the surveillance court.
“I’m not going to say we’re not collecting any Internet metadata,” he added. “We’re not using this program and these kinds of accesses to collect Internet metadata in bulk.”
It's informative and adds texture and context to what has been going on.
|
On June 17 2013 07:18 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 01:25 BioNova wrote:Paul has/had a very good point about the Civil Rights Act. Throw racism around all you want. If I wanted my bar to serve only Koreans, it's different than asking Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus. Public space or private space. Property rights are a joke these days. Difference between Rubio and Paul's situation is Rubio has no position to fall back on. + Show Spoiler +
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Fortunately these days pretty much everyone agrees that allowing segregation is a worse infringement of rights than putting conditions on property rights (like saying you can't segregate). Even so, segregation is still a real issue even when it comes to very public things like schools.
Yeah. I have rather little love for unapologetic bigots like the sort who'd prevent black people from eating at their establishment. If a society in agreement with my principles limits their rights to be utterly immoral, then I consider that very worthwhile. If they don't like it, they're always free to set up shop in a country that doesn't value the common good over the unlimited right to impose hatred.
Private property doesn't even really exist in the modern economy, anyway. It's all wrapped up in taxation and public interaction, which basically makes the whole argument moot. If you don't want to let black people into your place of residence, by all means, don't. But don't expect society to recognize your business as legitimate if it propagates bigotry.
|
Society must be better than the individual.
Anyways...
With approximately two weeks remaining in its current term, the Supreme Court is set to hand down several high-stakes rulings in coming days.
The high court is first expected to rule in Fisher v. University of Texas, the case challenging the college's use of race in its admissions criteria. The court heard oral arguments in the case last October, during which several justices sharply questioned affirmative action's constitutionality.
The justices will then likely rule on Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At issue is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to require preclearance for voting system changes in districts and states with a history of racial discrimination.
Finally, the Supreme Court will decide on two landmark gay marriage cases -- one on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and another on Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban.
Decisions typically come on Monday and Thursdays, and the court's final scheduled session for this term is on June 24. However, the court may add additional dates to its schedule. SCOTUSblog predicts the rulings on same-sex marriage are most likely to come on June 26 or 27, based on the court's past decision patterns.
Source
|
On June 17 2013 10:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Society must be better than the individual. Anyways... Show nested quote +With approximately two weeks remaining in its current term, the Supreme Court is set to hand down several high-stakes rulings in coming days.
The high court is first expected to rule in Fisher v. University of Texas, the case challenging the college's use of race in its admissions criteria. The court heard oral arguments in the case last October, during which several justices sharply questioned affirmative action's constitutionality.
The justices will then likely rule on Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. At issue is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to require preclearance for voting system changes in districts and states with a history of racial discrimination.
Finally, the Supreme Court will decide on two landmark gay marriage cases -- one on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and another on Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban.
Decisions typically come on Monday and Thursdays, and the court's final scheduled session for this term is on June 24. However, the court may add additional dates to its schedule. SCOTUSblog predicts the rulings on same-sex marriage are most likely to come on June 26 or 27, based on the court's past decision patterns. Source
I really hope they find DOMA and Prop 8 unconstitutional and make same-sex marriage a federally guaranteed right.
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/ 20 minute(ish) warning....
In other news:
With about a week remaining before Massachusetts voters head to the polls for a special U.S. Senate election, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) appears to have the wind fully at his back, according to the latest Boston Globe poll released Sunday.
The poll showed Markey claiming the support of 54 percent of likely Bay State voters, while Republican businessman Gabriel Gomez trailed with 43 percent support. Those numbers include undecided voters who indicated that they are leaning toward one of the two candidates. Excluding leaners, Markey's lead in the poll is even larger, 54 percent to 41 percent.
Regardless, it's the second poll in the last week to show the Democrat with a double-digit lead as the GOP's hope for an upset bid — a la former Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) memorable victory in the state's 2010 special Senate election — appears to be fading fast. The other survey was conducted by Republican outlet Harper Polling and it showed Markey with a 12-point lead over Gomez.
Source
|
I'm not happy either way, because this is yet another example of people giving the Court the right to legislate... Might as well not even have a legislative and executive branch anymore. Fuck voting. Every decision made by the people and/or the government is beholden to the will of 5 unelected people.
|
On June 17 2013 23:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not happy either way, because this is yet another example of people giving the Court the right to legislate... Might as well not even have a legislative and executive branch anymore. Fuck voting. Every decision made by the people and/or the government is beholden to the will of 5 unelected people.
At least the court can make decisions. The executive, senate and the house kind cock block each other all day long usually.
|
No decision today. Thursday it is.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans’ hopes to reclaim the White House in the 2016 elections hinge on whether they support — or sabotage — the immigration overhaul being debated in the Senate, two lawmakers who helped write the proposal warn.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday told conservatives who are trying to block the measure that they will doom the party and all but guarantee a Democrat will remain in the White House after 2016’s election. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., went a step further and predicted “there’ll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party” if immigration overhaul fails to pass.
The Senate is moving forward with an overhaul and appears to be on track to have a vote from the full Senate by July 4. A timeline for a House proposal is less certain, although leaders say they are working on plans that more closely follow conservatives’ wish list.
The Senate last week overcame a procedural hurdle in moving forward on the first immigration overhaul in a generation. Lawmakers from both parties voted to begin formal debate on a proposal that would give an estimated 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally a long and difficult path to citizenship.
The Senate legislation also creates a low-skilled guest-worker program, expands the number of visas available for high-tech workers and de-emphasizes family ties in the system for legal immigration that has been in place for decades. It also sets border security goals that the government must meet before immigrants living in the U.S. illegally are granted any change in status.
Source
As if on cue...
|
On June 17 2013 23:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not happy either way, because this is yet another example of people giving the Court the right to legislate... Might as well not even have a legislative and executive branch anymore. Fuck voting. Every decision made by the people and/or the government is beholden to the will of 5 unelected people.
Voting is fallible. Not that the SCOTUS isn't, but it's at the very least comprised of (in theory) disinterested parties who have a huge knowledge base regarding the constitution and legal history of the nation. Meanwhile, half of Americans think creationism is probably true. I mean, just because the majority of people believe in or vote on something doesn't mean that it's justified. Sometimes we need to have rules in place to stop people from doing things that contradict the underlying philosophies that we hold to be foundational/good for a nation i.e. equality for all people.
The point of the SCOTUS is to stop people from passing things that violate the rights of people and to safeguard the country against the possibility of tyranny, either by the government or by some majority voting bloc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
