EPTSupreme court strikes down DOMA - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
PCloadletter
41 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote: Do you have any idea how many old laws are still in effect based on old information or norms? There are time limits they can add to laws for that explicit purpose. It is not at all the job of a judicially restrictive bench to make that decision. We don't throw out old laws like that. It is 100% absolutely a case of judicial activism. They decided the public policy aspects of the law were no longer relevant. That's then making a judgment on public policy, not legality. No, they didn't decide that the policy aspects were irrelevant. They simply decided the data being used was outdated. They kept the policies, but asked for current data. That's it. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:20 docvoc wrote: I'm going to expound on what I said a bit earlier because I don't think it was understood as intended. The supremacy clause does exist, but there has been an ongoing fight between big government supporters and little government supporters since the U.S. constitution's inception. The fight between less state power and larger state power is part of this deal. If DOMA was struck down because the federal government cannot make laws on marriage because that infringes on the State's right to, then this was not struck down because of some inherent equality that much of the young generations seems to see, but older lawmakers and conservatives do not; the law would be struck down because it is an infringement on state's rights even with the supremacy clause, and thus a federal law stating that all states had to accept any equal-marriage act would be treated in the same way as DOMA and prop 8 were. The state power issue has a second facet. Where is my state's power when activists can go to a neighboring state, agitate for gay marriage, then force my state to recognize them? Anyone alive during the Clinton years when DOMA was passed into law can remember that this was the activist's strategy. Once the state recognizes the union for state purposes and benefits, the next step is federal for their benefits. The people's representatives voted it in, 5 appointed justices clothed in black voted it out. For the purposes of thinking about judicial power, how would the joyous throng think if the majority had decided differently. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote: The state power issue has a second facet. Where is my state's power when activists can go to a neighboring state, agitate for gay marriage, then force my state to recognize them? Anyone alive during the Clinton years when DOMA was passed into law can remember that this was the activist's strategy. Once the state recognizes the union for state purposes and benefits, the next step is federal for their benefits. The people's representatives voted it in, 5 appointed justices clothed in black voted it out. For the purposes of thinking about judicial power, how would the joyous throng think if the majority had decided differently. This illustrates why the system works well (imo at least). States are often used as experiments before going to the federal level. In this way legislation can be tested and if anything unforeseen arises can then be modified or axed before subjecting the rest of the nation to a flawed bill. And considering some of the recent legislation in places like Arizona, it's a damn good thing that it doesn't trump federal law lol. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2013 08:16 Lockitupv2 wrote: Probably one of the most frustrating days of my life. Ignoring the fact of massive misunderstanding of why the scotus ruled each way and the actual outcomes, people who wanted doma to be overturned are cheering for the scotus. Lets be serious for a moment. No one, gay or straight, has any reason to thank anyone in office for these outcomes. There is only one thing you can thank and that is the Constitution. Well, I guess you could thank the people who wrote it. The supreme court doesnt care about your campaign for gay marriage. It doesnt care about your equality. It doesnt even care if you are gay. The supreme court cares only about one thing which is making sure the laws/rules/etc are all valid under the constitution. Also, it was a good day for state rights. If only there was a politician who believed greatly in state rights. It gets a bad rep for being old (by some) but that hardly means it is irrelevant. Supreme court has been playing its hand with social issues for years now. If enough justices think that something's a good idea, they'll search and search and write themselves in circles until they feel they've done enough writing, and make their ruling. This has been going on since at least the Warren Court (1950's) onwards. On the topic of state rights, have you heard of "bald, unreasoned disclaimer?" Yeah, that's when the court decision pretends to hem the scope of the ruling without any rationale. The same arguments the court uses, namely that DOMA-type marriage definitions "[demean] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects" will be used to extend the ruling to legalize gay marriage in states. I urge those of you confident in the assurances of the court that it won't touch state rights to listen closely in the next cases. Listen with open ears when the opinions cite language from this supreme court decision, and remember that some pundits believed that other language in the opinion would keep state laws intact. The rationale in this decision is equally applicable to state laws on marriage definition, and maybe Scalia was right when he said, "The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with." | ||
|
Daethan
United States59 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote: The state power issue has a second facet. Where is my state's power when activists can go to a neighboring state, agitate for gay marriage, then force my state to recognize them? Anyone alive during the Clinton years when DOMA was passed into law can remember that this was the activist's strategy. Once the state recognizes the union for state purposes and benefits, the next step is federal for their benefits. The people's representatives voted it in, 5 appointed justices clothed in black voted it out. For the purposes of thinking about judicial power, how would the joyous throng think if the majority had decided differently. You obviously didn't read the Court's ruling because it said just the opposite. No one's state is being forced to recognize same-sex marriage performed in another state because of Section 2 of DOMA... yet. In fact, how many millions of dollars were flooded into California to pass Prop 8 to write discrimination into that state's constitution, so spare us your outrage until your poor little state is really brought into the fold of liberty. Federalism nor democracy grants the power to deny people of their rights. Not a president, not a legislature and certainly not a referendum. Thank god that some people in those black robes remember that, otherwise we'd still be drinking from separate water fountains. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote: No, they didn't decide that the policy aspects were irrelevant. They simply decided the data being used was outdated. They kept the policies, but asked for current data. That's it. That is the public policy aspect. They can do it if they want, but they can't turn around and decry activism the very next day. It is not an originalist position to invalidate a law based on out-of-date data, that's for Congress to decide. They took a legislative stance. And then said taking a legislative stance is bad. | ||
|
Nymzee
3929 Posts
| ||
|
MiX
United States109 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:58 Danglars wrote: Supreme court has been playing its hand with social issues for years now. If enough justices think that something's a good idea, they'll search and search and write themselves in circles until they feel they've done enough writing, and make their ruling. This has been going on since at least the Warren Court (1950's) onwards. On the topic of state rights, have you heard of "bald, unreasoned disclaimer?" Yeah, that's when the court decision pretends to hem the scope of the ruling without any rationale. The same arguments the court uses, namely that DOMA-type marriage definitions "[demean] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects" will be used to extend the ruling to legalize gay marriage in states. I urge those of you confident in the assurances of the court that it won't touch state rights to listen closely in the next cases. Listen with open ears when the opinions cite language from this supreme court decision, and remember that some pundits believed that other language in the opinion would keep state laws intact. The rationale in this decision is equally applicable to state laws on marriage definition, and maybe Scalia was right when he said, "The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with." The whole point of a court system is to override the will of the majority. If all they ever did was agree with the majority there would be no point to the institution. What makes me want to vomit is that some people are making it out like the states are being victimized by this. I'm pretty sure the victim here is the minority that's been relegated to second class citizens and have had their rights stripped away to appease bigots masquerading as 'moral people.' | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2013 11:05 Daethan wrote: You obviously didn't read the Court's ruling because it said just the opposite. No one's state is being forced to recognize same-sex marriage performed in another state because of Section 2 of DOMA... yet. In fact, how many millions of dollars were flooded into California to pass Prop 8 to write discrimination into that state's constitution, so spare us your outrage until your poor little state is really brought into the fold of liberty. Federalism nor democracy grants the power to deny people of their rights. Not a president, not a legislature and certainly not a referendum. Thank god that some people in those black robes remember that, otherwise we'd still be drinking from separate water fountains. I can only stand by what I wrote about how easily arguments made here apply to cases challenging state law, and how this was important enough to the justices themselves that this was mentioned by the majority opinion and two dissenting opinions. I refer you to the second paragraph of mine that you quoted about why I believe this, as well as arguments presented by Scalia (With Thomas and Roberts) as to the why. If it was so obvious that state laws are just as secure today as they were yesterday, I wonder as to why justices devoted whole 3 paragraphs of the opinion on conflicting sides of that. We were told that striking down homosexual sodomy laws would not affect any formal recognition to any relationships homosexuals sought to enter. On June 27 2013 11:25 MiX wrote: The whole point of a court system is to override the will of the majority. If all they ever did was agree with the majority there would be no point to the institution. What makes me want to vomit is that some people are making it out like the states are being victimized by this. I'm pretty sure the victim here is the minority that's been relegated to second class citizens and have had their rights stripped away to appease bigots masquerading as 'moral people.' No, Mix, the Court is there to adjudicate disputes within the structure of the law. When those disputes involve laws thought to interfere with the aggrieved party's constitutional rights, should the claim be valid, they are able to rule in favor of the party and strike down portions of the law. The duty of the court is to uphold the constitution. Nine men are not appointed to override the will of the majority, they are intended to impartially rule regardless of where the majority stands. It has a specific need apart from what the majority thinks. State's rights suffered a blow here, as I mentioned in the second paragraph of what you quoted. There is historical reason to fear that coming cases in states will draw from the rationale in the supreme court, paying no attention to the inadequately argued restrictions put upon the scope of the decision. | ||
|
sick_transit
United States195 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 27 2013 12:35 sick_transit wrote: I don't know if anyone cares but I and some colleagues submitted an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the opponents of DOMA/Prop 8 and I am stoked! This is a great day for civil rights. History in the making. That's awesome! Thank you for your civic efforts. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
A largely irrelevant ruling. It's merely a symptom of the larger forces at work, though it is a ruling I find strikingly repugnant and unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, congratulations to the Progressives. I loathe you no less for it, but your techniques are unquestionably effective and your apparatus, without a doubt, far more advanced. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On June 27 2013 12:57 Kimaker wrote: "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."- Aristotle Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler + p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
"What’s next? Using sound judgment and compassion to foster a more humane culture and system of government? This is pure lunacy.” | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler + p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. I love you. Thank you for this. | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler + p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" -Abraham Lincoln On June 27 2013 13:37 RParks42 wrote: Too many people are trying to extrapolate more meaning out of this decision than what was intended. Marriage is a State decision, and DOMA violated the State's rights to determine whether they extend tax benefits or not to gay couples. That is it, there is no stance being shown on gay marriage here, there is no rights being given or taken away, only the ability for the State to determine for themselves how to solve the issue without having a federal restriction telling them what to do So what was wrong about what happened? | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
On June 27 2013 11:14 Nymzee wrote: Not a shocking revelation. Why is this even up for discussion? some guy already tried this line and it didnt go well, lol. As someone who voted against Prop 8, Im happy that this happened. | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
Absolutely nothing, in my opinion the correct decision was made, and nothing more. It just annoys me when people take this ruling either too seriously/personally or as if it's an historic, landmark decision | ||
| ||
