|
On June 27 2013 12:57 Kimaker wrote:
"It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."- Aristotle
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.
I swear, gotta respect the apparatus that brought all this about. Disagree at the core with your opponent, oppose him at every step, but respect that boundless energy and effective tactics that culminate in victory after victory on social, fiscal, judicial, and constitutional issues.
|
On June 27 2013 13:30 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. I love you. Thank you for this.
I feel like I'm missing a joke here. Quotes can't be translated...?
|
On June 27 2013 14:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:30 JinDesu wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. I love you. Thank you for this. I feel like I'm missing a joke here. Quotes can't be translated...?
The point was Aristotle wasn't speaking very posthumously.
|
On June 27 2013 14:16 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 14:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 27 2013 13:30 JinDesu wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. I love you. Thank you for this. I feel like I'm missing a joke here. Quotes can't be translated...? The point was Aristotle wasn't speaking very posthumously.
Yeah, obviously. I just assumed that the quote was speaking generally about having two classes of citizens which means it would have applicability here even though it wasn't initially said in relation to this 
|
On June 27 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
If the people's representatives would have voted in that blacks can't vote, 9 appointed justices clothed in black would have voted it out quite quickly. And rightly so. It is their JOB to test laws against the constitution, which is the very core of the united states, and makes it a 'constitutional republic', to 'protect the people from the tyranny the majority', or words to that effect. If you don't like that, then get rid of the constitution and the constitutional court...
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 27 2013 13:47 RParks42 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:40 Roe wrote: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? 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
Well, for the lady who brought the case and had her marriage federally mandated as 2nd tier, and was forced to pay a large amount of estate tax because of said law, it is pretty 'historic' and 'landmark'. And this goes for any gay married couple in the US who were/are fucked up the butt by a federal law explicitly discriminating against them.
No-one's really contending that it goes 'all the way' or is totally comprehensive, but it's a pretty important step. For people not affected and looking on, it's a small progression and not a watershed, but the ruling *does* directly affect gay people throughout the US, often notably.
|
On June 27 2013 13:47 RParks42 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:40 Roe wrote: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? 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
This is a landmark decision, because it recognizes that federally-dictated animus vs. homosexual people is not allowed under the 5th amendment.
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
You're heavily misreading misreading the opinion, since it was based on equal protection. The opinion only strays off a little bit into states right. DOMA however, was found to be unconstitutional under the 5th amendment, that was the main thrust of the majority opinion, and indeed in de closing remarks:
By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Brushing this off as a 'its left to the states' doesn't do justice to the careful construction of argument in the opinion. There are quite a few passages related to how same-sex couple are discriminated against, and how this discrimination goes against the 5th amendment.
|
On June 27 2013 11:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:03 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"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 every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore was always going to end the way it did. The SCOTUS is never gong to decide or overturn an election. Ever. Even if it is flawed and broken, you are stuck with the election that you ran. The SCOTUS will never people sue because they don't like the outcome of the presidential election. That is a true slippery slope and they will never go near it. What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide. The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job." As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago. That is fucking judicial activism. They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with. I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory. The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s. And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information." 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. 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.
Yes, they ruled that the law was based on bad, outdated data. They did not rule that the law was wrong or could not be in place. They found that the lawyers for the Government could not prove that the law was based on any current information of discrimination within a specific state. Because of this, they found that the Federal Government could not impose restrictions on a state without good cause.
They didn't impose a law or throw it out, only that it was poorly written and applied. Activism would be to throw out the entire law or impose a ruling that changed the law as a whole. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism.
|
On June 27 2013 14:23 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 14:16 Roe wrote:On June 27 2013 14:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On June 27 2013 13:30 JinDesu wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. I love you. Thank you for this. I feel like I'm missing a joke here. Quotes can't be translated...? The point was Aristotle wasn't speaking very posthumously. Yeah, obviously. I just assumed that the quote was speaking generally about having two classes of citizens which means it would have applicability here even though it wasn't initially said in relation to this
Aristotle didn't say it at all.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle#Misattributed
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 22:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 11:12 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:03 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"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 every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore was always going to end the way it did. The SCOTUS is never gong to decide or overturn an election. Ever. Even if it is flawed and broken, you are stuck with the election that you ran. The SCOTUS will never people sue because they don't like the outcome of the presidential election. That is a true slippery slope and they will never go near it. What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide. The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job." As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago. That is fucking judicial activism. They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with. I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory. The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s. And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information." 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. 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. Yes, they ruled that the law was based on bad, outdated data. They did not rule that the law was wrong or could not be in place. They found that the lawyers for the Government could not prove that the law was based on any current information of discrimination within a specific state. Because of this, they found that the Federal Government could not impose restrictions on a state without good cause. They didn't impose a law or throw it out, only that it was poorly written and applied. Activism would be to throw out the entire law or impose a ruling that changed the law as a whole. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism.
I don't know what to tell you, but you're wrong and your understanding of judicial activism is completely wrong.
If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. This says it all. Roberts did not make an argument based on constitutionality, he made an argument based on the nuts and bolts of the law. If he had said the law was unconstitutional to begin with, which he certainly could've argued, then that would be within the bounds of judicial restraint. He didn't question the validity of the law. In fact, he said the law was good and necessary during its time. Then he said it's not proven necessary today, and that is a judgment of the VRA's criteria, not of its constitutionality.
The decision went exactly against what Scalia wrote about, and was a far more reaching example of judicial activism than the ruling on DoMA was. I understand you want to defend yourself, but you're absolutely incorrect on this. The VRA was extended in 2006 which means that the 109th Congress felt its criteria and evidence were still valid, and reauthorized it for another 25 years. This wasn't a 50 year old oversight, this was reviewed and extended 7 years ago.
He could have made a constitutionality decision. That would've been fine. But instead Roberts, with Scalia agreeing and speaking about it in very similar (if not bigoted) terms elsewhere, made a legislative argument, over the nuts and bolts of a law which was reviewed and renewed within the past decade. The point of all this is that they're all judicial activists. All 9 justices.
The majority's objections to the formula by which inclusion in the pre-clearance system is determined are theoretical — if the formula is old, it must be no good. Congress, on the other hand, documented scores of examples of blatant attempts to suppress or dilute minority votes during the 25 years before the 2006 reauthorization. The House and Senate held nearly two dozen hearings and amassed a 15,000-page record in making their determination that the states subject to pre-clearance should remain so because "intentional racial discrimination" in those jurisdictions remains "serious and widespread." The court's decision substitutes its judgment for Congress' in a matter that cuts to the core of our principles of political equality, and that is judicial activism at its worst.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-06-25/news/bs-ed-voting-rights-act-20130625_1_voting-rights-act-pre-clearance-chief-justice-roberts
|
On June 28 2013 03:02 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:46 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 11:12 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:03 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Bush v Gore was always going to end the way it did. The SCOTUS is never gong to decide or overturn an election. Ever. Even if it is flawed and broken, you are stuck with the election that you ran. The SCOTUS will never people sue because they don't like the outcome of the presidential election. That is a true slippery slope and they will never go near it. What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide. The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job." As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago. That is fucking judicial activism. They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with. I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory. The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s. And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information." 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. 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. Yes, they ruled that the law was based on bad, outdated data. They did not rule that the law was wrong or could not be in place. They found that the lawyers for the Government could not prove that the law was based on any current information of discrimination within a specific state. Because of this, they found that the Federal Government could not impose restrictions on a state without good cause. They didn't impose a law or throw it out, only that it was poorly written and applied. Activism would be to throw out the entire law or impose a ruling that changed the law as a whole. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. I don't know what to tell you, but you're wrong and your understanding of judicial activism is completely wrong. Show nested quote + If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. This says it all. Roberts did not make an argument based on constitutionality, he made an argument based on the nuts and bolts of the law. If he had said the law was unconstitutional to begin with, which he certainly could've argued, then that would be within the bounds of judicial restraint. He didn't question the validity of the law. In fact, he said the law was good and necessary during its time. Then he said it's not proven necessary today, and that is a judgment of the VRA's criteria, not of its constitutionality. The decision went exactly against what Scalia wrote about, and was a far more reaching example of judicial activism than the ruling on DoMA was. I understand you want to defend yourself, but you're absolutely incorrect on this. The VRA was extended in 2006 which means that the 109th Congress felt its criteria and evidence were still valid, and reauthorized it for another 25 years. This wasn't a 50 year old oversight, this was reviewed and extended 7 years ago. He could have made a constitutionality decision. That would've been fine. But instead Roberts, with Scalia agreeing and speaking about it in very similar (if not bigoted) terms elsewhere, made a legislative argument, over the nuts and bolts of a law which was reviewed and renewed within the past decade. The point of all this is that they're all judicial activists. All 9 justices. Show nested quote +The majority's objections to the formula by which inclusion in the pre-clearance system is determined are theoretical — if the formula is old, it must be no good. Congress, on the other hand, documented scores of examples of blatant attempts to suppress or dilute minority votes during the 25 years before the 2006 reauthorization. The House and Senate held nearly two dozen hearings and amassed a 15,000-page record in making their determination that the states subject to pre-clearance should remain so because "intentional racial discrimination" in those jurisdictions remains "serious and widespread." The court's decision substitutes its judgment for Congress' in a matter that cuts to the core of our principles of political equality, and that is judicial activism at its worst. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-06-25/news/bs-ed-voting-rights-act-20130625_1_voting-rights-act-pre-clearance-chief-justice-roberts
One might say that the concept of judicial activism is a subjective phrase. It is used by both parties when they don't like the ruling, regardless of the ruling itself. I have always viewed it as when a Judge rules either in opposition known, established law, knowing that they will be appealed and lose, or if they create law themselves. Neither happened in this case and the law was ruled to be invalid based on poor information.
|
On June 28 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:02 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 22:46 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 11:12 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:03 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide. The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job." As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago. That is fucking judicial activism. They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with. I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory. The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s. And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information." 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. 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. Yes, they ruled that the law was based on bad, outdated data. They did not rule that the law was wrong or could not be in place. They found that the lawyers for the Government could not prove that the law was based on any current information of discrimination within a specific state. Because of this, they found that the Federal Government could not impose restrictions on a state without good cause. They didn't impose a law or throw it out, only that it was poorly written and applied. Activism would be to throw out the entire law or impose a ruling that changed the law as a whole. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. I don't know what to tell you, but you're wrong and your understanding of judicial activism is completely wrong. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. This says it all. Roberts did not make an argument based on constitutionality, he made an argument based on the nuts and bolts of the law. If he had said the law was unconstitutional to begin with, which he certainly could've argued, then that would be within the bounds of judicial restraint. He didn't question the validity of the law. In fact, he said the law was good and necessary during its time. Then he said it's not proven necessary today, and that is a judgment of the VRA's criteria, not of its constitutionality. The decision went exactly against what Scalia wrote about, and was a far more reaching example of judicial activism than the ruling on DoMA was. I understand you want to defend yourself, but you're absolutely incorrect on this. The VRA was extended in 2006 which means that the 109th Congress felt its criteria and evidence were still valid, and reauthorized it for another 25 years. This wasn't a 50 year old oversight, this was reviewed and extended 7 years ago. He could have made a constitutionality decision. That would've been fine. But instead Roberts, with Scalia agreeing and speaking about it in very similar (if not bigoted) terms elsewhere, made a legislative argument, over the nuts and bolts of a law which was reviewed and renewed within the past decade. The point of all this is that they're all judicial activists. All 9 justices. The majority's objections to the formula by which inclusion in the pre-clearance system is determined are theoretical — if the formula is old, it must be no good. Congress, on the other hand, documented scores of examples of blatant attempts to suppress or dilute minority votes during the 25 years before the 2006 reauthorization. The House and Senate held nearly two dozen hearings and amassed a 15,000-page record in making their determination that the states subject to pre-clearance should remain so because "intentional racial discrimination" in those jurisdictions remains "serious and widespread." The court's decision substitutes its judgment for Congress' in a matter that cuts to the core of our principles of political equality, and that is judicial activism at its worst. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-06-25/news/bs-ed-voting-rights-act-20130625_1_voting-rights-act-pre-clearance-chief-justice-roberts One might say that the concept of judicial activism is a subjective phrase. It is used by both parties when they don't like the ruling, regardless of the ruling itself. I have always viewed it as when a Judge rules either in opposition known, established law, knowing that they will be appealed and lose, or if they create law themselves. Neither happened in this case and the law was ruled to be invalid based on poor information.
Does it count if they basically force the legislature to create a new law? Cause the way it's being explained in this thread, Congress did it's job and the Supreme Court said "nope, we don't like this, redo it."
|
On June 28 2013 03:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 03:02 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 22:46 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 11:12 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 10:22 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 09:38 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job."
As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago. That is fucking judicial activism. They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with. I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory. The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s. And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information." 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. 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. Yes, they ruled that the law was based on bad, outdated data. They did not rule that the law was wrong or could not be in place. They found that the lawyers for the Government could not prove that the law was based on any current information of discrimination within a specific state. Because of this, they found that the Federal Government could not impose restrictions on a state without good cause. They didn't impose a law or throw it out, only that it was poorly written and applied. Activism would be to throw out the entire law or impose a ruling that changed the law as a whole. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. I don't know what to tell you, but you're wrong and your understanding of judicial activism is completely wrong. If they had ruled that the Federal Government NEVER had the ability to impose voting restrictions on a state, that would have been activism. This says it all. Roberts did not make an argument based on constitutionality, he made an argument based on the nuts and bolts of the law. If he had said the law was unconstitutional to begin with, which he certainly could've argued, then that would be within the bounds of judicial restraint. He didn't question the validity of the law. In fact, he said the law was good and necessary during its time. Then he said it's not proven necessary today, and that is a judgment of the VRA's criteria, not of its constitutionality. The decision went exactly against what Scalia wrote about, and was a far more reaching example of judicial activism than the ruling on DoMA was. I understand you want to defend yourself, but you're absolutely incorrect on this. The VRA was extended in 2006 which means that the 109th Congress felt its criteria and evidence were still valid, and reauthorized it for another 25 years. This wasn't a 50 year old oversight, this was reviewed and extended 7 years ago. He could have made a constitutionality decision. That would've been fine. But instead Roberts, with Scalia agreeing and speaking about it in very similar (if not bigoted) terms elsewhere, made a legislative argument, over the nuts and bolts of a law which was reviewed and renewed within the past decade. The point of all this is that they're all judicial activists. All 9 justices. The majority's objections to the formula by which inclusion in the pre-clearance system is determined are theoretical — if the formula is old, it must be no good. Congress, on the other hand, documented scores of examples of blatant attempts to suppress or dilute minority votes during the 25 years before the 2006 reauthorization. The House and Senate held nearly two dozen hearings and amassed a 15,000-page record in making their determination that the states subject to pre-clearance should remain so because "intentional racial discrimination" in those jurisdictions remains "serious and widespread." The court's decision substitutes its judgment for Congress' in a matter that cuts to the core of our principles of political equality, and that is judicial activism at its worst. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-06-25/news/bs-ed-voting-rights-act-20130625_1_voting-rights-act-pre-clearance-chief-justice-roberts One might say that the concept of judicial activism is a subjective phrase. It is used by both parties when they don't like the ruling, regardless of the ruling itself. I have always viewed it as when a Judge rules either in opposition known, established law, knowing that they will be appealed and lose, or if they create law themselves. Neither happened in this case and the law was ruled to be invalid based on poor information. Does it count if they basically force the legislature to create a new law? Cause the way it's being explained in this thread, Congress did it's job and the Supreme Court said "nope, we don't like this, redo it."
The Supreme court has always decided the viability of laws and court rulings based on the constitution. In this specific case, the court said the law was totally fine as long as it was based on current information. Also, it didn't help that congress renewed it for 25 years, so it could be 75 years out of date next time. And invalidating a law isn't necessarily activism. They invalidated a copyright on DNA recently too.
|
On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post.
|
On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post.
Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling.
|
On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling.
I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say.
I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine.
But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is.
TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering.
|
On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling. I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say. I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine. But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is. TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering.
Right. So if it was civil unions and we all had the same rights, you wouldn't care. It seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.
Once again, no one was harmed. Marriage is still marriage. Unless you are using the argument that "gay people getting married means my wife and I can't get it on". At that point I can't help you really.
|
Has it ever been explained how gay marriage causes more harm to heterosexual marriage than divorce?
I don't see laws being introduced banning divorce for the sake of the "sanctity of marriage".
|
On June 28 2013 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote: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. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling. I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say. I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine. But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is. TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering. Right. So if it was civil unions and we all had the same rights, you wouldn't care. It seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Once again, no one was harmed. Marriage is still marriage. Unless you are using the argument that "gay people getting married means my wife and I can't get it on". At that point I can't help you really.
Well I DID say that the ruling was largely irrelevant in my first post...so, I'm not exactly sure what we've having a conversation about then.
O_o?
I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything.
So...we agree-ish?
|
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
