UPNetwork

UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   Debate (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   American Politics (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=4569)

Shuckle 06-26-2015 03:11 PM

I don't mind judicial activism but I do worry that there is confusion about whether marriage is a religious or a social institution, and if it is left alone, it will lead to conflict somewhere down the line.

Overall it's positive and I like how civil rights have expanded. I think that this is one of those rare cases where something can be problematic and not really the right decision in an academic sense but in a practical sense exactly what was needed. This will change a lot of things for the better in our daily life.

And just between you and me, I think the Constitution will be fine. It's the Church that's somewhat threatened by the state stepping on its toes a bit.

Talon87 06-26-2015 03:16 PM

On the one hand, I sympathize with Roberts' position that this ruling undermines states' sovereignty and the separation between the federal government and state governments. ("The Constitution also maintains the sovereignty of each state." "The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces this idea of parallel sovereignty, declaring that the powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states." - Wikipedia)

On the other hand, I think we all know that states' sovereignty have been undermined going back to FDR at a bare minimum and Lincoln at a more reasonable minimum. "Is America a confederacy of allied member states? Or is it a single entity akin to European nations?" was a question answered by Union forces 150 years ago, whether one likes or agrees with the answer or not.

So while I do sympathize with Roberts' point that this ruling further undermines what the Forefathers intended America to be, I disagree with his assertion that this ruling is the Great Upset, the monster which will transmogrify America from an 18th century idyll to a 21st century dystopia. If that is to happen, it's certainly thanks to gears already in motion long before gay men could even publicize their sexuality, much less get married in public.

Jerichi 06-26-2015 03:29 PM

Roberts seems to be acting like this is some revolutionary change in how the Court operates. From what I can tell this kind of thing is no different from SCOTUS taking sodomy laws off the books in the 70's or something like Roe v. Wade.

Talon87 06-26-2015 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 694086)
Roberts seems to be acting like this is some revolutionary change in how the Court operates. From what I can tell this kind of thing is no different from SCOTUS taking sodomy laws off the books in the 70's or something like Roe v. Wade.

Precisely. (IMO.) I sympathize with his points that:
  1. the Forefathers intended the United States to be more akin to a confederation of allied sovereign states than a monolithic nation
  2. rulings such as this one undermine that vision
but this is by no means a change in the way the Supreme Court has been operating for the past century.

In other news:
Quote:

1986: In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court upheld Georgia's state law making sodomy a crime. The Court said that constitutional rights to privacy did not encompass what it called "homosexual sodomy," and that the law served a legitimate state interest, namely promoting what the court defined as "majority sentiments about ... morality."
Source. And wow: it shows you just how quickly this 180 has come. Not but twenty-nine years ago, the Supreme Court was affirming that homosexual sex acts were immoral -- and not just immoral but immoral enough that their practitioners' rights to privacy were superseded by the illegality of the acts committed by them in the bedroom. And now here we are, twenty-nine years later, where not only do we as a society give an OK to gay sex, not only do we give an OK to gays being celebrated members of our communities, but we even have 60% of people polled saying that they believe gays should be allowed to marry, to hell with what private religious institutions have to say about marriage. What a 180. And in just twenty-nine years. Man.

Heather 06-26-2015 04:50 PM

My sister gave me the news while we were waiting to get into Steak N' Shake today and while I was quiet about it because my rather conservative mother was nearby, in my head it was a huge party. I'm also glad that opponents of gay marriage are now trying to actually make a rational legal argument for their stance. While I don't agree with them, it's a breath of fresh air from all the Bible beaters and dictionary huggers. Of course, there now remains the issue of dealing with discrimination, as states alarmingly lack preventative measures in that department, but I'm sure that it can get done. For today, however, it's a great day.

Doppleganger 06-26-2015 05:42 PM

Scalia's argument sounds like "framer's intent" which is not something that should be endorsed. It's a concept that leads to judicial activism by inferring whatever evidence one wants to support a view.

True framer intent was that the founding fathers intended the constitution to be updated and relevant to ever changing political climates, not trying to stem those climates using the constitution. Saying gay marriage was not original intent is just as bad as saying the 14th amendment permits abortion because it specifically references having to be born.

Talon87 06-26-2015 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myles Fowl II (Post 694106)
I'm also glad that opponents of gay marriage are now trying to actually make a rational legal argument for their stance.

None of the legal arguments against gay marriage are new. People have been advocating, "Leave it up to the states to decide! Democracy, man!" since California's Proposition 8.

Roberts notes this in his dissent, but for quite some time the American people have made a habit of turning to the judiciary to get legislation they don't like tossed out -- regardless of its legality within the greater framework of the law -- rather than reserving judicial action only for those instances where they believe the law was not upheld or was misapplied. Some will say that that's precisely what happened here -- the 14th Amendment was not properly being applied before today, they will say, and that that's what this case was all about. Roberts & Co., for their parts, see it differently: they feel that litigants and their supporters ought to have pursued change through legislative reform (i.e. getting local governments to pass new laws or to amend old ones, making it so that SSM is legal) rather than through judicial strongarming of the legislature.

Whether you agree with his position or not is besides the point: what he's saying is something which has been in the dialogue for every gay wedding cake feud and every Prop 8 discussion of the past five years. "Assuming gay marriage is right just for the sake of argument, is the best way to go about securing it via the courts or via the legislature?" Maybe not in LGBT circles so much, where the pessimism with the legislature was high(er) and the desire for justice great(er), but certainly in Christian bakery, ministry, etc. circles. "If they want it this way, they have to go through the proper legal channels. A minority should not be using the Supreme Court to overrule the democracy of a majority."

I dunno. Shit gets complicated very quickly. Especially when you start analogizing with slavery. (E.g. does a "will of the majority" argument really hold up when that will calls for slave-holding rights?) All I can say is, agree or disagree with him, Roberts' views are by no means new.

Doppleganger 06-26-2015 08:17 PM

The Supreme Court could simply have refused to take the case understanding that, however. It strikes me that Obama's appointees did not really care for the precedent ramifications of what Roberts is talking about in forcing the Court to entertain this case, which is stupid, immature and short sighted.

Talon87 06-26-2015 10:43 PM

Fanart! (Comments!)

Rangeet 06-26-2015 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shuckle (Post 694078)
I don't mind judicial activism but I do worry that there is confusion about whether marriage is a religious or a social institution, and if it is left alone, it will lead to conflict somewhere down the line.

We've already had this discussion. Marriage being a religious institution is, comparatively, completely a new thing, and given that marriage does not actually require a minister or priest or any kind to occur...I think you can easily draw the conclusion that marriage is a social institution unless you want it to be so. Which, of course, does not give you the right to insist that it must be for someone else.

I'm very happy that this has happened, though I do wonder...for those of you who know this stuff, is there any way a state could theoretically fight this?

Sparkbeat 06-26-2015 10:59 PM

Although the consequences would possibly be much greater this time around, Alabama might try to do its thing again where even if the Supreme Court demands the state to give out SSM licenses, the Alabama state judges or just the people in charge of that just refuse to do it and order it not to be done.

Emi 06-26-2015 11:02 PM

I think its also possible that it could come back to the Supreme Court again later on, but its been a long time since I've studied the Judicial System.

Jerichi 06-27-2015 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 694128)
The Supreme Court could simply have refused to take the case understanding that, however. It strikes me that Obama's appointees did not really care for the precedent ramifications of what Roberts is talking about in forcing the Court to entertain this case, which is stupid, immature and short sighted.

Could they have though? Even if they aren't threatened by any kind of unseating, public opinion is still going to influence them, especially if they have some sort of partisan association (which they unquestionably do, even if they're supposed to not). If they were to throw it out, they'd get vitriol from both sides that would make them look bad and reduce the public's trust in them as the body of the supreme law of the land. Throwing out such a landmark case because you're afraid to make precedents is possibly even more stupid, immature and short sighted than seeing it through.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emi (Post 694153)
I think its also possible that it could come back to the Supreme Court again later on, but its been a long time since I've studied the Judicial System.

They'd probably have to see an entirely different case for that to happen. I don't know that Double Jeopardy applies here necessarily but I think it would be tough to overturn this ruling unless someone else manages to sue their way to the Supreme Court again, and I think it's gone past the point of no return at this stage.

Schadenfreude 06-27-2015 12:58 AM

https://41.media.tumblr.com/27abefee...yo2_r1_540.jpg

https://33.media.tumblr.com/0a5997c7...6vjyo1_540.gif

https://38.media.tumblr.com/6f0a11e6...t7nwgb_500.gif

Jerichi 06-27-2015 08:48 AM

Notorious RBG

Mercutio 06-27-2015 09:05 AM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...s-gay-marriage

phoopes 06-27-2015 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercutio (Post 694208)

>"Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child."

Exactly! This is why when a couple gets divorced or a parent dies, the children are instantly sent to foster care. Children need both a male and female role model in their lives in order to become good people and productive members of society, which is why single parenting is strictly prohibited.

>"And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment," he continued.

>On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

:roll:

Jerichi 06-27-2015 10:26 AM

Some counties in Mississippi and Alabama are refusing to marry anyone now that everyone can get married lol

Doppleganger 06-27-2015 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87 (Post 694147)

Hot. This is the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 694164)
Could they have though? Even if they aren't threatened by any kind of unseating, public opinion is still going to influence them, especially if they have some sort of partisan association (which they unquestionably do, even if they're supposed to not). If they were to throw it out, they'd get vitriol from both sides that would make them look bad and reduce the public's trust in them as the body of the supreme law of the land. Throwing out such a landmark case because you're afraid to make precedents is possibly even more stupid, immature and short sighted than seeing it through.

It's happened countless of times in history, from things like Puerto Rico as a state to MLB's immunity to anti-trust and naturalisation of illegal immigrants. The court is a denier by default, which is why there's only like 20 court cases that really changed precedent in the court's 200 year history.

From what I heard in school, gay marriage was always seen as a gateway issue preventing legal polygamy and incest in the US, because there are equally infirm arguments against both as there are against gay marriage. Even as support for LGBT grew, there was always this trepidation at seeing incest/polygamy make its way through the courts someday. This idea may sound surprising, but it's the same domino theory that lead to Korea/Vietnam: we can't let the status quo change at all, because it'll change completely.

The SC has no obligation to review the judgement of lower courts unless a writ of certiori is filed, which requires four justices. Even then, what they review can be easily applied just to the state in question, broader inferences about all fifty states are not necessary. So, they absolutely didn't make any effort to disguise that this was activist.

Also, the SC doesn't have to worry about what the public thinks. The public has no role in electing justices so they have little to fear. The main threat is Congress, which can outright ignore SC rulings because the SC has no enforcement agency, and the President who with the aid of Congress can adjust the SC size to sway opinion in favour of his policies.

Note that I'm just taking this approach because it was brought up. Activism and framer's intent are generic/cliched complaints to all sorts of cases for unhappy justices. I'm highly suspicious then that the dissents were so non-unique to this particular case.

Talon87 07-18-2015 06:03 PM

This man is a walking, talking Onion article.

Emi 07-18-2015 06:07 PM

I do wonder if Trump is going to sink the Republican ship and give the Democrats a win. Then again this is just ill-informed political talk.

Talon87 07-18-2015 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emi (Post 698453)
I do wonder if Trump is going to sink the Republican ship and give the Democrats a win. Then again this is just ill-informed political talk.

There is no way the Republican Party will hand this man the ticket. Never mind giving the Democrats an automatic win: the man has revealed time and time again that he is unfit to lead a nation, never mind one of the world's superpowers.

That stated, we will have to see whether his latest comments will torpedo his popularity with rednecks Tea Partygoers or not. I should think they would. I'll be surprised at the fathomless stupidity and fanaticism of that voting bloc if they stand behind Trump even after all he's had to say about POWs.

Concept 07-18-2015 06:28 PM

Donald Trump won't get the nomination. He will make a shitload of money off the publicity for his run, which is almost certainly all he wants. Iirc he got paid an enormous amount of money to keep him on The Apprentice when he started publically considering running for 2012.

Deebs 07-18-2015 09:20 PM

I haven't actually researched kt, but from what I've been seeing I wouldn't be surprised if he's losing money. A lot of businesses have pulled support from his brand.

Shuckle 07-19-2015 02:48 AM

I actually believe that Trump is looking for people to call him an idiot because he's probably surrounded by people who will echo his every statement and tell him that he's right, everything he wants to hear, etc. He wants criticism, obviously!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.