Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
Is the ACA that much different than Medicare or Social Security? I realize there are a relatively small number of folks that think those programs were unconstitutional bad ideas, but those two programs are pretty well-accepted now, and generally credited with having improved the lives of our seniors.
Whereas a step in the direction of organized governmental support of a single religion is a pretty different direction for this country, and I'm not sure I like the idea of heading towards being Saudi Arabia or Isreal.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
May 6, 2014 - 01:09pm PT
Numerous Supreme Court decisions. Google "constitution incorporation"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
So there! That answers your long, ill-informed post. You just learned something new, courtesy of dirtbag. You're welcome.
You really can't read, can you?
The first sentence of that document states that view was first adopted in 1925.
What does that have to do with how the Bill of rights was written and what it says? A century and a quarter later, the courts stole for themselves a power that was never granted.
It is why the 11th amendment was written to begin with.
Time for another 11th.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
And as for Thomas, it's pretty easy to question his abilities. He never asks any questions, and authors relatively few opinions. And when he does, they are often pretty extreme, like the one attached to this decision.
I may disagree with Scalia frequently, but at least he provides evidence of a strong intellect. Thomas doesn't do that at all.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
I think the opposite is true. I have read one Thomas opinion in my area of expertise and it was well written and reasonable. Scalia's opinions are invective laced and riddled with intellectual dishonesty. He is funny sometimes.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
And as for Thomas, it's pretty easy to question his abilities. He never asks any questions,
In my experience, appellate issues are so thoroughly briefed that oral argument is usually a waste of time. It exists solely for the entertainment of the gallery, the appearance of giving the parties their "day in court," and for the media to use in speculating at the final ruling. I have never had an appellate judge ask me a question that truly reflected indecision. Almost always, the questions were mere arguments. While I've never argued before the SCOTUS, I've been before the Ninth and Tenth Circuits enough to have a pretty good feel for how federal appeals work.
My experience with trial courts, however, has often been the opposite. Many law and motion matters at the trial court level are not as thoroughly briefed, nor as completely explored or refined, as they become on appeal. Often the trial court's questions reflect genuine indecision, and guide attentive counsel in presenting the case or, if the matter is taken under submission, in making an appropriate settlement offer.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
No, it isn't a fundamental right in that context. In private they can worship however they want. As public employees on duty their actions are actions undertaken on behalf of the state. There are certain things as public employees they simply cannot do on duty.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
The first amendment covers it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Notwithstanding the tortured reasoning of the court majority.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
The first amendment covers it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Notwithstanding the tortured reasoning of the court majority.
Yes, exactly. And Congress didn't do anything in this case. The terms of the first amendment are met. There is no tortured reasoning, just reasoning you don't like.
You have to look to the fourteenth amendment in this case, to see where the courts and congress assume their power over the states with respect to individual freedom.
It does, of course, supersede the provisions it and the first amendment both touch on.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Once again you're ignoring decades of established case law applying the first amendment broadly.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
Actually, I'm applying the first amendment narrowly, and how it is written.
You can't find anything in the constitution that says it should be interpreted any way other than how the founders understood it.
The rest is revisionist. Case law is political. Dread Scott was case law. justice Roger Brooks Taney wrote that a black man had no rights a white man need respect as case law.here was the Courts majority decision in that case law
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument...They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
Any of that look like ten amendment freedoms?
It is ( or was) case law.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Quite a ramble there. Focus, Lorenzo. Courts have always had a role in interpreting laws. Sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly. So?
And try reading past the first sentence in that link. Or find a different source: there are others, if that one isn't clear. This isn't cutting edge stuff.
Curious, would you prefer that the first amendment not apply to state and local government? I.e., give states the option of amending their laws to limit your right to speech?
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
What I prefer has little to do with anything. I'm just asking you to read the constitution.
You have to see what the constitution actually says before you use it to support your views. You clearly aren't doing that.
You are the guy that claims law according to the first amendment. It ain't so.
You can't read or understand what the first amendment says.
And you brought up case law, I didn't . I gave you case law. It has nothing to do with any of the ten amendments in the bill of rights.So don't backpedal from case law when it is contrary to your views.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Gotta agree with Lorenzo here. The SCOTUS was expressly instituted as a court of law, or to STRICTLY interpret and enforce the Constitution. It has indeed over the years, grown too political and ideological.
The Constitution is a very simple document. I guess the problem is that issues have arisen that our founders never perceived.
But that does not mean the Constitution should be changed necessarily. Some stuff should just be thrown out of the court, back to the States.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
I'm a little disturbed that it is bluering that comes to my defence here.
He probably wouldn't be very happy with what the constitution actually says about religion.
It mostly says religion has no role in government.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Whoa blue. I saw SCROTUM and thought you were talkin' about "Show & Tell" Clarence Thomas. My bad.
As long as we're on the Supreme Court, he actually did all the stuff that Anita Hill claimed and more. It has nothing to do with him being black, it's just a perv kinda thing irresponsible guys do.
Got any proof to the contrary, send it on up.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
As long as we're on the Supreme Court, he actually did all the stuff that Anita Hill claimed and more. It has nothing to do with him being black, it's just a perv kinda thing irresponsible guys do.
Got any proof to the contrary, send it on up.
This is stupid, and childish.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
This is stupid, and childish.
Of Mr. Thomas, I agree.
Are you disputing Anita Hill's account. How? By blue fiat?
Hwre's a small sample of what reallhy went down.
Thomas denied Hill's accusations, few witnesses were called to support her (she wasn't the nominee) and the nominee was confirmed, 52 to 48. But that didn't settle the mystery at the heart of those hearings. In front of the whole country and under oath, one of two people had lied. Since one of those people is now a Supreme Court Justice who cast a vote making George W. Bush President, the point is far from moot. And last week the mystery took another turn, thanks to former American Spectator character assassin David Brock, the man designated by the right to destroy Hill's reputation and scrub Thomas'. Brock confesses in a Talk magazine excerpt of his new book, Blinded by the Right, that he had printed "virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation" he could to make Hill seem "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." If that was all Brock did, we might have nothing more than another sin committed on behalf of the vast right-wing conspiracy. But Brock, who has forged a second career as a recovering conservative, makes one admission that implicates Thomas. Brock says he used information that came indirectly from Thomas to force a retraction from a woman named Kaye Savage, who had come forward in support of Hill. Brock threatened to publicize vicious charges made by her ex-husband in a sealed child-custody dispute.
In an interview with TIME last week, Savage recalled her meeting with Brock in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington in 1994. A book titled Strange Justice, by reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, had just come out — and it used on-the-record interviews to argue persuasively that Thomas had indeed subjected a number of women to frequent sexually explicit remarks about porno videos. Savage, a black mid-level aide in the Reagan Administration, told both the authors and the Judiciary Committee (although she wasn't called to testify publicly) that when she went to Thomas' apartment in the early 1980s, the place was littered with graphic photos of nude women. When Savage met Brock, she says, he let her know he could ruin her. "He knew all this personal stuff," she says. "He wanted me to take back what I had said. I couldn't — it was true — but I was intimidated, and so I faxed him something innocuous. I was scared."
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Are you disputing Anita Hill's account. How? By blue fiat?
This was dragged through the court of public opinion and he was deemed innocent enough to be approved to the SC.
It was a Tawana Brawley/Al Sharpton all over again.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Dragged is right. Read up on it. Anita Hill was the victim though.
the right wing threw ”virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation” in her direction. That’s according to David Brock, the man who later regretted his crusade to publicly portray Hill as ”a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
David Brock is not exactly a great source, dude. He runs Media Matters. Paid by George Soros.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|