The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

The idea is that a large portion of people who would otherwise line up fairly well with Democratic platforms vote Republican because they're one-issue (abortion) voters.

Furthermore...it's a motivating issue. It fires up the base. The Republicans always raise money particularly well off of Supreme Court nominations, in no small part because of that one single issue. If Roe V. Wade were overturned, then all of that momentum would switch to the other side.

 

Furthermore, whether this country ever wants to admit it or not, there is an enormous amount of "it's ok for me but not for thee" in the abortion debate. Even the most vehement anti-abortion arguer will suddenly become a lot quieter on the issue if his or her 15 year old daughter winds up pregnant.

[StrangeSox]

That is not universally true.

[Balta1701]

That is not universally true.

Of course none of it is "universally" true. But the difference with that issue is...if you overturn Roe v. Wade, you simultaneously pacify 25% of the regular voters, and you suddenly wake up a chunk of the non-voters while at the same time motivating 25% of the regular voters.

[Balta1701]

Wow, West Virginia's succession laws are a mucking fess.

[StrangeSox]

Of course none of it is "universally" true. But the difference with that issue is...if you overturn Roe v. Wade, you simultaneously pacify 25% of the regular voters, and you suddenly wake up a chunk of the non-voters while at the same time motivating 25% of the regular voters.

 

I meant the second part.

[Balta1701]

I meant the second part.

Agreed, that's certainly also not universally true...but you can't tell me it doesn't happen, and you're never going to convince me that it's a coincidence that so many anti-abortion restrictions are set up in a way so as to allow people with a lot of money a way around them, even if it is "going to another state" or something like that.

[StrangeSox]

In another big SC decision today, a 5-4 decision came down in favor of UCLA-Hastings School of Law over a Christian Lawyer group. The group lost official school recognition (read: funding) after enacting a policy that required members to sign a pledge swearing that they were Christians, not homosexuals, etc.. The school removed them from official recognition based on their non-discriminatory policy.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

 

I'll give you one guess who the dissenters were.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628

 

They make some tortured arguments in the dissent.

 

edit: basically, Alito's argument is "you're discriminating against discrimination!" over and over and over again.

Edited June 28, 2010 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

In another big SC decision today, a 5-4 decision came down in favor of UCLA-Hastings School of Law over a Christian Lawyer group. The group lost official school recognition (read: funding) after enacting a policy that required members to sign a pledge swearing that they were Christians, not homosexuals, etc.. The school removed them from official recognition based on their non-discriminatory policy.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

 

I'll give you one guess who the dissenters were.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628

 

They make some tortured arguments in the dissent.

 

edit: basically, Alito's argument is "you're discriminating against discrimination!" over and over and over again.

 

It's dumb from the first paragraph. How is this case about political correctness at all? The club's policy was discriminatory and exclusionary, not offensive.

[StrangeSox]

It's dumb from the first paragraph. How is this case about political correctness at all? The club's policy was discriminatory and exclusionary, not offensive.

 

Alito's (and often Scalia's) legal opinions are offensive in that they're so bad.

[NorthSideSox72]

Alito's (and often Scalia's) legal opinions are offensive in that they're so bad.

I've said before, people were up in arms over the Roberts nomination, but I am much more OK with him than I am with Alito. Alito is just plainly in over his head, and worse, he's a political wind sock, which is exactly what you do not want on SCOTUS.

 

[Balta1701]

I've said before, people were up in arms over the Roberts nomination, but I am much more OK with him than I am with Alito. Alito is just plainly in over his head, and worse, he's a political wind sock, which is exactly what you do not want on SCOTUS.

I think an accurate description of Roberts is that he's scalia but much smarter. He holds most of the same beliefs, but he's able to maneuver the court much more effectively (and he's helped by having the Chief Justice spot).

[StrangeSox]

I think an accurate description of Roberts is that he's scalia but much smarter. He holds most of the same beliefs, but he's able to maneuver the court much more effectively (and he's helped by having the Chief Justice spot).

 

That's why I have more respect for Roberts, even if I disagree with him. People uneducated in the law can often see how bad Alito, Scalia and tag-along Thomas' arguments are.

 

Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized?

[Balta1701]

Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized?

Those who know the court better than me may disagree, but I feel like at least from the 50's/60's on, it has been, even if we don't want to admit it, the question was just who was in control. We had the Warren/Marshall courts back then, who enforced a lot of social decisions on matters like race, abortion, and now we've replaced it with a court equally willing to use its power to enforce pro-corporate actions.

 

I can't speak to before that, but I can come up with the notable examples of FDR's fights with the courts over new deal legislation and his "Court packing" effort in response.

[Balta1701]

A while back we had a long discussion about a case in Michigan where the electric company turned off the power of an elderly man during the winter and he wound up freezing to death. Can't find the thread, but here's another one for that pile.

A woman who needed powered oxygen equipment to breathe died after she did not pay the power bill and a utility shut off her electricity, police said Friday. State officials were investigating whether any regulations were broken.

 

Kay Phaneuf, 53, died Thursday at Caritas Holy Family Hospital in Methuen, Mass. She had been in critical condition since her husband found her unconscious Monday about an hour after power was cut to their home in Salem.

 

"She can't survive without it," Salem Police Capt. Shawn Patten said of the oxygen equipment. "They cut the power to the house, the power to whatever machine she had went out, and that was it."

 

There was a backup battery on the machine, but it had not been activated, he said. Such devices often have alarms indicating when power is cut, but it wasn't clear whether Phaneuf's had one.

 

The electricity bill hadn't been paid, Patten said, but state regulations require written notice to be given two weeks before a shutoff.

 

The utility, National Grid, declined to say Friday why the power was shut off, citing privacy and confidentiality reasons. But it said it was possible Phaneuf and her husband hadn't kept the company apprised of her needs.

 

"It's my understanding that we followed the proper procedures that would include notifying customers that their service was going to be shut off," said National Grid spokesman David Graves. He said the company has started an internal review and is trying to ensure the right safeguards are in place to prevent a recurrence.

 

A meter worker arrived at the house at about 9 a.m. Monday to shut off the power, Graves said. He knocked on the door and rang the doorbell but got no response and turned off the power.

 

National Grid got a call about an hour later from Salem police asking that a supervisor get to the house, Graves said. The supervisor arrived at 10:30 a.m. and was told by police that a resident had been taken to a hospital.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's why I have more respect for Roberts, even if I disagree with him. People uneducated in the law can often see how bad Alito, Scalia and tag-along Thomas' arguments are.

 

Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized?

 

Come on. "bad," as if you're an expert on constitutional law. I'm not sure about Alito, but at least Scalia is pretty damned consistent in all of his opinions. Read his books and essays going back and forth with Richard Posner about the interpretation of law if you'd like to find out why he rules the way he does. You might disagree, but the guy has like 40 years of constitutional experience behind him. He knows a hell of a lot more about the law than any of us.

 

And it's hilarious to listen to you guys rant about how bad the court is, while ignoring who's currently going through the nomination process. "Politicized." Ha.

 

Edit: might be a back and forth with Ronald Dworkin. I can't remember for sure.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

And it's hilarious to listen to you guys rant about how bad the court is, while ignoring who's currently going through the nomination process. "Politicized." Ha.

She fits in well with the mold of the modern court Justice.

[StrangeSox]

Come on. "bad," as if you're an expert on constitutional law. I'm not sure about Alito, but at least Scalia is pretty damned consistent in all of his opinions. Read his books and essays going back and forth with Richard Posner about the interpretation of law if you'd like to find out why he rules the way he does. You might disagree, but the guy has like 40 years of constitutional experience behind him. He knows a hell of a lot more about the law than any of us.

That's my point. I'm not an expert, but he commits glaring logical fallacies, not legal ones. And I'm not a logician, either, so what does that tell you?

 

And it's hilarious to listen to you guys rant about how bad the court is, while ignoring who's currently going through the nomination process. "Politicized." Ha.

 

I said the current court is politicized, and that cuts both ways. I asked, because I honestly don't know, how long it's been that way. Justices need to hold certain ideological view points in order to get nominated, and then they need to say-nothing enough to be confirmed. I think Keagan was right when she said the current process is a joke, but I don't see it changing. It's far too easy to score political points in Congress over the issue.

 

Then again, the current process did keep out Harriet Myers. So there's always that.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's my point. I'm not an expert, but he commits glaring logical fallacies, not legal ones. And I'm not a logician, either, so what does that tell you?

 

 

 

I said the current court is politicized, and that cuts both ways. I asked, because I honestly don't know, how long it's been that way. Justices need to hold certain ideological view points in order to get nominated, and then they need to say-nothing enough to be confirmed. I think Keagan was right when she said the current process is a joke, but I don't see it changing. It's far too easy to score political points in Congress over the issue.

 

Then again, the current process did keep out Harriet Myers. So there's always that.

 

Examples please (keeping in mind, of course, that ALL justicies do this, including moderate gems like O'Connor). I'm interested in what you can find, how serious it is, and thus, why it's so "bad."

[StrangeSox]

Well, for Alito, look at the top of this page. I'll have to get back to you on Scalia. Thomas usually just piggy-backs on those guys.

[Balta1701]

Different subject...I got polled last night! yay!

[BigSqwert]

[Jenksismyhero]

In another big SC decision today, a 5-4 decision came down in favor of UCLA-Hastings School of Law over a Christian Lawyer group. The group lost official school recognition (read: funding) after enacting a policy that required members to sign a pledge swearing that they were Christians, not homosexuals, etc.. The school removed them from official recognition based on their non-discriminatory policy.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

 

I'll give you one guess who the dissenters were.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628

 

They make some tortured arguments in the dissent.

 

edit: basically, Alito's argument is "you're discriminating against discrimination!" over and over and over again.

 

I just read it. I guess what is your counter to his? I think he makes some good points, and is actually much more "liberal" (pro-free speech) than anyone else. I think Alito is right on - the school doesn't agree with the ideas expressed by the group, so it kept them out. But other groups could have and did the same thing, but because the school agreed with those messages, it didn't act.

 

"But the policy singled out one category of expressive associations for disfavored treatment: groups formed to express a religious message. Only religious groups were required to admit students who did not share their views. An environmen-talist group was not required to admit students who rejected global warming. An animal rights group was not obligated to accept students who supported the use of animals to test cosmetics. But CLS was required to admit avowed atheists. This was patent viewpoint discrimina-tion. “By the very terms of the [Nondiscrimination Policy],the University . . . select[ed] for disfavored treatmentthose student [groups] with religious . . . viewpoints.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 831. It is no wonder that the Court makes no attempt to defend the constitutionality ofthe Nondiscrimination Policy."

 

More specifically, he makes another good point when he says the accept-all-comers policy wouldn't be constitutional in any other situation. A law that requires the State of California to admit members of a Jewish faith to a Christian church would never be tolerated. (not to mention the fact that the majority bases its decision on the schools CURRENT policy, not the one in effect at the time the CLS was denied.)

 

Another excellent point:

 

"the Court states that the policy would permit aregistered group to impose membership requirements “designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise.” Ante, at 27. With this concession, the Court tacitly recognizes thatHastings does not really have an accept-all-comers pol-icy—it has an accept-some-dissident-comers policy—and the line between members who merely seek to change a group’s message (who apparently must be admitted) and those who seek a group’s “demise” (who may be kept out) is hopelessly vague.

Here is an example. Not all Christian denominations agree with CLS’s views on sexual morality and other matters. During a recent year, CLS had seven members.Suppose that 10 students who are members of denomina-tions that disagree with CLS decided that CLS was mis-representing true Christian doctrine. Suppose that thesestudents joined CLS, elected officers who shared their views, ended the group’s affiliation with the national organization, and changed the group’s message. The new leadership would likely proclaim that the group was “vi-tal” but rectified, while CLS, I assume, would take the view that the old group had suffered its “demise.”Whether a change represents reform or transformationmay depend very much on the eye of the beholder."

 

 

I dunno, I guess I'll wait to hear your argument. But to me his opinion seems pretty solid. I'd guess that if the tables were turned you'd be pretty upset with this opinion as well. Imagine if you had an anti-religious group, and in its charter it held that only people who were athiests were allowed in. Then the school basically says, no, you're discriminating against people that are believers, you have to include them, or you won't get your funding and use of the school. Would you be ok with that? I doubt it. I bet that based on the non-discrimination policy the school put in place, that held that diverse views and discussion were a GOOD thing, you'd be upset that they pointed out a specific viewpoint of a group and denied its funding based on that.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I just read it. I guess what is your counter to his? I think he makes some good points, and is actually much more "liberal" (pro-free speech) than anyone else. I think Alito is right on - the school doesn't agree with the ideas expressed by the group, so it kept them out. But other groups could have and did the same thing, but because the school agreed with those messages, it didn't act.

 

His entire argument is just an attempt to twist a non-discrimination policy back around on itself. He's arguing that they're discriminating against people who discriminate. It's the legal version of the "why do you hate racists?! I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded!" argument. That is a pretty stupid argument.

 

I dunno, I guess I'll wait to hear your argument. But to me his opinion seems pretty solid. I'd guess that if the tables were turned you'd be pretty upset with this opinion as well. Imagine if you had an anti-religious group, and in its charter it held that only people who were athiests were allowed in. Then the school basically says, no, you're discriminating against people that are believers, you have to include them, or you won't get your funding and use of the school. Would you be ok with that? I doubt it. I bet that based on the non-discrimination policy the school put in place, that held that diverse views and discussion were a GOOD thing, you'd be upset that they pointed out a specific viewpoint of a group and denied its funding based on that.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if the University refused to grant official recognition to an atheist group that denied membership to religious people or required some silly "oath of faith." Plenty of minority groups on college campuses have a specific focus but let in anyone who wants to join. You can join the Korean Lawers group without being Korean.

 

They didn't deny them because they hate gays, they denied them because they refused memberships to gays, jews, muslims, etc. etc. If we follow Alito's brilliant argument, what stops the school from being forced to recognize a local Stormfront, KKK or other racist organization? You can't discriminate against discrimination, man!

 

eta: read Stevens' opinion

"In the dissent’s view, by refusing to grant CLS an ex-emption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, Hastings violated CLS’s rights, for by proscribing unlawful dis-crimination on the basis of religion, the policy discrimi-nates unlawfully on the basis of religion. There are nu-merous reasons why this counterintuitive theory is unsound. Although the First Amendment may protect CLS’s discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them."

Edited June 29, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

In case you're a lefty who doesn't wander over there, Markos has just published a scathing report pretty much flatly stating that Research 2000 has been fabricating their polling data for a significant portion of at least the last year.

[bigruss]

His entire argument is just an attempt to twist a non-discrimination policy back around on itself. He's arguing that they're discriminating against people who discriminate. It's the legal version of the "why do you hate racists?! I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded!" argument. That is a pretty stupid argument.

 

 

 

I wouldn't have a problem if the University refused to grant official recognition to an atheist group that denied membership to religious people or required some silly "oath of faith." Plenty of minority groups on college campuses have a specific focus but let in anyone who wants to join. You can join the Korean Lawers group without being Korean.

 

They didn't deny them because they hate gays, they denied them because they refused memberships to gays, jews, muslims, etc. etc. If we follow Alito's brilliant argument, what stops the school from being forced to recognize a local Stormfront, KKK or other racist organization? You can't discriminate against discrimination, man!

 

eta: read Stevens' opinion

"In the dissent’s view, by refusing to grant CLS an ex-emption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, Hastings violated CLS’s rights, for by proscribing unlawful dis-crimination on the basis of religion, the policy discrimi-nates unlawfully on the basis of religion. There are nu-merous reasons why this counterintuitive theory is unsound. Although the First Amendment may protect CLS’s discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them."

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

 

Sounds like not allowing a person or group to have a message that may be racist is considered discrimination. I personally see it as just as bad that a social justice advocate cant accept other people having differing opinions than them. That drives me insane.