The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

His writing style is still better suited to talk radio or editorials but I'm not going to say he's wrong when he's solidly correct here. I'd prefer Kagan's privacy grounds over Scalia's property grounds but it's still a good ruling and a good result.

 

Then let's stop with the outlandish "he's the worst Justice ever" crap, huh?

[StrangeSox]

It's a broader "damage to marriage/society" argument

 

MR. COOPER: Thank you, Justice Kennedy. have two points to make on them.

The first one is this: The Plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences.

 

But consider the California voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of -- of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, I believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in Massachusetts, the oldest State that is conducting it, to say, I think it better for California to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...pts/12-144a.pdf

Edited March 26, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Constitutionality of a particular law really shouldn't be a "maybe" situation. Either prop 8 is constitutional or it's not. Whether or not it's too soon to tell isn't really a good excuse to not decide.

 

If the only defense here is that studies might show kids grow up worse with gay parents, but the science is inconclusive or not fully developed, the law should be upheld. There's no reason not to at this particular time. If in 10 years the science changes and you want to use that defense, bring another lawsuit.

So wait...either it's constitutional or it's not...laws and interpretations are immutable...but if we're wrong we can fix that in 10 years by reinterpreting things.

[StrangeSox]

Then let's stop with the outlandish "he's the worst Justice ever" crap, huh?

Why can't he be both? Broken clock and all that.

 

edit he's not the worst ever, just the worst in my lifetime.

 

edit2: e.g. when he tries to support Cooper immediately after the last section I quoted

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me -- let me give you one -- one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must -- you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's -there's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not -- do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

 

I look forward to his dissent in the DOMA case including "homosexual agenda!" like his Lawrence dissent did.

Edited March 26, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said.

 

Disagree, either slavery was okay or it wasnt okay. I dont think there is any other way about that.

 

Constitutionality of a particular law really shouldn't be a "maybe" situation. Either prop 8 is constitutional or it's not. Whether or not it's too soon to tell isn't really a good excuse to not decide.

 

If the only defense here is that studies might show kids grow up worse with gay parents, but the science is inconclusive or not fully developed, the law should be upheld. There's no reason not to at this particular time. If in 10 years the science changes and you want to use that defense, bring another lawsuit.

 

Completely agree.

 

I dont think rights should be withheld until we can prove equality. I dont think it would have been fair to say that black people were not going to be equal to whites, unless it could be scientifically proven, same with women.

 

That to me is backwards.

[Jenksismyhero]

So wait...either it's constitutional or it's not...laws and interpretations are immutable...but if we're wrong we can fix that in 10 years by reinterpreting things.

 

See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional.

 

We just revisited the whole affirmative action decision and in the Michigan law school case O'Connor says i'm deciding this is constitutional right now, but hopefully in 25 years it won't be. It was entirely dependent on the context. Gov't providing minority contracts at some point will become unconstitutional even though they're constitutional right now. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why can't he be both? Broken clock and all that.

 

edit he's not the worst ever, just the worst in my lifetime.

 

edit2: e.g. when he tries to support Cooper immediately after the last section I quoted

 

 

 

I look forward to his dissent in the DOMA case including "homosexual agenda!" like his Lawrence dissent did.

 

I guess I don't see the problem with what he said.

[Balta1701]

See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional.

 

We just revisited the whole affirmative action decision and in the Michigan law school case O'Connor says i'm deciding this is constitutional right now, but hopefully in 25 years it won't be. It was entirely dependent on the context. Gov't providing minority contracts at some point will become unconstitutional even though they're constitutional right now. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

That's exactly why I disagreed...because his original statement was either that the law was constitutional or it wasn't.

 

You've just explained how a law can be constitutional at one time and, because the judgment of society changes, unconstitutional another time. That is exactly why I fundamentally disagreed with his and Jenks's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional.

[Soxbadger]

So wait...either it's constitutional or it's not...laws and interpretations are immutable...but if we're wrong we can fix that in 10 years by reinterpreting things.

 

The law is always evolving. Its like science. Just because yesterday we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, doesnt mean we always have to think that until the end of time.

 

While the preference is stare decisis, that is just preference.

[Soxbadger]

That's exactly why I disagreed...because his original statement was either that the law was constitutional or it wasn't.

 

You've just explained how a law can be constitutional at one time and, because the judgment of society changes, unconstitutional another time. That is exactly why I fundamentally disagreed with his and MrG's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

You are misinterpreting my statement then.

 

It is either constitutional at that minute or it is not constitutional at that minute.

 

It should not matter what you think will happen 10 years in the future, that is speculation and has no place in the ruling.

 

What matters is what is happening today.

[StrangeSox]

Disagree, either slavery was okay or it wasnt okay. I dont think there is any other way about that.

 

Well, legally, it was until the 13th, right?

 

 

 

Completely agree.

 

I dont think rights should be withheld until we can prove equality. I dont think it would have been fair to say that black people were not going to be equal to whites, unless it could be scientifically proven, same with women.

 

That to me is backwards.

 

Interestingly, aside from the most radical abolitionists of the period, it was assumed even by opponents of slavery that blacks were immutably inferior to whites. Even in the "free states," there were numerous black laws that explicitly deprived them of citizenship. Illinois and several other states had laws forbidding free blacks from immigrating there.

[Balta1701]

The law is always evolving. Its like science. Just because yesterday we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, doesnt mean we always have to think that until the end of time.

 

While the preference is stare decisis, that is just preference.

This statement is exactly the opposite of what you agreed with when Jenks stated "I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions."

 

You said "Yep" to that post, agreeing that time shouldn't matter, and here just made a (Correct, IMO) case for why timing matters.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly why I disagreed...because his original statement was either that the law was constitutional or it wasn't.

 

You've just explained how a law can be constitutional at one time and, because the judgment of society changes, unconstitutional another time. That is exactly why I fundamentally disagreed with his and Jenks's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

Well that's true. I guess I was assuming we're talking about the here and now. For Kennedy to say it's too early to decide is sort of a copout. Based on what we know now he can decide if it's constitutional or not. He's kicking the can down the road, which makes me wonder why they decided to hear the case at all.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't see the problem with what he said.

There's not actually "considerable disagreement" among sociologists that same-sex adoption is harmful to children. There's not a good theoretical reason to believe it would be, and we have considerable empirical evidence to the contrary by now as well.

[Jake]

There should be no argument about gay marriage, though. This is who gets a fundamental right -- there's nothing to wait for. The science thing is BS just like it would have been with women or blacks, like someone else says. The fact is that we KNOW that groups are inherently unequal in myriad ways. The key is that the government and law should do as little decision-making as to who is better than who as possible. People become less unequal when we treat them like equals.

 

Also, there's no f***ing disagreement about gay families and their damage to children, etc in the scientific community. TP's rebuttal to George Will's nonsense on the subject pretty much hits the spot. Linky

Edited March 26, 2013 by Jake

[StrangeSox]

See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional.

 

Prop 8 opponents were making the legal argument that SSM bans are a Constitutional violation and were asking the Court to make a national ruling, e.g. Brown v Board didn't apply to one particular school board.

[Soxbadger]

This statement is exactly the opposite of what you agreed with when Jenks stated "I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions."

 

You said "Yep" to that post, agreeing that time shouldn't matter, and here just made a (Correct, IMO) case for why timing matters.

 

Its not the exact opposite. Read the words.

 

Its not the "right time" means that you think there is something wrong, but for whatever reason you are afraid to do it.

 

Im saying that is nonsense, if you believe slavery is wrong in 1820, you should stop slavery in 1820, not say that "society isnt ready, but maybe in 10 years" thats bulls*** nonsense.

 

That is quite different than saying today "Gay marriage is okay"

 

and then 20 years from now finding concrete evidence that shows gay marriage causes kids to die at 13.

 

Then you change your mind.

 

Completely and entirely different. Not sure how you cant see that.

[StrangeSox]

Well that's true. I guess I was assuming we're talking about the here and now. For Kennedy to say it's too early to decide is sort of a copout. Based on what we know now he can decide if it's constitutional or not. He's kicking the can down the road, which makes me wonder why they decided to hear the case at all.

To address standing and whether or not citizens can flood the court with legal challenges a state would normally handle.

[Soxbadger]

Well that's true. I guess I was assuming we're talking about the here and now. For Kennedy to say it's too early to decide is sort of a copout. Based on what we know now he can decide if it's constitutional or not. He's kicking the can down the road, which makes me wonder why they decided to hear the case at all.

 

Yep, not sure why Balta isnt seeing this.

 

Kennedy is making no ruling, hes simply sticking his head in the sand and hoping someone else will do the dirty work.

 

We cant decide this today, we cant be sure what will happen.

 

Well no one is ever sure of the future, we can only go based on the facts we currently have, and based on those facts you need to decide whether its constitutional or not. If those facts change, the ruling can change.

 

Not sure why these are mutually exclusive positions.

[Jenksismyhero]

To address standing and whether or not citizens can flood the court with legal challenges a state would normally handle.

 

An appellate court can rule on that issue.

[StrangeSox]

An appellate court can rule on that issue.

The 9th asked the California SC to do so, which the CSC did and found that they did have standing.

[StrangeSox]

I thought this is a good response w.r.t. "timing"

 

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, they might try to make a different record about the effects on children. But there isn’t a record to that effect here. And the fourth point I would make, and I do think this is significant, is that the principal argument in 1967 with respect to Loving and that the commonwealth of Virginia advanced was: Well, the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world, and so you ought to apply rational basis scrutiny and wait. And I think the Court recognized that there is a cost to waiting and that that has got to be part of the equal protection calculus. And so—so I do think that’s quite fundamental.

[Soxbadger]

You dont need to be a lawyer to understand why its unfair to make the side being oppressed prove that they are equal, as opposed to having those who want to oppress prove that the oppression is necessary.

 

If science is not conclusive, then they should have equal rights.

[bmags]

A good quote from Verrilli? My god.

[StrangeSox]

A good quote from Verrilli? My god.

a better one from Olson:

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when -­ when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

 

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?