- 14,092
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- Sunnyshore City
- Seen Dec 3, 2022
Users They call Me Brandon Lee and God, if you could take some of the details of your personal exchange to VM's and out of this thread, that would be great. Carry on.
Can't tell if serious?I've been seeing this celebration everywhere on both my games and on the websites I visit. However, I'm worried about my friend, who is really against this, because he believes it's one step closer to communism due to this ruling being done by the U.S. government.
Here's his full conversation regarding the subject:Can't tell if serious?
How does this case have anything to do with socioeconomic conditions, class structure/conflict, ownership of the means of production, ect. Unless this is a joke and I am dense. I fail to see how this is relevant, if not the antithesis of modern communist states, all of which do not legally recognize same-sex relationships.
Perhaps your friend is conflating authoritarian or strong central governmental control with communism? In that case, as I have explained before, there was no rational basis for states to restrict rights, and the Court, exercising their ability to interpret the first amendment and incorporate it into their evaluation of states' law, have made these legally-binding decisions (case law/constitutional law) for over a century...why now do people care? It is namely because of the subject matter, not the principle. The dissenting justices failed to make a good argument to overcome the scrutiny of a protected class under the equal protection clause. If anything, the Court is restricting state's from making arbitrary laws which restrict freedom. Increasing liberality is usually not associated with authoritarianism.
The Senior Supreme Court Justice was even against it, but it was a 5-4 railroaded through. The Government has no right to railroad anything like that; just another peg closer to Communism. I don't look it through the intelligent, idiots that lie to their students in college. Stalin and Lenin both did the same things.
-Socialize the Medicare System
-Raise the Food Tax, Traffs, and Trade Costs
-Legalized Gay Marriage
What is missing is just removal of public arms and this country is the new United Soviet States of America.
Again through, that is just the Government seeking 100% control of everyone's lives, no freedom. But when I explain and even show proof, I am ignored so you know what.
Who psyducking cares anymore.........
I don't hate Gay People. I just don't accept their culture and how radicals thrust it down those who don't accept it. Also, define a lot. Because over 10k were protesting the legalization outside of the Supreme Court for months now, and plenty more were supporting as well from afar. The only reason why it was pushed through was due to the Supreme Court having four gays on the council and the 5th man was a wildcard. If you call me an extreme conservative.An extreme conservative is an extremely right-winger. That is Furtherism. AKA Nazism. I am a defender of tradional values and someone who loves their country. But did you know the Nazi SS were all Gay? They were, Hitler knew this as well. Surprise. They weren't anti-gay at all. They were anti-anything not pure.
Just a thought, but could this ruling actually go into the Republicans favour in 2016, With this and the whole Confederate Flag thing going on, I bet there is a LOT of pissed off Americans out there who considerer thier whole way of life now being under threat.
Your argument is that the Court has created new law before. Perhaps you are confusing the act of creating new law with interpreting existing law. The examples you provided showed cases where the SCOTUS interpreted existing law in the context of existing law, especially the Constitution. You pointed out at least one dissent that argued they may be creating new law, but in that case, as with this case, the majority argued that they weren't doing that.Um, I wrote extensively of other cases in which the Court creates law.
Nowhere does the Constitutions say marriage is a right to all regardless of race. The Court included this right to marriage, regardless of race, as legally binding through case law, which supersedes state law via the supremacy clause. Thereby the Court is creating law through Loving v. Virginia. I have already said this! But again, to be clear, in the past, LAW, specifically, case law has been established, which is legally binding and a non-democratic process. This is not novel to this one particular case and has been done literally hundreds of times.
Please do not quote a single paragraph of entire discussion, and cut out the parts where I demonstrate that the Court has made law in the past which supersedes state law, and then assert that I am making a different claim, and calling it a "strawman"...that's pretty ironic since that is exactly what you are doing emphatically since I go on to speak more about how case law is developed through the 14th amendment quite extensively.
Spoiler:
"the "gay marriage case" is sooooo not novel in this respect, this is one of literally hundreds of examples many came before and after the loving v virginia case (1967). The equal protection clause legalizes behaviors of individuals which were not previously legal and increases rights of individuals vis-a-vis state legislatures and majority opinions." In other words creates law, specifically case law.
"The court, by stipulating that states do NOT have the right to create marriage laws preventing two individuals of different racial backgrounds to marry has indirectly legalized the marriage of black and white unions. Otherwise, as demostrated by the lack of public support, interracial marriage would not be legalized through democratic processes. Especially if we consider southern states which still concerns this issues as controversial. States MUST accommodate these unions by the ruling of the case. This is called case law. "
The example I use to show an opinion which creates case law....the bold word are literally stating case law defined by the Court.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.
"This form of case law is so not novel "
They argue that they are interpreting two existing laws (specifically, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment) to come to a conclusion that was not explicitly stated in the text of either. Roberts dissents thus (p. 23, 24 Roberts):Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.
Roberts (and all of the dissent) believes the Court is doing more than simply interpreting the Constitution and writing into it things that are not there. The majority responds thus (p. 24 Kennedy):The central point seems to be that there is a "synergy between" the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Ante, at 20. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases. [...] the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions.
The majority argues that what they are allowing in their ruling is for people to assert a fundamental right that is already protected by the Constitution that the legislature has not only failed to recognized but has actively restricted (it is the role of the SCOTUS to strike down any law that stands in violation of a higher law and the Constitution is the highest law of the United States).The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.
Will you people please give it a fucking rest with the guns in the U.S. thing already? Damn.Now they only need to give up their weapons and then maybe they can even become a hellhole like the UK, where only 4 people have been killed by law enforcement over the last 5 years.
Will you people please give it a fucking rest with the guns in the U.S. thing already? Damn.
Oh, trust me, there's been tons of them made before and I've seen enough bullshit in those threads for a lifetime.Well, I mean, there's been 72 mass shootings in America in the two and a half years since Sandy Hook, so...
But that is a discussion for another thread and I'm surprised there hasn't been one made already.
Just gonna toss this in here, looks like CNN did a whoopsie: https://screengrabber.deadspin.com/cnn-freaks-out-about-buttplug-flag-at-pride-parade-1714408084
No. This is the third time I have said this, no, no, no. I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?Your argument is that the Court has created new law before.
Just for comparison:No. This is the third time I have said this, no, no, no. I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?
twocows said:Your argument is that the Court has created new law before.
I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?
Further, you also said this:The Dark Avenger said:Um, I wrote extensively of other cases in which the Court creates law.
If you meant something else, you should have said something else. I'm not a legal expert and I'm certainly not a mind-reader; it makes things a lot more difficult to discuss when you outright contradict your own statements.the Court has made law in the past which supersedes state law
As I said, I believe case law to be legally binding clarification of existing law. But if you want to call that "new law," then fine. That's a trivial matter of semantics that misses the point. Why? Because we both know what the dissent was getting at.As stated several times, many times, I am making a distinction between statutory law and the constitutional law, which is created by legal precedent (case law). And no matter how many times I state this, you seem to make the case that I am arguing that the Court is "making [statutory] law".
Yes. The Court has done this. We are not in disagreement about this.The examples I bring up demonstrate that the Court has and continues to extend interpretation via new case law, which informs constitutional law.
Again, I agree completely with this.The way the court informs constitutional law, has legally binding authority.
You didn't. You spoke more generally than that; you said that the SCOTUS made NEW LAW, full stop. If that's not what you meant, then fine, but that is your error, not mine.Never once, never once, never once, did I ever write that the SC made statutory law.
Again, I do not believe case law to be anything more than legally binding clarification, but again, I think this is splitting hairs and misses the point of what everyone involved means when they say "creating new law." The point of contention is whether the majority is going further than just interpretation and inference. And, as I have said quite a few times now, I personally disagree with the dissent and agree with the majority: the dissent argues that the majority has gone past that point (which would be dangerous if true), and the majority responds by saying that it is reading the intention behind two different clauses in two different amendments and coming to the natural conclusion based on how the concept of marriage has evolved over time. I think that they are within their rights to do this.I refer to case law, which are precedents like scrutiny tests and protected class tests, ect. These are all purposive tools used to fulfill the intent of the law.
That's both true and untrue. Really, it's more that it is overly brief and thus has gaps when applying it to real life situations, something which results in some degree of uncertainty. I believe this was by design; they wanted to leave it to future generations to figure out how it should apply in each specific situation. And the text is legally binding, it's just that how it applies to various situations isn't always clear or well-defined, hence the need for informed judicial insight. But maybe that's what you meant, in which case: yes, that is correct.Constitutional law is vague and has no explicit legally binding authority until the Court establishes precedents through rulings, and it is tested.
This is all correct, I agree completely with it, and it demonstrates very clearly a case where the court inferred from the intent to come to a new conclusion. Again, the question is, is the Court going further in this case? I was actually going to bring up Chapliski if you hadn't; it's a good example of where the Court has unanimously inferred based on the intent and spirit of the law.For instance, imagine if we assumed a textualist approach to freedom of speech! Where is libel, slander, harrassment, and words enticing violence? They do not exist in the Constitution. These are defined by legal precedents, case law. Which then provides the law a specific authority.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law..abridging the freedom of speech"
Without case law and its creation, there is no Constitutional authority. For instance, before the Chapliski case, "fighting words" case, there was no legal authority provided by the Constitution regarding speech that incites violence. Without case law, the Constitution cannot exert any legal authority from a textual perspective.
Prior to this case, there was no authority by the Constitution regarding free speech and inciting violence through words.
Yes, and again, the question the dissent has is, is that what they are doing here, or are they going further than that?Again, the strong dissent has nothing to do with the extent of purposive overreach, if that were the case, we would see inflammatory dissents more often. The Loving v Virginia case was 9-0, in favor of defining marriage as an inalienable right. Prior to this, there was no legal claim through the constitution that provided marriage as an inalienable right. This legal precedent is not statutory law, it is case law, and it impact the legal authority and boundaries of the Constitution. Prior to that case, the Constitution was vague regarding marriage, and had NO legally-binding authority over states. This is a clear example of purposive interpretation of the Constitution.
All of the members of that court have used purposive interpretation, contributed to the establishment of case law, and extended legal and boundaries of the Constitution, through interpretation.
And the ruling in that case inferred that there was a right to marriage based on existing language in the Constitution. What it didn't do was change the definition of the word; the dissent believes this goes further than just interpretation and that they are basically changing the language of existing law to suit their ideas. I do not, as I have stated already several times. Let me repeat that for emphasis: I agree with you that they are not going further than mere inference.Prior to that ruling in 1968, there was no legal claim to marriage through the Constitution.
The difference is that in this instance, the Court is effectively changing the meaning of a word as part of the process of inferring the meaning of the law. The dissent believes that the meaning of the word has been clearly defined up until this point and that the majority is changing the definition of the word to cover the rights of people they believe should be protected. They believe that this means they are going further than just interpretation, they are actively changing what was said in the law to fit their own beliefs.TO THE MAIN POINT...
You are making the argument that the extent of purposivism is driving the dissent to have the reaction it is having, yet there is no difference between this case and other cases where the court has selectively incorporated rights. What exactly is different from this case and the many cases regarding freedom of religion, marriage, speech, due process, and practically every other area in which there has been interpretation, and a increase of legally binding authority of the Constitution?
As above: changing word definitions to infer things that were never intended.Marriage as an inalienable right was already established. This owed right, as defined by legal precedent was then selectively incorporated through the 14th amendment to apply to same-sex couples. The Court then had to provide justification for incorporation. If anything Loving v Virginia expanded much more authority, since it created legally binding guarenteed right to marriage. That owed right was simply incorporated in the same-sex marriage case, how novel. Many groups have been incorporated and provided legally binding protection authorized by the Constitution. What is so novel about this case in this respect?
I fail to see how outright saying that I believe the dissent is wrong and that the majority's response sufficiently addresses their concerns is "defending the dissent." I guess I'm not allowed to say the people I disagree with are reasonable in modern "debate?" Or admit that I might happen to be wrong?You have FAILED to show how it is novel in this respect, yet continue to say that there is a legitmate and unique concern...where's the support for that argument given hundreds of cases in which purposive interpretation expanded legal authority of the constitution. How is this unique? Why are you defending the dissent when purposive interpretation has been employed for over a century?
No, it was evidence that the dissent believed the Court was going further than it had in the past, well past the point of interpretation and into the realm of legislation, hence their very strong opposition to the ruling. It was meant to give context to their ruling. I think it's good that they're so concerned about the scope of their own power. I wish the other two branches of government shared that concern.Your argument is that, because of the nature of the dissents' reaction:
"Additionally, this case goes a bit further in that direction, hence the stronger dissent. To emphasize this, no less than four Justices each wrote their own dissents, all four joined by at least two of the others. Additionally, Chief Justice Roberts read a summary of his dissent aloud to the court to emphasize his displeasure with the ruling, something he has never, ever done before."
This does not follow. Simply because there was a strong reaction by the dissent, it does not mean that this case is therefore novel in respect to purposivism. You do not even try to establish why it is unique to the hundreds of other examples. You are assuming that the content of the case is not driving the strong reactions, and ignoring the fact that these justices have all engaged in purposive interpretation. Each of them, as well as every justice before them in the past century.
I don't think they're being hypocritical at all. Having briefly look at several other rulings the dissenting Justices have been involved with, it seems like this is a common theme: these four seem to have a tendency toward reading things more literally and worrying when things are interpreted more loosely. Am I wrong? That is an honest question, as I am only drawing on the maybe half a dozen or a dozen rulings those justices have been a part of that I have read. It just seems like they are more outspoken this time because they think the Court is going further than it has in past rulings where they dissented on similar grounds.With that said, what is actually driving the dissents' strong reaction. Why in this case, of all the cases involving the matter of purposivism, are the dissenters so strongly in opposition and contentious about the majority's opinion? We shouldn't be giving the dissenters a free card to hypocrisy, and justifying their positions in textualist groundings when they have used purposivism when it supported a partisan interest.