Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes DOMA « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17692
Offline
#15 : July 08, 2013, 07:33:20 PM

Lmao

I think that means my comment in the other thread was dead on :-)

Lmao

No, I think it means that I accepted your challenge, yet you continue to skirt around addressing mine. What a lousy lawyer you must be...

My challenge was to find another thread not to go post in a thread.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#16 : July 08, 2013, 08:58:44 PM

Lmao

I think that means my comment in the other thread was dead on :-)

Lmao

No, I think it means that I accepted your challenge, yet you continue to skirt around addressing mine. What a lousy lawyer you must be...

My challenge was to find another thread not to go post in a thread.

Your assertion was that I only rejected the concept of judicial review because it was a conservative ruling. Well, here's a liberal one, and I find the concept to be equally as harmful.

In the case of the voting right's act, SCOTUS created a new constitutional threshold for congress to have to meet out of thin air. In the DOMA case, it suggested that the federal government was bound by the 14th amendment not to be able to define marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, yet avoided holding states to the same constitutional threshold despite the fact that the 14th amendment was specifically written to protect individual rights against discriminatory state laws.

In both examples, the SCOTUS made a completely absurd ruling, and no one can challenge this absurdity, because the only thing that can overturn a SCOTUS ruling is another SCOTUS ruling.

Now how about you address the substance of the post, rather than deflecting and avoiding ceding the clearly illustrated fact that the Supreme Court has supremacy over the Constitution, and not vice versa?


TheChronicHotAir

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6008
Offline
#17 : July 09, 2013, 12:05:33 AM

That ruling was so gay.


That ruling was gayer than Liberace!




That ruling was gayer than Liberace watching Brokeback Mountain!!


Enhanced Cranston Logo - \"Alan Cranston-- You\'ve Just Been Warholled!\"

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17692
Offline
#18 : July 09, 2013, 07:22:55 AM

Lmao

I think that means my comment in the other thread was dead on :-)

Lmao

No, I think it means that I accepted your challenge, yet you continue to skirt around addressing mine. What a lousy lawyer you must be...

My challenge was to find another thread not to go post in a thread.

Your assertion was that I only rejected the concept of judicial review because it was a conservative ruling. Well, here's a liberal one, and I find the concept to be equally as harmful.

In the case of the voting right's act, SCOTUS created a new constitutional threshold for congress to have to meet out of thin air. In the DOMA case, it suggested that the federal government was bound by the 14th amendment not to be able to define marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, yet avoided holding states to the same constitutional threshold despite the fact that the 14th amendment was specifically written to protect individual rights against discriminatory state laws.

In both examples, the SCOTUS made a completely absurd ruling, and no one can challenge this absurdity, because the only thing that can overturn a SCOTUS ruling is another SCOTUS ruling.

Now how about you address the substance of the post, rather than deflecting and avoiding ceding the clearly illustrated fact that the Supreme Court has supremacy over the Constitution, and not vice versa?

My assertion - demonstrated to be true by you - was that your real issue is you don't like the voting act ruling. If your real issue was judicial review that we would have seen your judicial review complaint in all the SCOTUS threads BEFORE the voting act decision. You never raised the issue until you got a ruling that didn't mesh with your liberal sensibilities. Going to this thread and raising judicial review now - after I have pointed out the truth - doesnt change anything and just makes you look more silly.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#19 : July 09, 2013, 08:32:30 AM

Deflection. You have no legitimate rebuttal to what I have demonstrated was true, therefor you argue not on the merits of my arguments, but instead by attacking what you perceive my motivations to be.

You do realize that by me suggesting that by deeming themselves the sole arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional, I am in effect saying that the Supreme Court has been acting unconstitutionally since 1803. That means that I am suggesting that ALL of the decisions that they have made are unconstitutional, not just the conservative ones. But keep on deflecting from the real issue. It's what you do best.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#20 : July 09, 2013, 08:51:55 AM

I think it's interesting that so many threads are created on this MB that demonstrates passionate opposition to the executive and legislative branches acting in ways that are perceived to exceed their constitutional authority, yet on this issue, where the SCOTUS has been blatantly and flagrantly exceeding it's constitutional authority for centuries, no one seems concerned. Could it be, Vince, that you are not really all that concerned with Constitutionality, but rather with simply rallying against power structures that you disagree with for partisan reasons?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17692
Offline
#21 : July 09, 2013, 08:54:33 AM

Deflection.

LMAO.  Like I said, you are shameless.  I am not deflecting anything, it just make no sense to discuss it WITH YOU because you dont have legitimate gripe with judicial review, you're just unhappy with a conservative ruling.


BTW, it is hilarious that you claim I am deflecting when that is precisely what you are doing, you are trying with all your might to deflect the fact that I am right about you.  Think about it, if I were wrong and you had a LEGITIMATE  gripe with judicial review (rather than just being upset that a ruling didnt go your way-lol) you would just simply post a quote of your complaing about judicial review BEFORE  the voting act case.

Shameless CBW political nonsense exposed ... again

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#22 : July 09, 2013, 08:59:30 AM

Deflection.

LMAO.  Like I said, you are shameless.  I am not deflecting anything, it just make no sense to discuss it WITH YOU because you dont have legitimate gripe with judicial review, you're just unhappy with a conservative ruling.


BTW, it is hilarious that you claim I am deflecting when that is precisely what you are doing, you are trying with all your might to deflect the fact that I am right about you.  Think about it, if I were wrong and you had a LEGITIMATE  gripe with judicial review (rather than just being upset that a ruling didnt go your way-lol) you would just simply post a quote of your complaing about judicial review BEFORE  the voting act case.

Shameless CBW political nonsense exposed ... again

Surrender noted.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#23 : July 09, 2013, 10:33:00 AM

I think it's interesting that so many threads are created on this MB that demonstrates passionate opposition to the executive and legislative branches acting in ways that are perceived to exceed their constitutional authority, yet on this issue, where the SCOTUS has been blatantly and flagrantly exceeding it's constitutional authority for centuries, no one seems concerned. Could it be, Vince, that you are not really all that concerned with Constitutionality, but rather with simply rallying against power structures that you disagree with for partisan reasons?

1. Pot meet kettle.
2. People are notably tolerant of "bad" things if they happen to agree with them or the end result.
3. One mans trash is another mans treasure. People can see things differently.

I happen to agree with the SC on this but not the constitutionality part of it. That is, using data from 4 decades ago is insufficient cause to continue punishment. I just don't think the SC needed to bring the Constitution into it. People seem to think the role of the SC is just to rule on Constitutional matters, it's not. It is to adjudicate and provide judicial review as well.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17692
Offline
#24 : July 09, 2013, 11:02:54 AM

I think it's interesting that so many threads are created on this MB that demonstrates passionate opposition to the executive and legislative branches acting in ways that are perceived to exceed their constitutional authority, yet on this issue, where the SCOTUS has been blatantly and flagrantly exceeding it's constitutional authority for centuries, no one seems concerned.

"on this issue" -- the issue for you is voting rights . . .   unless you can show me even a single post in another SCOTUS thread before the voting rights thread where you raised the judicial review issue?

Still waiting for that . . .  but not holding my breath

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#25 : July 09, 2013, 12:38:36 PM

I happen to agree with the SC on this but not the constitutionality part of it. That is, using data from 4 decades ago is insufficient cause to continue punishment. I just don't think the SC needed to bring the Constitution into it. People seem to think the role of the SC is just to rule on Constitutional matters, it's not. It is to adjudicate and provide judicial review as well.

The role of the SC is to adjudicate. You're right about that much. The role of the SC is not to provide judicial review. That is actually the entire crux of my argument. The Constitution's primary purpose was to dictate what powers each branch of government has. No where is it written, that the SCOTUS' role is to provide judicial review. They do not legally have this power, yet they've wielded it unchecked for centuries.

Simply adjudicating the conflict between Alabama and the DOJ would have been insufficient in terms of casting down a ruling in favor of Alabama, because their is no evidence that the  DOJ was doing anything other than acting in compliance with a law passed by Congress. The reason that the SCOTUS used the Constitution to support it's ruling, even though it doesn't, is because in order for it to suggest that the DOJ was acting unlawfully, it had to call into question the law that allowed the DOJ to act in the manner that it was acting.

In other words, in order for the court to have sided with Alabama in this case, it would have had to strike down the law that required preclearance, and in order to strike down a law implemented by another federal body, it must use a lack of constitutionality as it's basis for doing so. So in this case, since there was no Constitutional barrier to the DOJ forcing compliance to this law, the SCOTUS just created one on the fly.
: July 09, 2013, 12:44:31 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17692
Offline
#26 : July 09, 2013, 12:42:50 PM

So in this case, since there was nothing in the Constitution to support this course of action, the SCOTUS just created one on the fly.

knowledge by talking point memo

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#27 : July 09, 2013, 12:51:33 PM

So in this case, since there was nothing in the Constitution to support this course of action, the SCOTUS just created one on the fly.

knowledge by talking point memo

Cool. You consider it to be a talking point? You once stated that the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review grants the Constitution supremacy, as opposed to granting the judiciary supremacy over the Constitution, and over the other two bodies.

Here you have a case, counselor, of the SCOTUS stating that a portion of a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional, and struck it down. The majority opinion doesn't even cite any specific portion of the Constitution that this legislation supposedly violated, yet claimed that it violated it. Perhaps that was just an oversight, as opposed to the SCOTUS simply casting down a ruling for strictly ideological reasons, so I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. Specifically what part of the Constitution does the section of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down by the SCOTUS for being "unconstitutional" violate?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#28 : July 09, 2013, 04:28:45 PM

I happen to agree with the SC on this but not the constitutionality part of it. That is, using data from 4 decades ago is insufficient cause to continue punishment. I just don't think the SC needed to bring the Constitution into it. People seem to think the role of the SC is just to rule on Constitutional matters, it's not. It is to adjudicate and provide judicial review as well.

The role of the SC is to adjudicate. You're right about that much. The role of the SC is not to provide judicial review. That is actually the entire crux of my argument. The Constitution's primary purpose was to dictate what powers each branch of government has. No where is it written, that the SCOTUS' role is to provide judicial review. They do not legally have this power, yet they've wielded it unchecked for centuries.

Simply adjudicating the conflict between Alabama and the DOJ would have been insufficient in terms of casting down a ruling in favor of Alabama, because their is no evidence that the  DOJ was doing anything other than acting in compliance with a law passed by Congress. The reason that the SCOTUS used the Constitution to support it's ruling, even though it doesn't, is because in order for it to suggest that the DOJ was acting unlawfully, it had to call into question the law that allowed the DOJ to act in the manner that it was acting.

In other words, in order for the court to have sided with Alabama in this case, it would have had to strike down the law that required preclearance, and in order to strike down a law implemented by another federal body, it must use a lack of constitutionality as it's basis for doing so. So in this case, since there was no Constitutional barrier to the DOJ forcing compliance to this law, the SCOTUS just created one on the fly.

I initially responded to this but just realized I think we are talking about different things. I mention it in case you saw my initial response. I will think a bit more about my answer.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15430
Offline
#29 : July 09, 2013, 08:19:11 PM

In the DOMA case, it suggested that the federal government was bound by the 14th amendment not to be able to define marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, yet avoided holding states to the same constitutional threshold despite the fact that the 14th amendment was specifically written to protect individual rights against discriminatory state laws.


It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out. Actually , you are opening a whole new can of worms , and it's called the  "incorporation debate" :

"The Bill of Rights was originally written to apply only to the actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was the first to contain prohibitions on the actions of states.
Soon after its ratification, the Supreme Court held in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Fourteenth Amendment should be understood to apply only to the plight of former slaves and assuring their equal treatment under law. As time went on, however, the amendment was read more broadly and the doctrine of incorporation emerged."
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/amendments/fourteenth-amendment-general/incorporation/




What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes DOMA « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools