SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I will say, I like the idea of a Republican saying that inter-racial marriages should be left up to the states.  I'm not against anti-racial marriages and wouldn't support them being made illegal.

 

But if you are going to say you support and believe interpreting the Constitution literally be honest and consistent and that's being honest and consistent.

 

Let's have a real debate where people are being intellectually honest and consistent and see what American choose.

well. I understand the principal of what you’re saying. 
 

but, as a states rights proponent, I’ve always had an exception (and I always assumed this exception was… well known/understood/agreed upon except by hateful people specifically trying to undermine basic rights) that if states were going to do something that messed with a protected class, scotus/feds at that point would/should/must intervene

I realize there are states rights proponents that are really just anti- someone stopping them from being hateful people, and I realize the left has decided that “states rights” is, and can only be, a code for hateful people …

 

But some of us think returning as much power to the states as possible, is actually what’s best in the grand scheme of things for our country (many, many reasons). But under no circumstance do we think it should allow for, say, barring marriage between two people because their skin color doesn’t match. 

And argument from a person who genuinely believes in states rights, and not using it as a guide for hateful desires, isn’t asking for SCOTUS rulings on protected classes to be thrown out so all 50 states can consider whether they want to travel back to the early/mid 1900’s…

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

well. I understand the principal of what you’re saying. 
 

but, as a states rights proponent, I’ve always had an exception (and I always assumed this exception was… well known/understood/agreed upon except by hateful people specifically trying to undermine basic rights) that if states were going to do something that messed with a protected class, scotus/feds at that point would/should/must intervene

I realize there are states rights proponents that are really just anti- someone stopping them from being hateful people, and I realize the left has decided that “states rights” is, and can only be, a code for hateful people …

 

But some of us think returning as much power to the states as possible, is actually what’s best in the grand scheme of things for our country (many, many reasons). But under no circumstance do we think it should allow for, say, barring marriage between two people because their skin color doesn’t match. 

 

The whole idea of there being protected classes isn't a literal component of the Constitution.

 

The phrase or idea of a protected classes is not born from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  So to say that you support a literal interpretation of the Constitution and support the idea of there being protected classes is pretty much a nonsensical argument.  

[tshile]

I will concede that I am woefully ill equipped to argue about the constitution. 
 

maybe I’m conflating the idea of states rights with literal interpretation of the constitution. 
 

 

I will add “let the voters decide” is, to me, an awful idea when it comes to things like whether the color of two peoples skin should determine whether they should be allowed to legally marry. 
 

just because there’s enough racists to support the idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or that it’s a good idea to just appeal to simple majority rules. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The whole idea of there being protected classes isn't a literal component of the Constitution.

 

The legality of interracial marriage was not decided on the basis of not discriminating against a protected class.  It was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

 

Quote

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."  Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia. 

 

Edit:  Noting that this was a unanimous 9-0 decision. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by PleaseBlitz

[China]

 

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I will say, I like the idea of a Republican saying that inter-racial marriages should be left up to the states.  I'm not against anti-racial marriages and wouldn't support them being made illegal.

 

But if you are going to say you support and believe interpreting the Constitution literally be honest and consistent and that's being honest and consistent.

 

Let's have a real debate where people are being intellectually honest and consistent and see what American choose.

 

Fwiw, you are talking about interracial and antiracial marriages. 😁

 

Also, as someone in an interracial marriage, I hope the states rights people kindly **** off. 😉

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The legality of interracial marriage was not decided on the basis of not discriminating against a protected class.  It was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

 

 

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."  Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia. 

 

Edit:  Noting that this was a unanimous 9-0 decision. 

 

I know that.  But did you read the post I responded to though?  You know the one that specifically mentioned protected classes.

 

(And I'm sure you know the arguments that inter-racial marriage laws don't violate the 14th amendment, which were legally accepted prior to the Loving decision including by the Supreme Court for decades.  And I'm sure you also know that essentially those same arguments continued to be used for decades after the Loving decision to argue that gay marriage laws weren't unconstitutional, including rulings laid down by federal court.  Until 2015.  So that the 14th amendment said that you couldn't say that one group of people can't marry another group of people wasn't immediately oblivious to everybody, including the judicial system even AFTER Loving.  And then extending from that, if it wasn't immediately obvious, then it clearly isn't literally part of the text.  It is extremely unlikely that the people that passed the 14th amendment did so thinking that it made laws against inter-racial and same sex marriages unconstitutional.  Coming to the conclusion that the 14th amendment means/says that a state can't say one group of people can't marry another requires some interpretation.

 

I don't want to argue the Loving decision.  I support it.  But it isn't hard to see that the Loving decision requires some nuance even in the context of the 14th amendment. Which is why state laws against inter-racial and same sex marriages were legal for so long.)

Edited March 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I will concede that I am woefully ill equipped to argue about the constitution. 
 

maybe I’m conflating the idea of states rights with literal interpretation of the constitution. 
 

 

I will add “let the voters decide” is, to me, an awful idea when it comes to things like whether the color of two peoples skin should determine whether they should be allowed to legally marry. 
 

just because there’s enough racists to support the idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or that it’s a good idea to just appeal to simple majority rules. 

 

The two things pretty much always go hand-in-hand and with a strict interpretation of the 14th amendment that includes things like gay marriage and inter-racial marriage laws being constitutional (because you aren't discriminating against an individual if you say nobody can do it. e.g. saying that nobody can marry somebody of the same sex isn't discriminatory because it applies to everybody.) 

 

Unless the person doesn't because it is an idea/law that they want to be treated differently.

 

(And with that, I'll let this go.  It is a distraction from the hearings.)

Edited March 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

The whole idea of there being protected classes isn't a literal component of the Constitution.

Uh, to start with, I would assume that the idea that people be treated equally was a foundation of society that didn't need to be explicitly stated. 
 

I recall reading once the argument that the greatest step in society was when the citizens of Rome demanded that laws had to be posted for all to read. Because it created the notion that The Law was more important than who one was. 
 

But even with an emphasis on "literal", I'd assert that the 14th amendment literally prohibits apartheid. And was passed for the specific purpose of applying to the states. 
 

(I'd also caution against trying to pull the "It doesn't specifically say ...." move. I will note that the constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to pass criminal laws. Nor the courts the authority to send people to jail. Those were "just things that legislatures and courts do".)

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Uh, to start with, I would assume that the idea that people be treated equally was a foundation of society that didn't need to be explicitly stated. 
 

I recall reading once the argument that the greatest step in society was when the citizens of Rome demanded that laws had to be posted for all to read. Because it created the notion that The Law was more important than who one was. 
 

But even with an emphasis on "literal", I'd assert that the 14th amendment literally prohibits apartheid. And was passed for the specific purpose of applying to the states. 
 

(I'd also caution against trying to pull the "It doesn't specifically say ...." move. I will note that the constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to pass criminal laws. Nor the courts the authority to send people to jail. Those were "just things that legislatures and courts do".)

 

I knew I was making a nuanced point and I knew it would be hard.  I also know that I said I would let it go above, but this is the last post.

 

Your argument is essentially that the 14th amendment clearly makes things illegal that continued to be legal for decades (including supporting Supreme Court decisions) after it was passed.  Do you really not see that's a bad argument?  Hey, they passed an amendment that clearly makes gay-marriage and inter-racial marriage legal in 1868.  It just took a century or more and for all of the people that were in power when it was passed to die for people to realize it.  Can you really not see that's nonsense?  I don't know how you want to define apartheid but segregation is legal for decades after the 14th amendment is passed, including support from a Supreme Court decision.  To the many of the people at the time, the 14th amendment doesn't clearly make segregation legal.

 

(Constitution EXPLICTLY creates a society where people are treated UNEQUALLY.  So that wasn't the objective.  That might be your objective today (and most people's) but that ISN'T what is laid out in the Constitution.  Even after the 14th amendment is passed, women can't vote (it is about another 40 years until women get the right to vote).  The idea that the 14th amendment created a society or was passed to create a society where everybody was treated equally just isn't true.  So your first sentence is just garbage to be brutally honest.  It has no bearing on how to interpret the Constitution and ignores history and the document itself.)

Edited March 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[philibusters]

I don't find the nomination hearings that interesting because barring something unexpected happening (A Democrat Senator dies in a state with a Republican governor and the Republican replaces the Democratic senator with a Republican senator), its pretty clear that she is going to get confirmed.  Thus its all a bit of theater and largely both sides understand that.

[skinsmarydu]

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Republicans are now saying out loud and in Congress what they've thought ever since the parties switched philosophies.

My husband told me about his parents (Dixiecrats), but I never really knew it until now. 

[NoCalMike]

The criticisms being raised aren't even interesting.  It just feels like Hawley, Cruz, & Cotton jockeying to try and pull some DeSantis voters over to their camp for 2024.

[TheDoyler23]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

The criticisms being raised aren't even interesting.  It just feels like Hawley, Cruz, & Cotton jockeying to try and pull some DeSantis voters over to their camp for 2024.

 

Yes, they’re trying to show their base how scary the “cancel culture” liberals who want to rape their children in their sex cults while watching trans women play sports. 

[skinsmarydu]

Mr.(or Ms.) Lindsey Graham: 

 

The USNJAG hates you. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Correct. This is just theater. The Senators know they are on TV and they are using the opportunity to campaign. None of this has anything to dd with Judge Jackson.

[Dan T.]

[China]

14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Correct. This is just theater. The Senators know they are on TV and they are using the opportunity to campaign. None of this has anything to dd with Judge Jackson.

 

Which is exactly why I have no interest in watching it.  Just get to the vote already.

 

To paraphrase Macbeth:   It is questions asked by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Dan T.]

My gosh, the GOP's obsession with the child pornography issue is just creepy.  Talk about beating a dead, disgusting horse...

[88Comrade2000]

3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

My gosh, the GOP's obsession with the child pornography issue is just creepy.  Talk about beating a dead, disgusting horse...

Because the party with the real pedos are in the gop.

[tshile]

Maybe I’ve been lucky. I catch good parts. 
 

i just stream on wamu as time allows 

[Dan T.]

 

[The Sisko]

 

 

8 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Would Thomas vote to send it back to the states. If his state made his marriage illegal; would he leave his illegal wife.

I'm sure he would since he's actually a white guy who suffers from a bad case of re-vitiligo. Therefore, that law wouldn't apply to him.

 

7 hours ago, tshile said:

I will concede that I am woefully ill equipped to argue about the constitution. 
 

maybe I’m conflating the idea of states rights with literal interpretation of the constitution. 
 

 

I will add “let the voters decide” is, to me, an awful idea when it comes to things like whether the color of two peoples skin should determine whether they should be allowed to legally marry. 
 

just because there’s enough racists to support the idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or that it’s a good idea to just appeal to simple majority rules. 

The whole state's rights stuff is nonsense. I realize there's a constitutional basis for it, but I'm speaking from a practical standpoint. OK, so you'd exclude stuff that discriminates against protected classes. The only problem is that there are tons of dumb, harmful things states do or would like to that have nothing to do with protected classes. One good example off the top of my head is the current nonsense over critical race theory. They aren't discriminating against anyone directly, just preventing the truth from being taught in schools.

 

[The Evil Genius]

5 hours ago, Dan T. said:

My gosh, the GOP's obsession with the child pornography issue is just creepy.  Talk about beating a dead, disgusting horse...

 

 

[The Evil Genius]