Judge Scalia RIP

[chipbennett]

It shouldn't. I've been vocal in my support of eliminating marriage as a legal concept and replacing it with civil unions for all. But until then, there's no reason to enforce existing law unequally.

Again, marriage is available to all. The law treats no one unequally. And I agree with you 100% on the matter of state-recognized civil unions, and the state not recognizing religious marriages.

And yes, saying that only marriages meeting the religious definition are valid is applying the law unequally. It's like passing a law banning pork, and then saying that it's fair because it applies to everyone, whether their faith forbids pork or not.

Different matter entirely. Laws banning smoking? Or Alcohol? Or Big Gulps? They have nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause.

 

[printcraft]

Kut, Nobody is buying what you are selling dude.

 

[T.Lex]

It is somewhat odd to me (even by INGO Office of Thread Management guidelines for derailing) that the conversation has drifted to this juncture. A Supreme Court nominee now would not have any meaningful impact on gun rights for, I'd guess, at least 3 years, probably closer to 5.

And, an outright overturning of Heller would be highly unlikely, and any lower-court ruling in that direction would probably invite Congressional intervention - which may or may not be a good thing.

The sky is not falling with this specific nominee nor this opportunity to nominate.

ETA:
Ok, Kut, those are the only gun-related matters that were presented to him, and he signed. Do you have a follow-up point? Separation of powers works?

 

[printcraft]

How about anybody who is against any portion, however small, of a Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) freedom is not allowed on this court (or any other) ever?
Works for me.

 

[Lowe0]

Again, marriage is available to all. The law treats no one unequally. And I agree with you 100% on the matter of state-recognized civil unions, and the state not recognizing religious marriages.



Different matter entirely. Laws banning smoking? Or Alcohol? Or Big Gulps? They have nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause.

I'm against the Big Gulp law, and I'm definitely against banning alcohol. You're mistaking agreeing with the liberals on this one thing, with agreeing with them on everything.

Smoking in public, I'm in favor of banning, because it violates a conservative principle of mine: that people are responsible for their own negative externalities.

But marriage law (prior to Obergefell) definitely treated people unequally. Those born attracted to the opposite sex were not afforded the right to enter into a marriage contract with whoever they chose to, and I have yet to see a compelling interest in not doing so. Why would I limit their freedom without a good reason?

 

[T.Lex]

How about anybody who is against any portion, however small, of a Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) freedom is not allowed on this court (or any other) ever?
Works for me.

Proposing a litmus test that is not in the constitution? Isn't that unconstitutional?

I mean, as a rule of thumb for presidents, yeah, that makes sense.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll check back periodically, to see if someone decides to answer the very basic question.

Kut (wonders why the admission of a fact so difficult.... not really, it's Obama, after all)

Your argument is logical fallacy. You are presenting a false dichotomy by implying that the only way to determine if the assertion that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A is true is by comparing pro- and anti-2A legislation that he has signed into law, when in fact that criterion is only a small subset of the evidence available to prove or refute the assertion.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm against the Big Gulp law, and I'm definitely against banning alcohol. You're mistaking agreeing with the liberals on this one thing, with agreeing with them on everything.

Smoking in public, I'm in favor of banning, because it violates a conservative principle of mine: that people are responsible for their own negative externalities.

My point is not to agree or to disagree with laws that ban various things; rather, my point is that the validity/constitutionality of those laws does not rest on the Equal Protection clause.

 

[Jludo]

So, you ignore the vigorous attempts to get legislation enacted from an opposite party as proof that he's not anti-gun? He said himself that his biggest disappointment was losing the gun control battle with congress. Simple question. Are you serious?

I agree with Kut in that Obama has not been as bad on guns, for whatever reason, as many here make him out to be. Whether that's lack of will, inability or him just not being as concerned with the issue as his opponents.

 

[printcraft]

Proposing a litmus test that is not in the constitution? Isn't that unconstitutional?

I mean, as a rule of thumb for presidents, yeah, that makes sense.

Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution should garner a steep penalty.
Like the end of rope type of penalty.
Don't like the penalty?
Don't apply for the job, don't take the oath.
Simple concept.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with Kut in that Obama has not been as bad on guns, for whatever reason, as many here make him out to be. Whether that's lack of will, inability or him just not being as concerned with the issue as his opponents.

Again, the assertion was that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By arguing that Obama has not been effective at undermining the 2A, you're making a straw man fallacy.

 

[T.Lex]

Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution should garner a steep penalty.

It is not binary. How do you feel about Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education?

One can interpret the Constitution without subverting it. In fact, that is basically the requirement.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is somewhat odd to me (even by INGO Office of Thread Management guidelines for derailing) that the conversation has drifted to this juncture. A Supreme Court nominee now would not have any meaningful impact on gun rights for, I'd guess, at least 3 years, probably closer to 5.

And, an outright overturning of Heller would be highly unlikely, and any lower-court ruling in that direction would probably invite Congressional intervention - which may or may not be a good thing.

The sky is not falling with this specific nominee nor this opportunity to nominate.

ETA:
Ok, Kut, those are the only gun-related matters that were presented to him, and he signed. Do you have a follow-up point? Separation of powers works?

I specifically said, you don't count, lol. There is plenty of follow up. Everyone here knows, after getting an answer, I'm not just going to throw my hands up, say " I win," and abandon the thread. Is the question so hard to admit its obvious answer? And I thought people here were made of "sterner stuff," (not really).

 

[printcraft]

It is not binary. How do you feel about Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education?

One can interpret the Constitution without subverting it. In fact, that is basically the requirement.

Granting additional rights is one matter for debate......... the afore mentioned women/black voting rights, etc.
When it is used as a tool of the government to restrict or eliminate guaranteed rights is where I have a major problem.
If they said: "Women will no longer be allowed to vote." Although, that sounds appealing on the surface... .... would be government eliminating a right and I would not be for it.

 

[Lowe0]

My point is not to agree or to disagree with laws that ban various things; rather, my point is that the validity/constitutionality of those laws does not rest on the Equal Protection clause.

I'm not saying that the Big Gulp law relies on equal protection. I'm saying that same-sex marriage does, and that applying equal protection elsewhere, but not to marriage, is cherry-picking.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not saying that the Big Gulp law relies on equal protection. I'm saying that same-sex marriage does, and that applying equal protection elsewhere, but not to marriage, is cherry-picking.

But the example you gave was of a theoretical ban on pork.

Nevertheless: name one person who, prior to Obgerfelll, could not get married?

 

[Lowe0]

But the example you gave was of a theoretical ban on pork.

Nevertheless: name one person who, prior to Obgerfelll, could not get married?

Is it sufficient to be allowed to exercise a freedom in a government-sanctioned manner? Should Obergefell have only been allowed to marry who Ohio said was okay to marry? Even if the people of Ohio had absolutely no compelling interest in who he married?

Saying that you can marry from a government-approved list of people is like saying you can bear a government-approved list of arms. We don't like it when the government limits our choices; why should we like it when they limit someone else's?

 

[chipbennett]

Is it sufficient to be allowed to exercise a freedom in a government-sanctioned manner? Should Obergefell have only been allowed to marry who Ohio said was okay to marry? Even if the people of Ohio had absolutely no compelling interest in who he married?

Saying that you can marry from a government-approved list of people is like saying you can bear a government-approved list of arms. We don't like it when the government limits our choices; why should we like it when they limit someone else's?

Name one person who, prior to Obgerfell, could not get married? Even Obgerfell himself could get married prior to Obgerfell.

 

[Lowe0]

Name one person who, prior to Obgerfell, could not get married? Even Obgerfell himself could get married prior to Obgerfell.

And you could also have bought a grandfathered AR during the AWB. Does that make that particular law okay? If not, then why are you okay with saying Obergefell could have married within a government-approved group?

 

[chipbennett]

And you could also have bought a grandfathered AR during the AWB. Does that make that particular law okay? If not, then why are you okay with saying Obergefell could have married within a government-approved group?

I am strictly arguing the Equal Protection clause, and asserting that Obgerfell was not a matter of Equal Protection. (And in the end, the decision came down to, essentially, a discovered right not to be made to feel ashamed. It had nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause.)

I am making no claims that there are other grounds or arguments for or against marriage laws.