Senate The Supreme Court

Perhaps.

Back to the regularly schedule topic, glad to see this issue has been put to bed and that personal freedoms won out. It is now, as it should have been long ago on the topic of same sex marriage.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246301-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-of-the-court

Yeah, let us just get rid of the court. We don't like their decisions so let's just fundamentally alter the Constitution the republicans claim we should adhere to. Forget separation of powers and splitting power across different political spheres. Let's just have King Jindal presiding over the House of Reps and the Chamber of Future Presidential Contenders.

I feel a crack up coming on.

This has to be said in jest. If it's not, then Jindal should immediately pull himself out of the race and from politics entirely.

 

This is the person who plays the creationism card despite his biology degree from Brown.

 

I hope not. I would hope we would move forward in acceptance(Loving) and not further division and polarization(Brown and Roe).

edit:

One other thing:

Decision according to president:

Reagan: 1-1
HW Bush: -1
Clinton: +2
W Bush: -2
Obama: +2

Presidential elections do matter with the SCOTUS.

 

On Facebook, my lesbian cousin and her girlfriend are overjoyed at this news, but my uncle (no relation to her) has been posting religious stuff bemoaning this decision.

 

Some observations I have about criticisms of judges, judicial activism, and such. Looks like there are a few lawyers in the JCC so please illuminate or point out defects. I defer to your knowledge.

First, unelected judges ruining our laws. As we know, our justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, each elected officials. Baring outliers like Earl Warren, we know the party controlling the White House and the upper house will nominate and confirm appointees reflecting the party's political and judicial philosophies. Why are people upset when judges do their jobs after being appointed by our elected officials? I must disobey imperial deputies since I did not vote on my home county's deputies, only the sheriff.

Second, having a branch of our government that is able to have a longer view on the issues. When most of my conservative colleagues cried out, "Referendum on Obama!" when the GOP took over the House, my response was, "Isn't that the point of the House?" I would respect the Tea Party if they took their interpretation of "the Founding Father's vision" to a next level by advocating the Seventeenth Amendment's repeal. The Founders recognized there needs to be limits on pure democracy. How is the court countermanding this concept, save for judicial reviewing not being described in bright neon in the Constitution?

Third, the most obvious point, the sore loser. Why is the court invalid by the rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare, yet the court was valid in District of Columbia v. Heller in regards to firearms, a key GOP policy position? All but two of the current Supreme Court's makeup voted in that case. Did the addition of two new justices poison the judicial branch to its core, making the branch a pulsing abomination wrecking the American union?

No, we know the answer. Most of the claims of judicial activism are people angry over the fact they lost. Sometimes your side loses.

 

I'd like to agree with you that it can't possibly be a serious or credible position but....

For the last 35 years, the model that has dominated US politics is that of conviction and no compromise ever attitude. It is an approach that requires opponents to be painted as enemies that must be destroyed - not engaged with. Over time it has become an attitude that even extends to rival centres of power! It's not restricted to the US either, it's what a lot of the nuts right-wing here, Cameron included, rail against, be it the judges or the ECHR. A certain type of politician has decided they no longer want political power, they want unlimited political powah!

Over here the increasing unease over a 'British Bill of Rights', by quite a few notable Conservative politicians may mark a watershed moment, as may the EU referendum in a year or two. For right now though, the idea that there should be no checks or balances on the legislative branch of government persists.

 

That is true of the Republicans, but not the Democrats. If you'll recall the budget negotiations from several years back, Obama was the one that kept trying to reach out to Boehner to find a compromise, but House Republicans refused any kind of deal that was even halfway reasonable. The GOP at the time controlled one house of Congress, but they wanted to enact their agenda as if they controlled both and the White House.

 

And what side is Jindal aligned with Alpha? Precisely.

This pre-dates Obama, though it could likely be argued it reached a new height or depth with him. Goes all the way back to Clinton. How dare you Americans vote in a non-Republican President!

EDIT Had to post this quote from guess who:

Yep, got a pretty good idea of how crap marriage must be for him.

 

I almost forgot-- this upcoming morning brings the end of this term, and the announcement of several more cases. The biggest one is going to be redistricting, and I'm convinced the Court is going to dismantle the commission.

 

We'll see. Though after Friday, the annoucement of those cases almost seems anti - climatic (even if the redistricting case will have long - term impact)

 

What ticks me off about the religious conservatives is that they want to force their personal views on everyone and dictate marriage and moral issues via government decisions. What ticks me off about liberals is that they claim to be tolerant, but in reality you'll get attacked if you don't agree with everything that they stand for.

While I'm Christian, I am also libertarian and I try to be open-minded. This gay marriage ruling was the right thing to do. We all have our personal views on what marriage is, and none of that has changed.

What I am kinda worried about, though, is that if any church refuses to wed same sex couples can they now be sued and/or lose their tax exempt status? Giving one group long-deserved freedoms shouldn't come at the cost of another group losing some of theirs.

 

Unless I've greatly misunderstood the ruling, freedom of religion still exists. That means that no, same sex couples can not be wed in churches unless that particular religion supports same sex marriage. What it does mean is all Federal and State sanctioned marriages (town halls, courthouses) DO have to allow same sex marriage. So in that instance, a town hall that refused would now be violating the law. But the Catholic Church for example is not suddenly going to be forced into performing same sex weddings as that would violate the constitution. Now, should Pope Francis suddenly sanction it, that's another matter entirely. But nope, no danger of tax exempt status or lawsuits. Freedom of religion still trumps this ruling in that instance. Hence why the fight for truly equal rights will continue for decades to come.

 

Execution ruling up first: Court rules to uphold it use of the lethal injection drug in question.

Edit: Breyer's dissent (from what I've heard on CNN) is interesting. Sounds like he would welcome a case that challenged the Death Penalty as a whole.

 

Yodaminch is absolutely correct. C'mon, people, this isn't rocket science. Religious institutions have -- and can continue -- to marry whomever they want in whatever manner they want within their doctrines and sanctuaries.

For example: if I wanted to marry my current opposite-sex partner, I could not get married in a synagogue as they would abjectly refuse to do so.

 

They're still going on in both concurrence and dissent readings from the bench in Glossip. Based on what I've been able to read, my guess is that it's either virtually unprecedented at this point (all the readings), or almost so.

Edit: RBG writing for Arizona. Yes!

 

I know it's not rocket science, I was just bring up a point that some folks are talking about, mostly on the conservative side.

Not sure about you all, but I am glad that we've moved past this issue finally. Civil liberties won out, and that's a good thing.

 

Right, and if I came off a bit harshly I apologize -- but I've seen many pieces about this over the internet and it's patently stupid each time, as if those other people (and not you, but the people you see on your FB feed) are stupidly playing word games and don't already know that religious organizations control who could and couldn't get married in their trappings before this decision.

Yep, apparently very rare for multiple dissents to be read from the bench though in this case apparently the oral arguments were some of the most contentious...

EDIT: Wow, congrats Josh.

 

There are some nullification games going on right now over in Texas, among other states, and it's completely unacceptable. People need to lose their jobs and office over it.

I'm so thankful and relieved that the redistricting commission is allowed to stand. It also means that Kyrsten Sinema will probably still have a job after 2016. She's one of the most liberal representatives in Congress, and she happens to be my rep, even though I'm from Arizona, and Maricopa County in particular.

 

Wow, what a term.

That is all.

 

Okay, please allow me to disagree with you here. What TX is doing is perfectly legal -- they (and Dani can correct if wrong) have a 25-day window to file a petition for rehearing (the 25 days is the limit of time for petition to be granted or not), at which point -- since it will almost certainly be denied, TX will almost certainly comply. I'd prefer all of that legal challenging mumbo-jumbo than what Mike Huckabee is suggesting, which is MLK-style civil disobedience over it.

Similarly, what the one county in AL is doing and all of UT are proposing (banning all state marriage licenses) is also technically permissible, though an obvious dick move. But don't lump TX in with them... yet.

 

They all know it's fated to end in the same way, David. The "window" is meaningless, because we all know the federal government reigns supreme. There is no way around it. The Texas AG knows this, and anyone with a law degree knows this. Any delay is unacceptable.

Edit: Scalia just threw conservatives their consolation prize-- they ruled against the EPA. Victory over the evil government for trying to control air quality!

 

And yet we're a country of laws and I'd prefer people to follow to the bitter-end of the legal system, if that is their wont. I prefer that to the alternative.

Also, EPA lost. Not good?