US Politics 3

[Tempra]

Tempra,

What rational basis is there to deny a "fundemental right" to 3-5% of the population?

I made an argument under strict scrutiny already. Any of those arguments would pass rational basis review with flying colors. Whether they would pass strict scrutiny is a tougher call.

And I think strict scrutiny is probably the proper standard of review because we are talking about a fundamental right.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

The second amendment is murky enough itself. The right to bear arms does not automatically equal the right to bear any kind of firearm (otherwise, why are rocketlaunchers still restricted). Then there is also the debate about whether the clause is only applicable to members of a militia. It's all a matter of interpretation!

The same goes for equality.

I disagree that the second amendment is murky (at least with regards to the militia issue), but that is another conversation. Anyways, my point is that there is no inherent contradiction when conservatives "get all constitutional" when it comes to gun rights because the second amendment explicitly guarantees at least SOME rights to bear arms. NOTHING in the constitution (explicitly) guarantees gay marriage. We'll have to see whether the Court recognizes gay marriage under the due process clause/equal protection clause.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

No, "Judicial activism" is making up the "penumbria" and emination of rights from the bill of rights when the 9th Amendment is staring you right in the face.

[Tempra]

Judicial activist = a judge who makes a decision that I don't agree with

No, judicial activism is basing a decision on his opinion and not on the law. See Judge Walker's attempt to bring TV cameras into federal court for the prop 8 trial despite tv cameras being prohibited in federal court. That's judicial activism.

[DanteGabriel]

No, judicial activism is basing a decision on his opinion and not on the law. See Judge Walker's attempt to bring TV cameras into federal court for the prop 8 trial despite tv cameras being prohibited in federal court. That's judicial activism.

That's right, Walker ruled this way because he's gay, and Sonia Sotomayor will favor Latinos because she's Latino. The only judges in this country who can render judgments without bias, apparently, are straight male WASPs.

[Tempra]

That's right, Walker ruled this way because he's gay, and Sonia Sotomayor will favor Latinos because she's Latino. The only judges in this country who can render judgments without bias, apparently, are straight male WASPs.

I didn't say he made that decision because he was gay. Judge Kozinski, a conservative and chief judge of the 9th circuit, was equally wrong. Kozinski is a straight male.

Why don't you try and focus on substance?

[DanteGabriel]

I didn't say he made that decision because he was gay. Judge Kozinski, a conservative and chief judge of the 9th circuit, was equally wrong. Kozinski is a straight male.

Why don't you try and focus on substance?

You're not worth my substance, baby.

ETA: But pointing out that you think a straight white male was wrong about something doesn't contradict my assertion. Every time there is something not straight-male-WASP about a prominent judge or politician, the right howls about that person's potential to be unfairly prejudiced. Walker is an activist judge because Prop 8 offended his delicate queer sensibilities! Oh my heavens, Sonia Sotomayor might think like a Latina woman when she's judging cases! Obama is enslaving white America in revenge for slavery!

The right wing seems to think that only straight-male-WASPs can be free of such prejudices. The bigot caucus of the movement has spent years trying to convince themselves that they are the victims of history, because their overweening privilege is not quite as dominant as it used to be. So I'm tired of seeing these fucking identity-based arguments used against whatever bogeyman the right wing has nominated to be their substitute for policy for the week.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

Last time I checked I wasn't on talk radio.

[The Progressive]

No, judicial activism is basing a decision on his opinion and not on the law. See Judge Walker's attempt to bring TV cameras into federal court for the prop 8 trial despite tv cameras being prohibited in federal court. That's judicial activism.

No, that's bs. Your repeated concentration on this particular point to parlay it into some sort of detraction against the merit of the facts laid out in the case is amusing at best and disingenious at worst.

Currently, Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

prohibits the photographing or broadcasting of judicial proceedings in criminal cases

in federal courts. The Judicial Conference of the United States prohibits the

televising, recording, and broadcasting of district trial (civil and criminal) court

proceedings. Under conference policy, each court of appeals may permit television

and other electronic media coverage of its proceedings. Only two of the 13 courts of

appeals, the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, have chosen to do so.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33706.pdf

Why don't you try and focus on substance?

Love too; unfortunately the usual suspects from the rightwing have done anything but arguing against the substance of Judege Walker's decision ....... namely that marriage is a histocally evolving concept and that it's gender discrimination to prohibit people of the same sex to marry each other.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Could you please use people's names instead of nebulous groups like "the usual suspects from the rightwing". Swordfish and I have both come out in favor of homosexual marriage. It's irritating when you lump people together like that.

[The Progressive]

:grouphug:

[Tempra]

No, that's bs. Your repeated concentration on this particular point to parlay it into some sort of detraction against the merit of the facts laid out in the case is amusing at best and disingenious at worst.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33706.pdf

Please learn about the issue before telling me that I'm wrong. Thank you.

The broadcasting, however, was prohibited under both Circuit and local rules at that time.

...

This Court also has a significant interest in supervising the administration of the judicial system. See this Court’s Rule 10(a) (the Court will consider whether the courtsbelow have “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings . . . as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power”). The Court may use its supervisory authority to invalidate local rules that were promulgated in violation of an Act of Congress. See Fra-zier, 482 U. S., at 645–646; id., at 652, 654 (Rehnquist,C. J., dissenting). The Court’s interest in ensuring com-pliance with proper rules of judicial administration is particularly acute when those rules relate to the integrityof judicial processes. The District Court here attempted torevise its rules in haste, contrary to federal statutes andthe policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. It did so to allow broadcasting of this high-profile trial without any considered standards or guidelines in place.

...

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rulesmay be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

Ouch. That is a reprimand of the highest order.

Love too; unfortunately the usual suspects from the rightwing have done anything but arguing against the substance of Judege Walker's decision ....... namely that marriage is a histocally evolving concept and that it's gender discrimination to prohibit people of the same sex to marry each other.

That's ironic, because as I see it, as usual, the board liberals have trouble putting together a coherent legal argument. With a few exceptions, the posts in response to the "usual suspects" have been weak ass snipes by people like DG who either do not try or lack the mental faculties to understand the legal issues at play.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Y'all suck.

:P

[awesome possum]

That's ironic, because as I see it, as usual, the board liberals have trouble putting together a coherent legal argument. With a few exceptions, the posts in response to the "usual suspects" have been weak ass snipes by people like DG who either do not try or lack the mental faculties to understand the legal issues at play.

I see it as more of a case of people like you and FLoW trying to hide your bias against homosexuals behind a legal argument. For someone who has claimed several times in this thread that they're for gay marriage, you sure do seem set on convincing everyone that it's horrible and should never be law.

[Tempra]

I see it as more of a case of people like you and FLoW trying to hide your bias against homosexuals behind a legal argument. For someone who has claimed several times in this thread that they're for gay marriage, you sure do seem set on convincing everyone that it's horrible and should never be law.

Please quote me where I said "it's horrible and should never be law" or anything similar. Go.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, judicial activism is basing a decision on his opinion and not on the law. See Judge Walker's attempt to bring TV cameras into federal court for the prop 8 trial despite tv cameras being prohibited in federal court. That's judicial activism.

I think the phrase "judicial activism" is overused, but here's a conservative example.

Suppose a federal judge throws out the health care bill individual mandate because he says Congress doesn't have the power to do that. He may be wrong, but that's not activism.

But suppose a federal judge throws out that mandate because it violates the "fundamental right" not to be compelled to purchase something from a private entity simply by virtue of the fact that you exist. THAT would be activism, imho, because he wpould have created a new fundamental right. And by doing so, he not only could strike down the federal law, but Massachusetts' law as well.

[awesome possum]

Please quote me where I said "it's horrible and should never be law" or anything similar. Go.

The fact remains, despite your claims of being for it you sure have spent a lot of time arguing against it.

[The Progressive]

Please learn about the issue before telling me that I'm wrong. Thank you.

Ouch. That is a reprimand of the highest order.

I have; perhaps you should read the dissenting opinions as well. ;)

the parties themselves had more than ade-quate notice and opportunity to comment before the Rule was changed. On September 25, 2009, the trial judge,Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, discussed the possibility of broadcasting trial proceedings both within the courthouseand beyond, and asked for the parties’ views. No party objected to the presence of cameras in the courtroom fortransmissions within the courthouse, Exh. 9, p. 70, App. toPet. for Mandamus in No. 10–70063 (CA9) (hereinafterApp. to Pet.). (“No objection. None at all”), and both sidesmade written submissions to the court regarding theirviews on other transmissions. The court again raised theissue at a hearing on December 16.

Nor, in practice, did other members of the Judiciary lack information about the issue. In May 1996 the CircuitCouncil adopted a policy permitting video in connectionwith appellate proceedings, but prohibiting its use in thedistrict court. Subsequently, appellate court panels have frequently permitted electronic coverage. Judges, thepress, lawyers, and others have discussed the matter. In 2007 the lawyers and judges present at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference considered a resolution that favored the use of cameras in district court civil nonjury proceed-ings. And, voting separately, both lawyers and judges“approved the resolution by resounding margins.” Letter from Chief Judge Kozinski to Judge Anthony Scirica (Jan.10, 2010), Exh. 8, p. 4, Supp. App. to Response for Perry et al. (hereinafter Supp. App. to Response). Subsequently,a committee of judges was created to study the matter.And on December 17, 2009, the Circuit Council voted to

authorize a pilot program permitting the use of video in nonjury civil cases as part of an “experiment with thedissemination of video recordings in civil nonjury matters”(specifically those selected by the Chief Judge of the Cir-cuit and the Chief Judge of the District Court). And it issued a press release. News Release, Ninth Circuit Judi-cial Council Approves Experimental Use of Cameras in District Courts (Dec. 17, 2009), Exh, 13. App. to Pet.

In this context the United States District Court for the Northern District of California amended its local rules on December 22, 2009 to bring them into conformity withNinth Circuit policy.

The broadcasting, therefore, was in accordance with both Circuit and local rules at that time.

That's ironic, because as I see it, as usual, the board liberals have trouble putting together a coherent legal argument.

Legal arguments still needs to rest on facts, something that any substantive counter-arguments must rely on, but you and Flow have consistently avoid doing just that.

Seriously now, do you have any substantive argument against the claim that that marriage is a histocally evolving concept and that it's gender discrimination to prohibit people of the same sex to marry each other?

[The Progressive]

I for one do not understand Keyes' position. Anything we allow the government to do is something the government can abuse, that is a given. We still allow government to regulate some things, in spite of this. I don't think I favor too much regulation and I don't think I favor too little. I expect most people feel the same about their own positions.

In essentially all other countries, as I understand it, you must be born the child of a citizen to be a citizen. This has not resulted in fascist actions on the part of the other approximately 189 countries in the world, right? If so, where are governments abusing rights by taking away citizenship from the natural born? Do fascistic regimes need to fool with citizenship as an excuse to throw dissidents in prison? I think they generally don't bother.

Nations and citizenship make sense, they are the way to help the world work well at the moment, and grants of citizenship should not be as arbitrary as "you were born here, so you are a citizen" except in unusual cases.

Everyone knows that there were plenty of former slaves alive in 1870 whose parents were born in Africa, right? And so we passed the 14th amendment to help them.

You know, there are probably few people as happy as I am to have others (most often Latinos) come here and take jobs, they take difficult jobs for very little pay, and its downright good for the economy. Those who come to work here are generally good people. But I do not think we should allow people to just come across the border, have a baby in the emergency room and then they get an "anchor" due to the citizen in their family. Its unfair to the infertile. And those poor kids....they sometimes grow up here and then have to go back to their own countries when the are about 10 and they have never lived here. We need to change how people become American citizens.

What would be your proposals for that, Linda?

[Tempra]

The fact remains, despite your claims of being for it you sure have spent a lot of time arguing against it.

I haven't argued against gay marriage. I have said what the likely outcome of the case will be on appeal. I have stated that the "will of the people" is against gay marriage and provided evidence. I have said that the Court will look to the will of the people as a factor in their consideration should they take the case on cert. People have taken great offense to these statements.

I would would be thrilled if gay marriage was accepted in every state. I do not think, however, that the courts are the proper venue to make this happen. Instead, these measures should be passed by state legislatures. Public opinion is undeniably changing in favor of gay marriage. It is really only a matter of time until gay marriage is accepted by most/all states.