• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnotherNils

Member
A Black Falcon said:
Seriously, he's always been an awful person, but now... now he's gone too far, to a crazy degree. Nationwide the news the last two days has been fantastic, between the gay marriage and ACA rulings, but here in Maine things are a bit different...
Click to expand...
So, you guys got any recourse to recall him?

Also it sounds to bad it should be national news.
 
T

Teggy

Member
A Black Falcon said:
Yes. It was a referendum to ban catching bears with bait stations, traps, or hunting dogs.

The idea with bait is that bears like food, so you dump food in the woods regularly in specific places, get bears used to the idea that food is there, then eventually go to that place and shoot them. Traps are self-explanatory, bear traps. And dogs, hunting dog packs trained to go after bears (the dogs are often not treated well, I think). The referendum banned all three things, but bear-baiting is what most people called the referendum. There have been two votes on it now over the past decade, both failed attempts at banning it. Apparently no other state in the US allows all three of these methods of bear hunting, I think, or at least very few do... but Maine does. I think banning it would be good, but sadly the effort probably did help the Republicans win.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up, because that is not the historical definition of bear baiting. It was putting a bear in a pit with another animal (like a dog) and watching them fight for entertainment. And to think this was still going on, in Maine of all places, blew my mind.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
I really don't understand why so many analysts are saying this is such a huge relief for Republican candidates in 2016.

SSM-related questions are going to be asked constantly in the debates.

Do you support a definition of marriage amendment?

Should a Christian baker be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?

This is going to be HUGE issue in the GOP primaries.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
BertramCooper said:
I really don't understand why so many analysts are saying this is such a huge relief for Republican candidates in 2016.

SSM-related questions are going to be asked constantly in the debates.

Do you support a definition of marriage amendment?

Should a Christian baker be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?

This is going to be HUGE issue in the GOP primaries.
Click to expand...

I do imagine the combination of movement on the Confederate flag issue, the ACA subsidies ruling, and the marriage equality ruling is a huge, scary wakeup call for at least some of the candidates. Its clear the direction of the nation is against what they mostly set themselves apart from Democrats on.

How will that alter the primaries? And the national race? Will this week be a sobering moment to reassess campaign strategy? Or will they reflect for a day and then double down like the last general election?

Overall, I don't think this week is favourable for the Republican candidates at all. It has shifted the whole landscape left, making the candidates effectively move right. The gap candidates will need to bridge between placating their base in the primaries then getting back to a more moderate place for the general is wider than what Romney had to deal with. Interview and debate questions from the next few months to get them through will come back to haunt the successful candidate down the road.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
pigeon said:
Your dad has a surprising amount of political savvy! The FHA ruling is probably more important in some sense than Obergefell, because gay marriage was pretty inevitable, but fair housing still isn't legal like anywhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks, he used to be something of a fixer back in his day in South Carolina politics. There's a photo of him with Lee Atwater during a congressional campaign they worked on together and this chubby guy in a tie, who was the campaign treasurer. My dad said Lee grilled the guy so hard during the interview for the job that afterward the man went outside and vomited for 10 minutes :p He's always been a fiscal and regulatory conservative, but he's never really been big on social issues. He has opinions on them I'm sure, but he doesn't vote based on them over the economic front. It was always a point of pride that, despite the fact that my parents are both more conservative than I turned out to be (as is pretty normal, I think) my parents were for taking down the confederate flag even before the big stink in 2000. My dad always taught me that shit was for rednecks.

I'm reading the opinion now to see why he disagrees with it so much. He said the court had "lost its mind" /shrug.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
BertramCooper said:
I really don't understand why so many analysts are saying this is such a huge relief for Republican candidates in 2016.

SSM-related questions are going to be asked constantly in the debates.

Do you support a definition of marriage amendment?

Should a Christian baker be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding?

This is going to be HUGE issue in the GOP primaries.
Click to expand...

"Will you sign (insert name of personality)'s pledge that if elected president, you will support a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman?"

Scott Walker has already affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment to make marriage a state issue. Cruz has taken a somewhat similar view. Meanwhile Rubio and Bush put out tepid responses. It'll be interesting to see if either caves due to being outflanked on their right.

Scott Walker also said the Confederate Flag issue should be handled as South Carolina decides. I'm telling yall, he's going to do well. He knows who he is catering to, whereas Bush is catering to a republican voter that doesn't exist in the early states (outside of NH).
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
PhoenixDark said:
"Will you sign (insert name of personality)'s pledge that if elected president, you will support a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman?"

Scott Walker has already affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment to make marriage a state issue. Cruz has taken a somewhat similar view. Meanwhile Rubio and Bush put out tepid responses. It'll be interesting to see if either caves due to being outflanked on their right.

Scott Walker also said the Confederate Flag issue should be handled as South Carolina decides. I'm telling yall, he's going to do well. He knows who he is catering to, whereas Bush is catering to a republican voter that doesn't exist in the early states (outside of NH).
Click to expand...

Which is just fine, as he'll be a wash in the general. As long as Bernie doesn't take the nomination....
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I think the hardliners in the GOP base might get even more dramatic in their tone and urgency. We saw some pretty dramatic reactions over the past two days, and the candidates themselves reflected/synergized with the rhetoric of the base.. almost like a cycle.

When will their Sista Soulja moment come?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I didn't realize that Roberts read his dissent from the bench, the first time he's done so since he joined the court.

He realizes he'll regret that in a few decades, right?
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
I didn't realize that Roberts read his dissent from the bench, the first time he's done so since he joined the court.

He realizes he'll regret that in a few decades, right?
Click to expand...

You hear constantly about how he's super concerned with public perception of the court and the legacy of his court, yet he's either totally clueless or completely unconcerned about how history will view his terrible record on civil rights cases.

I don't get it.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
BertramCooper said:
You hear constantly about how he's super concerned with public perception of the court and the legacy of his court, yet he's either totally clueless or completely unconcerned about how history will view his terrible record on civil rights cases.

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I get Citizens United. I mean, I don't get it, but I don't think it's the type of case that will tarnish his legacy because it seems to cut pretty cleanly across ideological lines.

Obergefell? In even 10 years? 20? Oh my god.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Yeah so that red state tactic I mentioned earlier today where they might remove state-sanctioned marriage all together? Well, this isn't quite that, but:

http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme...-exits-the-marriage-business/?smid=tw-nytimes

In a signal of the type of resistance that could emerge in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, an Alabama probate judge said that his office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone.

“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” Probate Judge Wes Allen said in a statement. “The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen said, had not voided a provision of Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.

“The word ‘may’ provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses,” Judge Allen said, ‘and I have chosen not to perform that function.”

Judge Allen’s decision means that Pike County’s roughly 33,000 residents will have to obtain marriage licenses from probate offices elsewhere in the state.
Click to expand...
 
R

RustyNails

Member
LAtoDC said:
The White House is actually lighting up the north lawn with rainbow lights tonight.

You can check it out here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/live
Click to expand...

8Y8Rm5J.gif
 
A Black Falcon

A Black Falcon

Member
Teggy said:
Thank you for clearing that up, because that is not the historical definition of bear baiting. It was putting a bear in a pit with another animal (like a dog) and watching them fight for entertainment. And to think this was still going on, in Maine of all places, blew my mind.
Click to expand...

Is, not was. The referendum failed thanks to that huge right-wing wave in district 2. Yeah, it's sad stuff.

And it's called bear baiting because, well, it's about using bait (maybe as much 'garbage' as 'bait', but close enough) to catch bears. :p
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
HylianTom said:
I think the hardliners in the GOP base might get even more dramatic in their tone and urgency. We saw some pretty dramatic reactions over the past two days, and the candidates themselves reflected/synergized with the rhetoric of the base.. almost like a cycle.

When will their Sista Soulja moment come?
Click to expand...
Their Sister Soulja moment has long passed. It was supposed to be when tea party Republicans booed a gay soldier, when Republicans cheered on letting the uninsured die in the streets, when Republicans went nuts anytime they saw a Mexican (or someone with a brownish skin tone) and jumped to the conclusion that they were illegal immigrants coming to take our jerbs, when Newtown happened.

Admittedly I am pretty impressed with how the SC pols dealt with the Confederate Flag issue but the national candidates all gave chickenshit answers.

The Republicans will not confront the fringe elements of their party because the fringe elements are their party. When the Republicans eventually rebound - because they will, it's a two party system - none of these jokers running for president today will be the face of the party. Sure, a lot of the operatives behind the scenes will be the same, but the current crop of candidates have so much baggage with LGBT rights and immigration issues that Democrats would have to screw up majorly to let someone like Scott Walker become president.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
This day has flown by. I don't want to go to sleep.

And while I find FreeRepublic tears delectable (and NOLA.com tears!), I think I've spent less than 10 minutes there all day. Looking now, I realize that there is a TON to wade through in the coming days.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
HylianTom said:
That's been my main source of saline for today.

I also want to check-out the #tcot tag on Twitter at some point. The tea partiers always have some fun reactions..
Click to expand...

I just want to know why gay marriage suddenly means Christians go to concentration camps and then the gas chamber. Like, for real, where does that come from? Who originated that idea? How did it catch on to such a large number of people?

Just like, what?!
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Omg the new neogaf graphic. <3 <3 <3 <3

Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz said on The Sean Hannity that with the Supreme Court&#8217;s rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare, the United States had seen the worst 24 hours in its existence.

&#8220;Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation&#8217;s history,&#8221; Cruz said.

Host Sean Hannity seemed to agree. &#8220;I couldn&#8217;t say it more eloquently.&#8221;

&#8220;Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;Neither decision&#8211; the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare&#8230; for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration, you now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oath
Click to expand...

I can't take the salt. Too dehydrated.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'm really not getting the dissents of the justices especially when their reasoning for dismissing Lovings is basically "yeah, but that was between a man and a women, so it's totally different". Or bringing biology into it, as if they would ever allow a state to deny someone with a vasectomy the liberty to marry. Or complaining about how much impact this new set precedent will cause, as if they cared about the scope of their impact when they ruled for Citizens United.

I'm really trying to understand the argument for why one might say "I'm for gay marriage, but this ruling is still not following the constitution", but I'm not seeing it at all, unless you are honestly ok with states banning people who can't have children from marrying. Otherwise it's all just arguments to tradition, which would have worked equally as well in the Lovings case.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Loving really messes up a lot of these dissents. I think a lot of them would've executed jurisprudence to be in the minority of Loving -- which is horrifying.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Roberts' dissent in particular is rather notable. It signals to me that in future gay right cases, he probably isn't a swing vote.

Hillary: don't fuck this up. We need to flip a seat, or we'll see lots of states chipping-away at this ruling.
 
W

watershed

Banned
I love that some prominent republicans, including some "running for president," are doubling down against Obamacare and gay marriage. What a genius way to prove to the entire country just how backwards their party is.
 
M

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
watershed said:
I love that some prominent republicans, including some "running for president," are doubling down against Obamacare and gay marriage. What a genius way to prove to the entire country just how backwards their party is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Cruz calling ACA a "failed disaster of a law" seems an incredibly shortsighted comment when positive support for it has momentum. Another round of people will be signing up at the end of the year, and there is another year for people to realize the benefits before the general election. The window for making it an election topic has passed. At best, they should be talking about how they are going to "fix it", not repeal it.

He should have stuck to the "rewriting the law" point in isolation. "King Obama" seems to resonate just as well without having to actually prove anything.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
HylianTom said:
Roberts' dissent in particular is rather notable. It signals to me that in future gay right cases, he probably isn't a swing vote.

Hillary: don't fuck this up. We need to flip a seat, or we'll see lots of states chipping-away at this ruling.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if Republicans could basically overturn this by appointing an ultra conservative over RGB or Kennedy, similar to how Democrats plan to basically overturn Citizens United if they get to replace Kennedy or Scalia.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court
Ted Cruz said:
This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths. Yesterday, the justices rewrote Obamacare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government.

Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple. Both were lawless.

As Justice Scalia put it regarding Obamacare, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ . . . We should start calling this law SCOTUSCare.” And as he observed regarding marriage, “Today’s decree says that . . . the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing.

That is unacceptable. On the substantive front, I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage. And the 2016 election has now been transformed into a referendum on Obamacare; in 2017, I believe, a Republican president will sign legislation finally repealing that disastrous law.

But there is a broader problem: The Court’s brazen action undermines its very legitimacy.

This must stop. Liberty is in the balance.

Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.

This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great. During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court.

Enough is enough.

Over the last several decades, many attempts have been made to compel the Court to abide by the Constitution. But, as Justice Alito put it, “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”

...

If the Court is unwilling to abide by the specific language of our laws as written, and if it is unhindered by the clear intent of the people’s elected representatives, our constitutional options for reasserting our authority over our government are limited.

The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”

But the Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “not even a scarecrow” to the justices. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all. A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.

The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself. The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary. A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.

Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings. The courts in these states have not been politicized by this check on their power, nor have judges been removed indiscriminately or wholesale. Americans are a patient, forgiving people. We do not pass judgment rashly.

Yet we are a people who believe, in the words of our Declaration of Independence that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” In California, the people said enough is enough in 1986, and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment, no matter how savage the crime. The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state’s constitution to overturn the people’s decision to subject state legislators to term limits. And in 2010, the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had, like the Supreme Court in Obergefell, invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.

As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist — one of our nation’s greatest chief justices — and I have spent over a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at what has befallen our highest court.

But, sadly, the Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.

And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.

As we prepare to celebrate next week the 239th anniversary of the birth of our country, our Constitution finds itself under sustained attack from an arrogant judicial elite. Yet the words of Daniel Webster ring as true today as they did over 150 years ago: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” We must hold fast to the miracle that is our Constitution and our republic; we must not submit our constitutional freedoms, and the promise of our nation, to judicial tyranny.
Click to expand...
I'll admit, I once thought five years ago that Ted Cruz might not be too bad for a GOPer from Texas ala Mike Lee or Rand Paul.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
thepotatoman said:
I'm really not getting the dissents of the justices especially when their reasoning for dismissing Lovings is basically "yeah, but that was between a man and a women, so it's totally different". Or bringing biology into it, as if they would ever allow a state to deny someone with a vasectomy the liberty to marry. Or complaining about how much impact this new set precedent will cause, as if they cared about the scope of their impact when they ruled for Citizens United.

I'm really trying to understand the argument for why one might say "I'm for gay marriage, but this ruling is still not following the constitution", but I'm not seeing it at all, unless you are honestly ok with states banning people who can't have children from marrying. Otherwise it's all just arguments to tradition, which would have worked equally as well in the Lovings case.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the majority opinion yet, but I thought Roberts' dissent was very good. Unlike Scalia's dissent in King, Roberts in Obergefell explained his own methodology in addition to critiquing the majority's. In brief, Roberts says that "fundamental rights" must be rooted in tradition, lest judges simply read into the Constitution their own beliefs about what's important--and only traditional marriage is rooted in tradition; and that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated, because there's a good enough reason to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples with respect to marriage. On Loving, Roberts is quite clear:

Obergefell v. Hodges said:
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that institution has always been understood. In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.

None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” See Tragen, Comment, Statutory Prohibitions Against Interracial Marriage, 32 Cal.
L. Rev. 269 (1944) (“at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage”); post, at 11–12, n. 5 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.”
Click to expand...

(Thomas' point about Loving, that it concerned a prohibition imposing criminal sanctions for interracial marriage, and not merely a failure to recognize the marriage, also bears keeping in mind. Roberts' reference to common law, which had no ban on interracial marriage, and Thomas' footnote 5, which discusses the origin of interracial-marriage bans, also serve to distinguish that case from this one.)

Regarding biology, Roberts' point is that a couple consisting of opposite-sex members is a necessary condition to procreation, and so it makes sense to offer the benefits of marriage only that far. He also believes that the rational basis test is the appropriate level of scrutiny in this case, and so the fit between the government interest being furthered and the method by which the government seeks to further that interest need not be perfect. (By the way, under this reasoning, it's likely that Roberts would vote to permit a state to refuse to recognize a marriage involving an infertile partner, since the applicable level of scrutiny would still be the rational basis test.)

Finally, the problem that the dissenters have with the impact of this ruling is not that it will have one, but that it will have one despite lacking Constitutional justification. Here's Roberts again:

Obergefell v. Hodges said:
Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

...

Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents have accordingly insisted that judges “exercise the utmost care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” ee Kennedy, Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint 13 (1986) (Address at Stanford) (“One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system.”).

...

The majority acknowledges none of this doctrinal background, and it is easy to see why: Its aggressive application of substantive due process breaks sharply with decades of precedent and returns the Court to the unprincipled approach of Lochner.
Click to expand...


Also, I thought Alito's footnote 2 was interesting, in that it referenced websites "as visited June 24, 2015," indicating that at least some work was still being done of his dissent as of two days ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom