9th Circuit upholds Prop 8 ruling, step closer to implementing the fabulous agenda!

[G-Max]

It's going to the Supreme Court, which will find prop 8 constitutional on a 5-4 margin. Why? States rights, popular initiatives, and the 10th amendment.

I wish. Unfortunately, it has been a long time since we had 5 justices on the Supreme Court who understood anything about states' rights or the 10th Amendment.

Someday homosexuals will have the same rights as everybody else no matter how homophobic the state.

In most of the U.S., they already do. The problem is that men and women have different sets of rights: men are only allowed to marry women and women are only allowed to marry men. This poses a serious problem for straight people of the same sex who want to get married just for the legal benefits (as depicted in that episode of Boston Legal).

Honestly, I stopped being a fan of states' rights when I saw it used for every disciminatory ideology you can think of. Down with states' rights!

I stopped being a fan of evolution when I saw it used to justify the Holocaust. Now I'm a creationist.

Oh wait, that logic sucks ass. Never mind.

I'm a proponent of States Rights so the Federal government doesn't mess with stuff like medical Marijuana.

Aye to that!

I've never been a big fan of California's ballot proposition system, but as the system is an exercise of popular sovereignty

It's okay for the purposes of amending the state Constitution, as that's pretty much the whole idea behind the social contract. For passing plain old laws, though, it's epically stupid.

 

[Leoreth]

I stopped being a fan of evolution when I saw it used to justify the Holocaust. Now I'm a creationist.

Oh wait, that logic sucks ass. Never mind.

Good that scientific theories and political positions are different things then. Because one is about what is, and the other about how you want things to be.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Good that scientific theories and political positions are different things then. Because one is about what is, and the other about how you want things to be.

He actually has more of a point than you think. It IS still crappy logic. Of course, it was also a joke, but I don't let that stop anyone.

That said, "states' rights" is trotted out far too much to support discriminatory policies.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed. Like claiming that men and women have "different sets of rights".

"States rights" and the 10th Amendment really only exist because the Southern states would have never joined the union without them. They were too paranoid they would eventually no longer be allowed to own other human beings and otherwise discriminate against others as they saw fit. And they were right.

What is really revealing is the notion that 5 ultraconservative appointees by 3 Republican presidents are the only reason the Supreme Court again "understands" similar discrimination.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And oh, seven, mostly old white guys deciding who has what right. Yea, that will end well.

That seems to be a common modern misconception. It certainly is in Germany.
A constitutional court is not supposed to decide anything other than what the constitution says. And that is (supposed to be) up to the people. So you for instance.

 

[JollyRoger]

The 10thers often forget about the 14th (and a lot of other stuff in the Constitution). Nevertheless, all nine current Justices do not give the 10th Amendment much weight.

 

[kramerfan86]

Im sorry but states rights should not apply to legalized discrimination against minority groups, which unfortunately seems like one of the more popular instances states rights becomes a battle cry.

 

[MobBoss]

Im sorry but states rights should not apply to legalized discrimination against minority groups, which unfortunately seems like one of the more popular instances states rights becomes a battle cry.

That battle has already been fought and lost. If states are going to license something, they have a right to define it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That "battle" continues to be "fought" on a recurring basis. All past instances of discrimination have eventually been stopped never to recur again. Baby steps.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, racism no longer exists...amiright?

 

[kramerfan86]

That battle has already been fought and lost. If states are going to license something, they have a right to define it.

Like they had the right to ban interracial unions?

 

[Flying Pig]

A constitutional court is not supposed to decide anything other than what the constitution says.

Yes, but in practice that's so ambiguous that they're effectively being asked to rule on the 'nation's character' and whether a proposal fits with that.

 

[G-Max]

That said, "states' rights" is trotted out far too much to support discriminatory policies.

That said, "individual rights" is trotted out far too much to support the Fabulous Agenda.

You see what I did there?

"States rights" and the 10th Amendment really only exist because the Southern states would have never joined the union without them.

Fun fact #1: The notion of states' rights predates the Constitution.

Fun fact #2: the Southern states DID join the union without the Tenth Amendment, which was ratified three and a half years after the Constitution was. The 9th and 10th Amendments exist to clarify what the Constitution means, and does not actually change how it works; their inclusion in the Bill of Rights was demanded by the Southern States as a condition for ratifying the rest of the Bill of Rights, not for joining the Union.

What is really revealing is the notion that 5 ultraconservative appointees by 3 Republican presidents are the only reason the Supreme Court again "understands" that individuals have the right to discriminate

Fixed

The 10thers often forget about the 14th (and a lot of other stuff in the Constitution).

Would you care to back that up?

Im sorry but states rights should not apply to legalized discrimination against minority groups

When you refer to "legalized discrimination", are you referring to legally mandated discrimination like the minimum ages for smoking/driving/voting/drinking/banging your teacher/etc., or are you referring to the legal right of individuals to discriminate? One is FREEDOM and therefore good, and the other is a lack thereof and therefore BAD.

All past instances of discrimination have eventually been stopped never to recur again.

O RLY?

Like they had the right to ban interracial unions?

Banning interracial unions was the primary reason why government started getting its damn dirty fingers in the marriage business to begin with.

 

[Leoreth]

That said, "individual rights" is trotted out far too much to support the Fabulous Agenda.

You see what I did there?

Do you want to imply that states' rights are equally or even more important than individual rights?

Banning interracial unions was the primary reason why government started getting its damn dirty fingers in the marriage business to begin with.

Are you criticizing the dirty fingers of government in general or just those of the federal level now?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes, but in practice that's so ambiguous that they're effectively being asked to rule on the 'nation's character' and whether a proposal fits with that.

There the problem starts. "Character of a nation"? Only an activist judge could think in such dimensions. See people act like this was a finale rule, when it is bound to a peace of papers which at any time can be changed if the people demand so (in theory). Which leads us to the problematic worship of the constitution.
Now, that people forget that even constitutions can (and should) be changed, leads to the situation, that constitutional judges are motivated and even expected be activists.
Which means, that the inability of the legislative to refine the constitution and the resulting necessity to leave it to an unelected judicial body to make all the big calls is in the end the legislative giving away key competencies for not being able to fulfill them.
And this is something people think of as perfectly normal nowadays (in Germany it is the same thing, albeit in a quit different way of course than in America).

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yeah, racism no longer exists...amiright?

States no longer engage in it. "Amiright"?

Fun fact #1: The notion of states' rights predates the Constitution.

Fun fact #1: States predate the nation. And that is exactly why there is such an absurd concept as "states rights" in the first place.

Fun fact #2: the Southern states DID join the union without the Tenth Amendment, which was ratified three and a half years after the Constitution was. The 9th and 10th Amendments exist to clarify what the Constitution means, and does not actually change how it works; their inclusion in the Bill of Rights was demanded by the Southern States as a condition for ratifying the rest of the Bill of Rights, not for joining the Union..

Fun fact #2: Almost all the concessions made to the Constitution were due to the South and slavery, including the notion of limiting the federal power to such an extent and giving the rest to the states.

Fixed

Fun fact #3: Businesses cannot typically discriminate against individuals either, and states certainly cannot in almost any regards anymore as well, despite the "states rights" code words and dog whistles to the contrary. Take the sodomy laws finally ruled to be unconstitutional despite a handful of the the more backward states dragging their feet, for instance.

 

[G-Max]

Do you want to imply that states' rights are equally or even more important than individual rights?

Of course not. I'm just saying that it's easy to dismiss an entity's rights as unimportant when that entity uses those rights in a way that you personally don't like.

Are you criticizing the dirty fingers of government in general or just those of the federal level now?

Marriage licenses are issued by the states, so they're getting most of the blame for this one.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to get their damn dirty fingers in marriage, however. I'm just saying that they shouldn't exercise it.

(sidesteps obvious trap)

Fun fact #1: States predate the nation.

OMG NO WAI

And that is exactly why there is such an absurd concept as "states rights" in the first place.

The concept is far from absurd. It is, in fact, a crucial component of constitutional federalism and the social contract in general. If you don't like it, feel free to move to Somalia.

Fun fact #2: Almost all the concessions made to the Constitution were due to the South and slavery, including the notion of limiting the federal power to such an extent and giving the rest to the states.

Excuse me, but have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? Scrapping them in favor of the Constitution was a huge gain for the Northern states.

Fun fact #3: Businesses cannot typically discriminate against individuals either, and states certainly cannot in almost any regards anymore as well

Ah. So I guess those "5 ultraconservative appointees by 3 Republican presidents" are really dragging their feet when it comes to re-imposing Jim Crow laws.

 

[MobBoss]

States no longer engage in it. "Amiright"?

Nope. There is this thing called 'Affirmative Action'...maybe you've heard of it?

State sponsored racism still does indeed occur. So technically, your're quite incorrect in your allegation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ah yes. The same completely absurd notion that those who are opposed to racial discrimination are actually the racists who clearly unjustly discriminate.

Any actual "discrimination" in affirmative action policies, implemented at both the federal and state level during the 60 and 70s, ended long ago. And it obviously wasn't unjust no matter how much the white supremacists opposed those policies back then. They were clearly designed to help fight centuries of discriminatory practices in the state and federal government against blacks and other minorities. It was actually just the opposite of "racism".

Do you really think the 5 reactionaries appointed by the last 3 Republican presidents on the Supreme Court would idly stand by while "State sponsored racism" was imposed on underprivileged whites by that handful of "liberals" in the US?

 

[JollyRoger]

Current marriage policy in most places is affirmative action for straights.