Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #640 on: February 08, 2008, 08:17:47 PM »
^^ LOL. madness, you must be joking. in 1974, the justices on the supreme court were the least progressive of, arguably, any era before or since. they weren't attempting to create non-existent rights within the constitution- a feat, mind you, that is very very difficult to accomplish without an amendment. they found that the constitution, as it stood protected this right that they espoused. now..whether they are correct is up for debate (and a legally interesting one at that) but what is not up for debate is the justice's political and philosophical ideology at that time.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #641 on: February 08, 2008, 08:42:02 PM »
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #642 on: February 09, 2008, 12:49:42 AM »
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"


Well, why does she?  Why does the state deserve the right?

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #643 on: February 09, 2008, 03:20:10 AM »
Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that. 

translation: "if you don't agree with me you're uninformed."

yeah...but what if you are pink uniformed and uninformed?

would that be worse?

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #644 on: February 09, 2008, 06:19:23 AM »
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"

That's a pretty uncharacteristic example of why women get abortions.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #645 on: February 09, 2008, 07:13:32 AM »
Cady told me that's how and why all women get abortions.



Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #646 on: February 09, 2008, 07:33:12 AM »
um, so those are state court rulings; hardly the final word on constitutionality.  furthermore, the second specifically refers to the equal protection clause of the new jersey constitution.  state courts can interpret their own constitutions whichever way they want.  it doesn't say anything about the US constitution.  sorry.  :)

Of course these are state courts. STATES issue marriage licenses. The Federal issue is about the federal government recognizing those marriages. They recognize some marriages and provide benefits, protections, securities to those marriages (that were licensed by a STATE) and not to others.

okay, but you were arguing about things under the equal protection clause.  i assumed you meant federal.  so basically what you're saying is that you're cool with some states giving equal protection to homosexuals and other states not doing it?  because otherwise, you're gonna have to argue federal.  and there you're going to lose.

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So no I'm not ok with some states giving equal protection and others not. It's a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Also, this is not to be condescending in anyway at all but you should try to move away from using the term "homosexuals." Gay, lesbian, queer is much more appropriate, accurate and preferred (and less offensive). There's a big misconception that "homosexual" is the PC term (so I understand completely why you probably use it instead of gay/lesbian) but it's actually not and the latter two are more appropriate.

MahlerGrooves

  • ****
  • 770
  • See! Leonard Bernstein gave me a shoutout!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #647 on: February 09, 2008, 08:04:39 AM »
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #648 on: February 09, 2008, 08:08:48 AM »
not taken as condescending at all.  is LGBT an acceptable term to you?

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So no I'm not ok with some states giving equal protection and others not. It's a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

here's the problem: you're arguing that the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution is what's relevant, but you cited state court decisions interpreting state constitutions to support it.

LGBT is perfect.

With regards to the equal protection clause - I'm sorry if it came across that way, that's not what I intended. I mentioned the court cases with regard to our strict scrutiny/rational basis discussion - not to use them as evidence that that it violates the US constitution, because obviously these rulings are based on the respective state constitutions.
 
With that said, I believe that states denying equal rights protections to gay/lesbian citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the 14th amendment. I also believe it's a violation of state constitutions as well who have their own form of equal protection clauses and sometimes even equal rights amendments. I'm not using the latter to justify the former though (or intending to).

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #649 on: February 09, 2008, 08:24:14 AM »
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...

I think there's a 4th

4. Elect a Democratic President, maintain a Democratic Majority in the Congress (and it couldn't hurt to pray Scalia kicks it or Thomas loses it)  ;)


It's not an overnight process. But Massachussettes has marriage, NJ and Connecticut will likely change the name from civil union to marriage very soon, the California legislature has already passed Marriage TWICE (both vetoed by Arnold) and now it's before the Courts... Massachusettes hasn't fallen apart b/c of gay marriage. No one's families have been destroyed like so many preach - (in fact Mass has one of the lowest divorce rates if  not the lowest - so much for gay marriage destroying those "traditional" marriages lol)  and people are seeing that. Slowly but surely, people are changing - including religious people. (And especially those who check out the new documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So"  ;)

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice..."