On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:14:38 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> Well, no, they don't.  "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my marriage"
>> (because that's not actually demonstrable).  It has to be something
>> tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim for
>> damages (or claim damages for).  For example, breaking someone's legs
>> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>>
> You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
> people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
> rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
> favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
> faith constitute harms."

I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an 
unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm".  Do you know of one?

> Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
> thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
> able to marry, and now can't. 

Yes, exactly.  But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who 
are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones 
claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot 
demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes 
them.

> So, its not the damn state that is the
> only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these
> "right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid
> poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in
> some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the
> difference isn't "harming" anyone? 

I never said that.  But that's not the question, Patrick - it's about 
people claiming something as "harm" that isn't quantifiable to them 
personally claiming nevertheless to have standing.  They don't, and even 
SCOTUS would have a hard time making the case that they do.  Scalia will /
try/, of course, but the court is split pretty evenly and a couple swing 
back and forth.  Just look at how ACA passed SCOTUS.

> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
> put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
> been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
> can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
> state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?

Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time.  The legislature /should/, 
I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up 
exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.  The courts are 
supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are 
unconstitutional being passed.  It generally works.

> Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of
> claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists,
> or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening,
> and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no
> standing to appose it.

Again, you're missing my point.  We're on the same side of this, and 
you're violently agreeing with me without (apparently) noticing it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message