On 12/13/2012 2:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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?
>
Oh, no, not specifically, but then, that is the point, isn't it. If you 
need a cause, you can find one. Its not impossible that there can be 
"real harms" to some people, both if/and if not, a law stands. Its also 
possible to pull things out of your ass, which you claim represent 
dangers. Its the statements made latter that make it really clear what 
they where actually thinking, and why they did it, and, while so far, 
all of the cases have been fairly borderline, and it is hard to say if a 
line was really crossed, again, looking at their opinions, their public 
statements, and at least in one case, the ranting gibberish one put out 
as his "apposing opinion to the decision", at the very least, suggest a 
really horrible result, should the balance shift even more in favor of 
certain sorts of people on the court (something Romney would have, 
almost certainly, have either done, or been pressured by his so called 
'base' into doing.)

>> 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.
>
Uh.. Ok, sorry, guess I missed your point. All the stupidity that has 
been going on the last, almost 12+ years, makes it hard to keep track of 
which idiocies stood, and which ones might have been shot down. I guess 
I lost track of what exactly went on with that one (especially given 
that a mess of other states have, since, been promoting the same stupid 
crap, on the basis that it was successful in California).

>> 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.
Sadly, we are lucky, sometimes, if the legislature, it seems, isn't made 
up of cast members from the movie Idiocracy, on some subjects. But, 
yeah, while a religious test is just out (it would remove about 80% of 
the idiots right there, if you could just test for which ones thing 
environmental issues don't exist, because god wouldn't allow them, and 
creationism was sound...), but... why the hell is it illegal to have a, 
"Do you even know anything about US history, the constitution, or.. how 
to write your own damn name, for that matter?"? I mean, would it be too 
much to ask that they could pass a GED, at minimum, without falling 
asleep, or paying someone else to take the test for them?

>  The courts are
> supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
> unconstitutional being passed.  It generally works.
>
Sadly, and this is what annoys me with SCOTUS is.. its not entirely 
clear how, or even if, you could fire one of them, if they did overstep 
their own limits, and did something unconstitutional themselves, like 
allowing something to stand that actually is unconstitutional. It is, 
after all, an "appointed" position, and who gets appointed depends 
entirely upon when one of them dies and/or retires, and who happens to 
be in the White House. Imagine Romney, and his "tea party" wackos, or 
someone actually crazy, not just unable to, apparently, think without 
consulting the current party leadership (I thought we got past that BS 
with Bush Jr...), had the opportunity to do that, especially given the 
somewhat.. questionable views of some of the people already there (not 
to mention their refusal to do what any other judge, in any other 
position, would do, and recuse themselves, when their own wife is on the 
comity/group pushing something under constitutional examination, as in 
fact happened with, I think Scalia?).

Post a reply to this message