On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:25:00 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> 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.)

It's been my experience that this is why the law needs something that's 
quantifiable in some way.  I can't sue you because you hurt my feelings, 
but I can sue you if you defame me in a way that causes me monetary 
damage (such as loss of work, for example).

>> 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).

Prop 8 was a weird one, because usually laws put forth something 
affirmative when it comes to rights (when they're related to rights).  
Prop 8 was the opposite, so it gets confusing to talk about, because a 
"yes" on 8 meant "no" to marriage rights.  People screwed around with the 
wording to make it purposefully confusing (IMHO), and that in and of 
itself should IMHO be illegal.

The "idiot in a hurry" shouldn't look at a law and interpret it to mean 
the opposite of what it does mean.


>>> 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?

Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that 
the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you 
shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an 
atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).

>>  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. 

From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.  
By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get 
to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the majority said 
"uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an 
immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an individual citizen 
could even sue to have one removed from the bench.

> 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?).

That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.

Jim

Post a reply to this message