Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 27  28  29  30 

 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 7186
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I understand the purpose of the 14th Amendment when it was ratified. I'm also one of those persons who try the patience of others who don't understand that words have meaning. I strongly believe that the 14th means what it says when it states that all men are created equal, men in this case and others in the Constitution being inclusive when it comes to gender.

I don't like to have to beat around the penumbra of some phrase or sentence to find something in that dark corner that suddenly brings up definitions or rights that nobody knew that we had. How about there's a part of our Constitution that SAYS that all men......that's ALL men.....are created equal. So...surprise, surprise, surprise. Yep. All of a sudden all men and all women can marry because the 14th says everybody is created equal. Shazam!!

I am not very popular with some folks who are better educated and well-read than I am. I'm just a simple person who believes that most things and/or questions or issues have simple answers. It's people who screw them up.

I shall now raise my drawbridge and dump a bunch of piranhas into the moat.
11/23/2020, 7:46 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Haha, Cooter. Are you sure you're on the right side of the moat? *G*

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
11/23/2020, 7:51 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bacchys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2020
Posts: 83
Karma: -1 (+2/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

So then it CAN be defined as a legal union of two people above the age of consent, which is not prohibited by other legislation or court ruling (e.g. incest).



I don't see how the number can be limited to two or incest prohibited when 1) procreation is essentially ruled out as a state rationale in regulating marriage, and 2) it's a fundamental right.

Part of it, perhaps, is I don't see marriage as a fundamental right. I don't see how it can be one. It's a state institution. The state recognizes the relationship between person (two, traditionally, of different sexes), and provides benefits in exchange for accepting their regulation of the relationship.

A state could theoretically get out of the business of marriage altogether: simply abolish all marriage laws and anyone who wants to be married can be married: the state would play no role in it. Politically that couldn't happen, of course, but the fact it's legally possible cuts against the idea state recognition and regulation of a relationship is a fundamental right.

But the courts have said it's a fundamental right, and they are authoritative. Accepting that, then, any regulation of the right needs to survive strict scrutiny to be constitutional. The state must have a compelling state interest, the regulation must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and have a strong likelihood of success. I can't think of a single, valid argument for why two or even three sisters couldn't get married so one of them could use the health benefits of the other and get the spousal portion of a pension. Or, for that matter, so they could more easily and effectively raise children together.

Since the courts haven't made those arguments and they aren't tossing out convictions for incest or bigamy, I don't think they're applying the principle SCOTUS and other courts have declared honestly.

I do appreciate the discussion, however, even if we don't see quite eye to eye. We aren't on opposite sides of the issue: we just see how we got here differently.
11/23/2020, 9:19 pm Link to this post PM bacchys
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Bacchys: I do appreciate the discussion, however, even if we don't see quite eye to eye. We aren't on opposite sides of the issue: we just see how we got here differently.

I agree, Bacchys.

It is SOOOOOOOOO refreshing to have a conversation with differing opinions based on different philosophical views, and not end up demonizing someone along the way. That's why I appreciate this board so much.

I appreciate your efforts on teaching me more about your views, Bacchys. This felt good. emoticon

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
11/23/2020, 11:13 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


(CNN) - In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.

The case is the latest pitting religious groups against city and state officials seeking to stop the spread of Covid-19, and it highlights the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court. The decision comes as coronavirus cases surge across the country.

In the late-night decision, Barrett sided with her conservative colleagues in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

Last spring and summer, before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court split 5-4 on similar cases out of California and Nevada, with Roberts and the liberals in the majority siding against houses of worship. Barrett was confirmed in October to take Ginsburg's seat.

The ruling, released just before midnight on Thanksgiving eve, contains several separate opinions and some unusually critical language.

In the main, unsigned opinion, the majority ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America that argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated the houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.

The majority said that the regulations are "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus" at the religious services in question.

The restrictions on attendance are divided up by geographic zones in areas classified as "red" or "orange" zones.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn issued a statement Thursday morning applauding the court's decision, saying that they are gratified and appreciate the court's recognition of a "clear First Amendment violation and urgent need for relief in this case."

"I have said from the beginning the restrictions imposed by Governor Cuomo were an overreach that did not take into account the size of our churches or the safety protocols that have kept parishioners safe," Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, said in a statement.

Agudath Israel of America similarly celebrated the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in their favor.

"This is an historic victory," Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice President of Agudath Israel, said in a statement. "This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution."

In court papers, lawyers for Cuomo argued that the restrictions were necessary to help stop the spread of Covid-19 and that houses of worship weren't being treated differently than similar secular businesses. They also said that while the dispute was pending, Cuomo had already lifted any restrictions that applied to the organizations.

"Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services," the Court held.



Apparently conservatives on the Court don't mind if these parishioners meet their God a bit earlier than scheduled.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
11/26/2020, 10:44 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14135
Karma: 20 (+55/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Apparently conservatives on the Court don't mind if these parishioners meet their God a bit earlier than scheduled.



I just shake my head in disbelief over this stuff. Why do the religious leaders want to jeopardize their parishioners?

---
Robbie
11/27/2020, 12:16 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
bricklayer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 3106
Karma: 8 (+14/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

JustLis wrote:

Apparently conservatives on the Court don't mind if these parishioners meet their God a bit earlier than scheduled.



I just shake my head in disbelief over this stuff. Why do the religious leaders want to jeopardize their parishioners?



That’s exactly how I see it, Robbie. Let’s sue the government for trying to implement policies designed and intended to protect society at large. It’s incredibly sad to watch. Dictates aimed at keeping people safe are now exercises in tyranny. Craziness.

11/27/2020, 6:09 am Link to this post PM bricklayer
 
bacchys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2020
Posts: 83
Karma: -1 (+2/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo seems to be an example of a Court stretching to get an outcome they want.

I say this because Per Curiam and its concurrences compare unlike things with each other to reach its conclusion. Most people dont't congregate at a liquor store or a grocery for an hour or more. They don't act like people in a worship service. Comparable venues, such as bars, concerts, plays, etc. have the same restrictions as the worship services.

In short, this is a Court majority that doesn't like Cuomo's policy choices, and they're twisting the circumstances and the law to pretend they're doing something other than making a policy choice.
11/27/2020, 8:10 am Link to this post PM bacchys
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14135
Karma: 20 (+55/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Most people don't sing or recite their beliefs in liquor stores or grocery stores, either, activities that we're told push the mouth's vapors farther.

---
Robbie
11/27/2020, 10:33 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

JustLis wrote:

Apparently conservatives on the Court don't mind if these parishioners meet their God a bit earlier than scheduled.


I just shake my head in disbelief over this stuff. Why do the religious leaders want to jeopardize their parishioners?


Well, this is going to sound cold and calculating....

Brett is a treasurer for his church. The church held online services from March until September. They met in person for a few weeks, with minimal attendance; most people were still watching online from home. A few weeks ago, the church went back to doing everything online.

The concern? When people are watching at home, they're not passing the collection basket. So church leaders have asked people to send checks to the church. Church income is still WAY down. Maybe the churches need the contributions from parishioners to survive?

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
11/27/2020, 12:11 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14135
Karma: 20 (+55/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Well, this is going to sound cold and calculating....

Brett is a treasurer for his church. The church held online services from March until September. They met in person for a few weeks, with minimal attendance; most people were still watching online from home. A few weeks ago, the church went back to doing everything online.

The concern? When people are watching at home, they're not passing the collection basket. So church leaders have asked people to send checks to the church. Church income is still WAY down. Maybe the churches need the contributions from parishioners to survive?



No more cold and calculating than the realities of any other organization. It takes money to keep the place running. Passing the collection plate produces some of that money.

---
Robbie
11/27/2020, 1:04 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
streamline2001 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2005
Posts: 2040
Karma: 7 (+9/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Supreme Court skeptical of Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from census
Several justices, including some conservative ones, seemed to doubt that the president had such a sweeping power to modify the census results.

By Pete Williams - NBC
11/30/20

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed wary on Monday of approving President Donald Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census figures that are used to calculate each state's representation in Congress and share of billions of dollars from a host of federal programs.

But it was unclear after 90 minutes of oral argument exactly how the court would deal with the issue given that the Census Bureau concedes it has no idea yet how many people would be excluded or when it will have the answer. The justices appeared to be reluctant to act immediately to block the plan.

"Career experts at the Census Bureau confirmed with me that they still don't know even roughly how many illegal aliens they will be able to identify, let alone how their number and geographic concentration may affect apportionment," said Jeffrey Wall, the acting U.S. solicitor general.

Lawyers for the states opposing the plan and groups affected by it told the justices that it would shift money and political power away from states with large immigrant populations and would violate the Constitution and federal law.

The Constitution requires a census every 10 years, and the results determine how many members of Congress each state gets in the House of Representatives. The data is also used to calculate a local government's share of $1.5 trillion in funds under many federal programs.

In July, Trump issued a memo that said people who are undocumented should not be included in the final count. Under his plan, the Census Bureau would report two sets of figures to the White House — one including everyone counted and another allowing him to leave out undocumented immigrants. The president could then report the smaller number to Congress for use in reapportionment.

The president's memo said states with policies "that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives."

California, Florida, and Texas would each lose one seat in the House, and Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio would each retain a seat they would otherwise lose due to population shift, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center. Other predictions show Arizona losing a seat, too, and Montana gaining one.

The states would lose an equal number of Electoral College votes, which are based on the size of their U.S. House delegations.

"The memorandum treats counting people as a reward to be withheld from states that house undocumented immigrants, even though our laws view counting people for apportionment as fact-finding, not giving or withholding a reward," New York's solicitor general, Barbara Underwood, told the court.

Wall said federal law gives the president authority to direct how the census is conducted and that the term in the Constitution, which says the census must count "the whole number of persons in each state," has been generally understood to mean usual residents.

But several members of the court, including some conservative justices, seemed to doubt the president had such a sweeping power to modify the census results.

"If an undocumented person has been in the country for, say, 20 years, even if illegally, why would such a person not have a settled residence?" asked Amy Coney Barrett, the newest justice.

The court struggled, however, with what to do. Some justice suggested waiting until the Census Bureau actually transmits the figures to the White House or until the president gives Congress the population data to be used for figuring how many seats each state gets in the House.

Wall counseled waiting. "Based on my understanding from the Census Bureau, there is a real prospect that the numbers will not affect the apportionment," he said.

The court took the case on a fast track in order to issue a decision before the president is required to submit the census report to Congress in early January.

---
Peter

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." - Bullwinkle Moose
11/30/2020, 3:39 pm Link to this post PM streamline2001
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14135
Karma: 20 (+55/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


This ruling on the census will be YUGE!

---
Robbie
11/30/2020, 3:53 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Gosh yes. I'm SO glad to hear they're leaning this direction.

Article I, Section 2 specifically says:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons.


This language doesn't allow the President to refuse to count non-citizens. He could only count non-citizens among the "all other Persons." Can you imagine the stink THAT would cause, bringing the 3/5 Compromise back to life?

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
11/30/2020, 4:34 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14888
Karma: 35 (+63/-28)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Trump: "Let's see whether or not somebody has the courage, whether it's legislators or legislatures or a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court. Let's see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right."


Supreme Court (and this is the ENTIRE opinion): The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.


Well, Donald, it looks like the Supreme Court has the courage to do what everybody [except your followers] knows is right!

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
12/8/2020, 8:41 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bacchys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2020
Posts: 83
Karma: -1 (+2/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Supreme Court says Muslims placed on No Fly List as retaliation can sue FBI

Thomas wrote the opinion
12/10/2020, 8:59 pm Link to this post PM bacchys
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14135
Karma: 20 (+55/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

bacchys wrote:

Supreme Court says Muslims placed on No Fly List as retaliation can sue FBI




From the link:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of three Muslim men who say they were placed or kept on the government’s no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to serve as terrorism informants for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Good gawd, they were punished for refusing to spy on their own community?

---
Robbie
12/10/2020, 9:16 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
bacchys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2020
Posts: 83
Karma: -1 (+2/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Yep.

Law enforcement doesn't like it when people won't become snitches. Even innocent people.
12/11/2020, 7:33 am Link to this post PM bacchys
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9590
Karma: 21 (+38/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Thomas wrote the opinion? Is Thomas getting religion?
12/11/2020, 7:41 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
bacchys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2020
Posts: 83
Karma: -1 (+2/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Thomas has long had religion. He sees religious exercise as a favoured class. Though it's unusual in that he's favouring Muslims here.

It wasn't that long ago the Court allowed an execution to proceed even though the Muslim condemned was denied clergy of his faith prior to the execution. They sort of reversed with a later execution.
12/11/2020, 6:23 pm Link to this post PM bacchys
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 27  28  29  30 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top