Is Texas turning purple?

Joe Fan said:
My 2 cents. The Court as a whole has avoided the EP clause of the 5th and 14th.
Click to expand...

Of course, the Fifth Amendment doesn't even have an equal protection clause. That's something the Court just made up in Bolling v. Sharpe.

Joe Fan said:
It's been a tool of convenience for them, but it's left a giant gaping hole that will some day have to be reconciled. For example, how can you ever square Baake and its progeny with the EPC? I say it's impossible. So they just ignore it, as if it does not exist. This is wrong and always has been.

I would prefer the push to deal with it to start from my side. The idea being that we can properly frame the issues. There has been some dicta (Scalia) and a footnote (Thomas) about it, but not much else from any individual Supreme. I say this time period is as good as any to whip it out, front and center.
Click to expand...

Horn6721 said:
JF
5th grade English please.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't say they ignore it. They do scrape together a few basic ******** rationales. You've got the rationale of liberal jurisprudence, which is basically, "**** whitey." If the state wants to screw with you to help correct past wrongs against minorities, you're just out of luck. They give lip service by pitching an "intermediate scrutiny" test to it, but there will pretty much always be a basis for doing it to whatever degree the state chooses and however they want to do it. The white guy's "protection" is basically illusory.

The rationale of moderate Republicans (like Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, etc.) is to nitpick over the specifics so that it doesn't look as bad but not actually protect anybody from anything. They apply "strict scrutiny" to affirmative action plans, which sounds tougher, but in practice, it's just less honest. They require the state to show that they're pursuing "compelling interests" such as "educational benefits that from from a diverse student body" and "remedying the present effects of past discrimination." Well, at least one of those arguments are much always going to be plausible arguments and largely subjective. They'll shoot down a rigid quota, but they'll allow "goals" intended to meet "critical mass" (whatever that means), allow race to be used "as a factor" in admissions, etc. How big of a factor? Who the hell knows? Can it nullify ****** grades and SAT scores? Who the hell knows?

In practice, the end result is the same. If you're a white dude, you get hosed if the state wants to hose you to make themselves look good or politically correct.

And again, all of this is in very stark conflict with what the Constitution actually says.
 
Court packing is a terrible idea.

Stripping jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and Federal Courts in general), over certain cases or areas of the law, is a fine idea in many instances.

Both are constitutional.

A majority party with the Presidency, House, and Senate would do best to do neither, or the latter if they must.
 
Chop said:
Court packing is a terrible idea.

Stripping jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and Federal Courts in general), over certain cases or areas of the law, is a fine idea in many instances.

Both are constitutional.

A majority party with the Presidency, House, and Senate would do best to do neither, or the latter if they must.
Click to expand...

Both are bad, but Court packing is far worse.
 
Mr. Deez said:
You're getting over your skis here, Bro. Here's the problem with your logic. The Supreme Court has been largely hostile to cultural conservatives for all of my lifetime, all of my parents' lifetime, and certainly the entire adult lives of my grandparents - basically since the mid to late 1930s. If anyone could have reasonably been tempted to pack the Court, it has been social conservatives. However, when Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump have been President (and therefore would have had the power to appoint justices), I don't remember any significant effort from the Right to pack the Court. In fact, I've never heard any conservative speak of it in anything but overwhelmingly negative terms - even when they've had the power to do it.

For the first time since the mid to late 1930s, the cultural Left is looking at the prospect of having a Court that at least isn't willing to tip the scales of justice in their favor. They might actually think that "equal protection" applies to everybody (meaning no affirmative action and no racially segregating "safe spaces"). They might think that "interstate commerce" will actually require that there be commerce and that it be interstate in nature before the federal government can act under the interstate commerce clause. They might look at the Constitution, see no mention or even hint at abortion (specifically or generally) and therefore no basis to disrupt the general jurisdiction of state governments (and therefore overturn Roe). In the face of losing their power over the judiciary for the first time in 3 generations, the Left is willing to completely eliminate the legitimacy of the federals courts. That's really bad. Like I said before, it was enough to make me overlook all the stupid Tweets from the toilet, all the deficit spending, all the rhetorical sloppiness and chaos, "the wall," all the toxicity on our brand, etc. and eat the turd sandwich.

And like I mentioned to NJLonghorn, the Right has FAR more to lose by not controlling the Court than the Left does, because the conservative justices largely respect states rights on social issues. If the Right takes over the Court, social leftists have to retreat to their state capitols to force their agenda, but they can still force their agenda. They just don't get to be busybodies anymore and force one-size-fits-all policy against the will of people in other states from an unelected branch of government. If the Left takes over the Court, social conservatives are completely ******. They have no remedy anywhere. So they actually have much greater cause to pack the Court. In spite of that, they've never threatened to do so.

So would the Right pack the Court? Almost certainly not. Now, if the Left does it this time, will they the next time they gain power? Oh, hell yes. They'd be stupid not to.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is how you tell someone they are full of ****! Thank you for the extensive history lesson. It definitely makes me step back and look deeper into the issue. I appreciate that. After reading this and Joes response I realize that I am not as informed on the court issues as I thought. Ya'll with law degrees make it easier to understand some issues. thanks again.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course, the Fifth Amendment doesn't even have an equal protection clause. That's something the Court just made up in Bolling v. Sharpe.....
Click to expand...

I gave a quote of 14A above, plus my memory is that EP has been an accepted part of the 5th since at least the 1930s (perhaps further back?). No matter what you think of that, its express in the 14th, which, in any event, is where almost all of these cases have risen and will continue to rise. Further, the Court has never taken on the EP Clause head on. They skirt around it with only occasional lip service. My argument is that, since it is express and overt, it holds greater weight than any Court-invented constitutional law interpretation no matter how long ago they began that "tea reading." Lastly, I think some day this will be put on the table and when that happens, it is going to force a huge reckoning with quite a bit of SC precedent. It is an unavoidable collision and I hope I am still around to see it begin at least.
 
WillUSAF said:
Now THAT is how you tell someone they are full of ****! Thank you for the extensive history lesson. It definitely makes me step back and look deeper into the issue. I appreciate that. After reading this and Joes response I realize that I am not as informed on the court issues as I thought. Ya'll with law degrees make it easier to understand some issues. thanks again.
Click to expand...

It's not telling you off. It's respectfully taking issue with you and explaining why. It's rational discussion, not a a dick measuring contest. While I was getting that law degree, you were protecting our freedom, so obviously I assume your dick is bigger than mine (though perhaps smaller than Kamala Harris's).
 
Joe Fan said:
EP has been an accepted part of the 5th since at least the 1930s (perhaps further back?). No matter what you think of that, its express in the 14th, which, in any event, is where almost all of these cases have risen and will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

You are right. They are 14th amendment case. What bugs me is that the Court pretends that there is an equal protection clause that applies to the federal government through the 5th Amendment. That came about in the '50s with the Bolling v. Sharpe case when Warren "found" equal protection as a component of the 5th Amendment due process clause. Of course, if the founders had intended that, then there would have been no point in writing an equal protection clause into the 14th Amendment, because it also includes a due process clause.
 
Mr. Deez said:
You are right. They are 14th amendment case. What bugs me is that the Court pretends that there is an equal protection clause that applies to the federal government through the 5th Amendment. That came about in the '50s with the Bolling v. Sharpe case when Warren "found" equal protection as a component of the 5th Amendment due process clause. Of course, if the founders had intended that, then there would have been no point in writing an equal protection clause into the 14th Amendment, because it also includes a due process clause.
Click to expand...

I think there is a tremendous potential benefit here to conservatives with the EPC. And to all individual citizens (whether they are too dumb to realize it or not). It's usage has been minimal primarily wielded by liberals to go someplace they shouldn't have been allowed to go. But times are changing and I think if we start pushing it out there, we can use it as a key tool to protect ourselves from further unfair government intrusion in our lives. Look at what the people who run the media and entertainment industries are doing to us already, and Big Tech. Imagine if these same type of people gain control of the federal govt's executive and legislative branches. They are going to run the govt the same way they run those corporations - it's the same hive mindset. As Twitter/Google/FB/NFLX actions show, we have no protection from them -- there is nothing any individual can do about them, except drop the service. But if they are the govt, there is no dropping that.

So we need to start preparing for that eventuality and this is one great way to do it. Other than winning elections, I say it's something we must do. To get there, we must start forcing court conservatives to do more than just write a passing footnote, or two sentences of dicta about the express, overt provisions of the EPC. Let's prepare a strategy to box them in on this and force their hand. I say there is only one way they can go with it. And that way is to our benefit. To the benefit of all citizens who love their freedom. We can use it as both a shield against further liberal intrusions (which IMO are certain to happen) but even as a sword to start knocking down some of their already existing ********. And we need to run not walk in this direction now.
 
mchammer said:
Hornfans -... stay for the
constitution arguments.
Click to expand...

That is actually what is so great for us about the Equal Protection Clause, it is already in the Constitution! The words are plain and clear. Thus its' application is mandatory, not optional. It is the highest law of the land.

All of which means we do not have to do anything else -- no legislation to pass or amendment to carry. All we have to do is get the Supremes to acknowledge what is already there. Which is what makes it so marvelous.
 
Joe Fan said:
I think there is a tremendous potential benefit here to conservatives with the EPC. And to all individual citizens (whether they are too dumb to realize it or not). It's usage has been minimal primarily wielded by liberals to go someplace they shouldn't have been allowed to go. But times are changing and I think if we start pushing it out there, we can use it as a key tool to protect ourselves from further unfair government intrusion in our lives. Look at what the people who run the media and entertainment industries are doing to us already, and Big Tech. Imagine if these same type of people gain control of the federal govt's executive and legislative branches. They are going to run the govt the same way they run those corporations - it's the same hive mindset. As Twitter/Google/FB/NFLX actions show, we have no protection from them -- there is nothing any individual can do about them, except drop the service. But if they are the govt, there is no dropping that.

So we need to start preparing for that eventuality and this is one great way to do it. Other than winning elections, I say it's something we must do. To get there, we must start forcing court conservatives to do more than just write a passing footnote, or two sentences of dicta about the express, overt provisions of the EPC. Let's prepare a strategy to box them in on this and force their hand. I say there is only one way they can go with it. And that way is to our benefit. To the benefit of all citizens who love their freedom. We can use it as both a shield against further liberal intrusions (which IMO are certain to happen) but even as a sword to start knocking down some of their already existing ********. And we need to run not walk in this direction now.
Click to expand...

There may be benefit to conservatives to having an EPC that applies to the federal government, but there is no such clause. Judicial activists in the '50s made it up. We shouldn't pretend that it exists just because we could exploit it. We should use the 14th Amendment EPC that applies to states and hold the federal government to the powers that it properly has and restrict it from the powers it doesn't properly have. That's good enough for me.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There may be benefit to conservatives to having an EPC that applies to the federal government, but there is no such clause. Judicial activists in the '50s made it up. We shouldn't pretend that it exists just because we could exploit it. We should use the 14th Amendment EPC that applies to states and hold the federal government to the powers that it properly has and restrict it from the powers it doesn't properly have. That's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

The 14 is good enough, but Elvis has left the building on your 5A idea
 
Joe Fan said:
Hugo Black could read
But they dont make em like that anymore
Click to expand...

He could read. My ConLaw professor used to call him a "liberal strict constructionist" - something you pretty much never see anymore. But even he got this wrong. (Bolling was unanimous.)
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's not telling you off. It's respectfully taking issue with you and explaining why. It's rational discussion, not a a dick measuring contest. While I was getting that law degree, you were protecting our freedom, so obviously I assume your dick is bigger than mine (though perhaps smaller than Kamala Harris's).
Click to expand...
I did NOT take offense to your response AT ALL. In fact I welcomed it. Learning from people that are smarter than you on a subject is something that I enjoy.
I wouldn't get into a dick measuring contest. I served because it is in my DNA and I was not smart enough (like you and others) to get into law school. I did a job for 21 years that I loved and was good at. You are good at law and I truly respect that.

PS
While I do not have a schmeckel I am sure that Kamalas' is larger than mine :bow:
 
Biden has dropped his ads for Texas, and no Trump in sight
Trump made enough in roads with Hispanic voters to keep Texas red

 
But Nate Silver and the Dallas Morning community rag have Texas going to Slow Joe.

I also saw Mary “Rambette” Hager poling in at 38 percent. Maybe she can file a lawsuit about it when she tried to join the Infantry branch?
 
So Kamala will be in the Texas Friday.
According to that Donna witch on Fox "they" think she can help the other Californian running against Cornyn.
 
Horn6721 said:
So Kamala will be in the Texas Friday.
According to that Donna witch on Fox "they" think she can help the other Californian running against Cornyn.
Click to expand...

It's a waste of her time. Heger is just trying to make herself a latter-day Beto by trying to attract a lot of national attention. Won't work or even help much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top