Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The constitution shouldn't be so rigidly applied, it should be appropriately applied to a given situation where it would make reasonable sense. I.e. equal protection in terms of marriage equality, the right for gay people to even exist (Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws which were definitely unequally enforced against gay people), etc.

No. A foundation must by definition be rigid. If there's an improper part you amend it.

As long as the government has a vested interest in the institution of marriage, particularly when it comes to hospital & Incarceration visitation rights, taxes & debt, power of attorney, legal guardianship of children born in wedlock, funeral & bereavement leave, etc. then the government will continue to maintain the authority to regulate marriage. Unless the United States somehow becomes a theocracy or some other garbage, marriage will not solely be religion's ball to play with, they're gonna have to keep sharing it with the government.

But the state has no authority to define marriage. Everything you described is satisfied via contract law.

In that case then marriage regulation could be argued to be a power states have since marriage regulation isn't an enumerated power of the federal government. Though if, as with most powers states have, the regulation falls afoul of the constitution then that's where the federal government steps in as is the case with these court rulings.

Sure but the courts aren't the legislature. So that's a moot point.

I believe the court ruled in his favor because of the particularly zealous way his state prosecuted him, not really because his religious freedom and freedom of expression was violated.

Clarence Thomas disagrees.

Being a secular country, no religious monument or memorial should be a part of government property, that goes for both crosses and satanic statues, that's the kinda stuff that should remain on the grounds of places of worship.

Except we're not a secular country.

1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.

[The Black Forrest]

This thread got weird. I don't think subjectivity vs objectivity is particularly on topic.

I had to back out and verify I was actually in the thread about the judge....

[La Xinga]

What does it mean for your lungs to work?

What do you mean what does it mean?

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

I agree. However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression.

This case is widely misunderstood, actually. The Court did not deal with the First Amendment issue at hand, even though many think so. In fact, the media contributed to this by seeking to report on the ruling as quickly as possible, rather than first fully reviewing the filed opinions.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), held that "[t]he Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause." The majority (7–2) ruled that Plaintiff "was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case", but that "[t]hat consideration was compromised [...] by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."

They note: "As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."

The Court further held that: "Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection."

It concluded: "[T]he record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same." [All cited from the case's Syllabus.]

[Tarsonis]

No. A foundation must by definition be rigid. If there's an improper part you amend it.


But the state has no authority to define marriage. Everything you described is satisfied via contract law.



Sure but the courts aren't the legislature. So that's a moot point.



Clarence Thomas disagrees.



Except we're not a secular country.

1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.

1. It really is detailed, or at least was for it's time. People can find loopholes in a souffle recipe if they're invested enough.
2. Indeed. Congress has no authority to regulate it, and the States are bound by 14th amendment.
3. no shit.
4. Except his concurring opinion on the case is relevant here.
5. Sure, but there's gradients. You seem to think the only options are Papal States Theocracy, and French Secularism. The Constitution makes no requirement of the manner you're suggesting. It keeps government out of religion and keeps the clergy from having legal authority, without being elected to office, but it overtly protects freedom of religious expression and the religious customs of the members of the government. The court got it right when they struck down lemon and they got it right here. The Public lands belong to the people, the people are religious and thus have every right to display their religious icons on public land.

[Tarsonis]

I agree. However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression.

This case is widely misunderstood, actually. The Court did not deal with the First Amendment issue at hand, even though many think so. In fact, the media contributed to this by seeking to report on the ruling as quickly as possible, rather than first fully reviewing the filed opinions.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), held that "[t]he Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause." The majority (7–2) ruled that Plaintiff "was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case", but that "[t]hat consideration was compromised [...] by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."

They note: "As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."

The Court further held that: "Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection."

It concluded: "[T]he record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same." [All cited from the case's Syllabus.]

I'm not gonna hash this out again. Freedom of Expression was at the forefront of the arguments. While the majority opinion did not address the first amendment issue, Thomas' Concurring opinion did.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

I'm not gonna hash this out again. Freedom of Expression was at the forefront of the arguments. While the majority opinion did not address the first amendment issue, Thomas' Concurring opinion did.

OK. But then your original statement is still incorrect ("However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression."), given that Thomas' concurring opinion =/= "the court ruled..."

[Tarsonis]

I'm not gonna hash this out again. Freedom of Expression was at the forefront of the arguments. While the majority opinion did not address the first amendment issue, Thomas' Concurring opinion did.

OK. But then your original statement is still incorrect ("However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression."), given that Thomas' concurring opinion =/= "the court ruled..."

Concurring opinions still can have the weight of precedent. So no, I'm not wrong.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

OK. But then your original statement is still incorrect ("However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression."), given that Thomas' concurring opinion =/= "the court ruled..."

Concurring opinions still can have the weight of precedent. So no, I'm not wrong.

Ehm, no? Concurring opinions are arguments that could be followed, but they are explicitly not stare decisis, because the court did not agree on that point. Rather, a judge bringing up a point in concurrence is pretty strong proof that it was not adopted by the majority for the court. Concurrence can inspire later decisions, but they absolutely do not have the power of stare decisis.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OK. But then your original statement is still incorrect ("However the court ruled the baker hadn't violated the law because he sold cakes to everybody. The issue was he refused to decorate a cake a certain way, which the court ruled was protected by both his freedom of religion and his freedom of expression."), given that Thomas' concurring opinion =/= "the court ruled..."

Concurring opinions still can have the weight of precedent. So no, I'm not wrong.

No, they can't. They can have great influence on later Supreme Court decisions, but they have no formal precedential value, and thus do not carry its weight. Neither is it (at all) accurate to assert that "the Court ruled..." when citing a concurring opinion, for "[w]hen five Justices join an opinion, the opinion's author writes not for herself but for a court" (internal citations omitted). Thomas B. Bennett, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, and Susan Navarro Smelcer, Divide & Concur: Separate Opinions & Legal Change, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 817 (2018).

[Greed and Death]

Concurring opinions still can have the weight of precedent. So no, I'm not wrong.

Ehm, no? Concurring opinions are arguments that could be followed, but they are explicitly not stare decisis, because the court did not agree on that point. Rather, a judge bringing up a point in concurrence is pretty strong proof that it was not adopted by the majority for the court. Concurrence can inspire later decisions, but they absolutely do not have the power of stare decisis.

Correct Concurring opinions in general are not binding precedent. they are however persuasive precent.

There is one exception to this when there is a plurality decision then the controlling opinion is the concurrence or part of the concurrence needed to reach the conclusion the court reached.

[Tarsonis]

Concurring opinions still can have the weight of precedent. So no, I'm not wrong.

Ehm, no? Concurring opinions are arguments that could be followed, but they are explicitly not stare decisis, because the court did not agree on that point. Rather, a judge bringing up a point in concurrence is pretty strong proof that it was not adopted by the majority for the court. Concurrence can inspire later decisions, but they absolutely do not have the power of stare decisis.

Alright fair enough.

[Greed and Death]

Judge Barrett is hours away from being confirmed by the Senate. Is NSG ready for this glorious day ?

[La Xinga]

Judge Barrett is hours away from being confirmed by the Senate. Is NSG ready for this glorious day ?

INDEED!

[Ifreann]

Oranges are orange.

Colour is just a perception of the human eye of a particular wavelength of light. Colour is only a perception, not a fact. What is more, some humans and most species can't see colour, or can't optically interact with the world at all. You can't even prove that your orange is the same as my orange.

And then, there is the fact that some oranges are not orange.

This, according to the definition of Tarsonis, is not an unmutable fact of the universe, and therefore, not a fact.

Also, the colour of that fruit would have been described as "red", "yellow-red", or "yellow-saffron" before being described as "orange", the colour "orange" came later and was named for the fruit. Fun colour/fruit facts.

---

Judge Barrett is hours away from being confirmed by the Senate. Is NSG ready for this glorious day ?

A cold, wet Monday. Fits.

[Greed and Death]

A live stream in the Senate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6slwsNZNM

[Stylan]

Judge Barrett is hours away from being confirmed by the Senate. Is NSG ready for this glorious day ?

Not sure if I'd call it glorious...

[Greed and Death]

Judge Barrett is hours away from being confirmed by the Senate. Is NSG ready for this glorious day ?

Not sure if I'd call it glorious...

None of my rights will be trampled. And many of the rights I cherish will be protected.

I fail to see how anything but glorious.

[The Emerald Legion]

No. A foundation must by definition be rigid. If there's an improper part you amend it.


But the state has no authority to define marriage. Everything you described is satisfied via contract law.



Sure but the courts aren't the legislature. So that's a moot point.



Clarence Thomas disagrees.



Except we're not a secular country.

1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.

Not having a state religion doesn't mean we're a secular country. While I'm sure certain people would enjoy enshrining Non-religion as the official stance of the government, the actual stance of our government is in essence 'I dunno.' it's not anti-faith, it just doesn't choose a single faith to elevate above the others.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.

Not having a state religion doesn't mean we're a secular country. While I'm sure certain people would enjoy enshrining Non-religion as the official stance of the government, the actual stance of our government is in essence 'I dunno.' it's not anti-faith, it just doesn't choose a single faith to elevate above the others.

You are correctly describing the US government as being non-atheistic. Good job.

You are also describing the US government as being secular. Good job on that, too.

Secular and atheistic do not mean the same thing, and you can be secular without being laïcité.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.

Not having a state religion doesn't mean we're a secular country. While I'm sure certain people would enjoy enshrining Non-religion as the official stance of the government, the actual stance of our government is in essence 'I dunno.' it's not anti-faith, it just doesn't choose a single faith to elevate above the others.

Not having a state religion is one of the base characteristics of a secular state, so the Establishment Clause along with the No Religious Test Clause pretty much has the US tick the necessary boxes of being a secular state. Also secularism =/= anti-faith, a state atheist state would be more anti-faith and the US isn’t state atheist.

[Greed and Death]

Not having a state religion doesn't mean we're a secular country. While I'm sure certain people would enjoy enshrining Non-religion as the official stance of the government, the actual stance of our government is in essence 'I dunno.' it's not anti-faith, it just doesn't choose a single faith to elevate above the others.

Not having a state religion is one of the base characteristics of a secular state, so the Establishment Clause along with the No Religious Test Clause pretty much has the US tick the necessary boxes of being a secular state. Also secularism =/= anti-faith, a state atheist state would be more anti-faith and the US isn’t state atheist.

Yep and we will remain that way.

[CoraSpia]

What time are they voting?

[Greed and Death]

What time are they voting?

They are voting right now. They give a speech declare their vote then ask that a quorum be confirmed.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

I was reading a 4 year old Washington Post column. Turns out the flip-flopping on the Thurmond rule happens all the time by both parties, even though the Dems accuse the GOP of being the only one to do it...

Sen Schumer in July 2007: Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

Sen Schumer in 2016: Ted Cruz holds the Constitution, you know, when he walks through the halls of Congress. Let him show me the clause that says president's only president for three years. ... When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly.

Sen Leahy in 2006: The Thurmond Rule, in memory of Strom Thurmond – he put this in when the Republicans were in the minority, which said that in a presidential election year, after spring, no judges would go through except by the consent of both the Republican and Democratic [leaders]. I want to be bipartisan. We will institute the Thurmond Rule, yes.

Sen Leahy in 2016: Well, there is no such thing as a ‘Thurmond Rule.’ I used to tease the Republicans about it. ... The fact of the matter is, a Supreme Court justice -- let's have a vote. Let's have a debate.