American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[San Lumen]

I don’t think even Republicans would be ok with such a move by the court. There is also no world in which they could make such a ruling so why are we still discussing this?

Probably because you spent five pages demanding that people tell you how the court could ban gay marriage.

And no one gave a good argument.

[Kilobugya]

Their argument is that businesses and people shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t want to do ie the Coronavirus Vaccine

But the thing I don't want to be forced to do is being exposed to a deadly virus carried by those who refuse to get their vaccine. Any freedom stops where another starts, and "the freedom to carry a disease and contaminate others" just doesn't exist - no more than the freedom of driving when drunk, or releasing poison in the nearby river.

[Spirit of Hope]

In the last year we've had states sue to stop the election results. You aren't being creative enough if you can't come up with a scenario where one branch wants the other one called unconstitutional for some reason. Insane and unlikely, but totally within the insane timeline we are already living through.

I mean other than the fact such a ruling would be literally unjustifiable no matter how hard you squint since the setup for the Presidency and Congress are literally written into the first two articles of the Constitution...

Sure, in principle nothing's stopping them from going "you guys are unconstitutional" but that'd be a biggest "the court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it" moment ever and would probably just make everyone very, very confused.

I mean I just see the courts putting a legal fig leaf over someone seizing power through some type of coup. Like some future President looses the election, but sues and has seated some justices that give the President a fig leaf of legal cover to seize power under.

[Ifreann]

Probably because you spent five pages demanding that people tell you how the court could ban gay marriage.

And no one gave a good argument.

They did, repeatedly, but you didn't listen, so they kept telling you, and exaggerating to emphasize their points, but you didn't listen, and on and on until we got here.

[San Lumen]

And no one gave a good argument.

They did, repeatedly, but you didn't listen, so they kept telling you, and exaggerating to emphasize their points, but you didn't listen, and on and on until we got here.

No all I got was ludicrous arguments like LGBT people aren't persons.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Their argument is that businesses and people shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t want to do ie the Coronavirus Vaccine

But the thing I don't want to be forced to do is being exposed to a deadly virus carried by those who refuse to get their vaccine. Any freedom stops where another starts, and "the freedom to carry a disease and contaminate others" just doesn't exist - no more than the freedom of driving when drunk, or releasing poison in the nearby river.

I know and I agree with you but that’s their argument, but that doesn’t make it right either.

[Arlenton]

They did, repeatedly, but you didn't listen, so they kept telling you, and exaggerating to emphasize their points, but you didn't listen, and on and on until we got here.

No all I got was ludicrous arguments like LGBT people aren't persons.

You basically just disagreed with any legal argument that would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But there is no "Lumen test" that has to be applied to court cases.

[San Lumen]

No all I got was ludicrous arguments like LGBT people aren't persons.

You basically just disagreed with any legal argument that would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But there is no "Lumen test" that has to be applied to court cases.

No I didn't. You'd have to present a case the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people and I don't see a compelling legal argument for that. Plus the Loving case was cited and used as partial basis in Ogberfell.

[Arlenton]

Their argument is that businesses and people shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t want to do ie the Coronavirus Vaccine

But the thing I don't want to be forced to do is being exposed to a deadly virus carried by those who refuse to get their vaccine. Any freedom stops where another starts, and "the freedom to carry a disease and contaminate others" just doesn't exist - no more than the freedom of driving when drunk, or releasing poison in the nearby river.

There is no universal definition of freedom. A line can be drawn anywhere.

[Ifreann]

They did, repeatedly, but you didn't listen, so they kept telling you, and exaggerating to emphasize their points, but you didn't listen, and on and on until we got here.

No all I got was ludicrous arguments like LGBT people aren't persons.

And the Supreme Court could rule that, and provide no basis for that claim. If you're about to tell me that there would be a blue wave and they'd be impeached then you have necessarily accepted that they could do that. There are no consequences to things you can't do because if it can't happen then there can't be consequences to it.

[Arlenton]

You basically just disagreed with any legal argument that would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. But there is no "Lumen test" that has to be applied to court cases.

No I didn't. You'd have to present a case the 14th amendment doesn't apply to LGBT people and I don't see a compelling legal argument for that. Plus the Loving case was cited and used as partial basis in Ogberfell.

I did. You said it doesn't count because the majority of the population would disagree with it.

[San Lumen]

No all I got was ludicrous arguments like LGBT people aren't persons.

And the Supreme Court could rule that, and provide no basis for that claim. If you're about to tell me that there would be a blue wave and they'd be impeached then you have necessarily accepted that they could do that. There are no consequences to things you can't do because if it can't happen then there can't be consequences to it.

On what basis could they rule that? That can't just declare that. A state would have to ban gay marriage first.

[Diahon]

taking a break from the periodic "scare the shit out of san lumen" contest for a public service reminder:

if he breathes, if schemes

[The Jamesian Republic]

Could it be possible to proportion the court to the number of states plus D.C. and each state elects a judge to the court and the president can appoint the Chief Justice and the elections are held every 10 years.

[San Lumen]

Could it be possible to proportion the court to the number of states plus D.C. and each state elects a judge to the court and the president can appoint the Chief Justice and the elections are held every 10 years.

That would require a constitutional Amendment. Judges should not be elected.

[Arlenton]

And the Supreme Court could rule that, and provide no basis for that claim. If you're about to tell me that there would be a blue wave and they'd be impeached then you have necessarily accepted that they could do that. There are no consequences to things you can't do because if it can't happen then there can't be consequences to it.

On what basis could they rule that? That can't just declare that. A state would have to ban gay marriage first.

A state could hypothetically try to limit gay marriage in some way, and the ensuing court case could be brought to the Supreme Court, where they could overrule the past ruling by interpreting the Constitution differently than what it was previously.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Could it be possible to proportion the court to the number of states plus D.C. and each state elects a judge to the court and the president can appoint the Chief Justice and the elections are held every 10 years.

That would require a constitutional Amendment. Judges should not be elected.

All people in power in the three branches should be elected and serve under a legally mandated amount of time. 10 years.

[San Lumen]

On what basis could they rule that? That can't just declare that. A state would have to ban gay marriage first.

A state could hypothetically try to limit gay marriage in some way, and the ensuing court case could be brought to the Supreme Court, where they could overrule the past ruling by interpreting the Constitution differently than what it was previously.

This is a reasonable argument. I don't see how a state could limit it though.

[Ifreann]

And the Supreme Court could rule that, and provide no basis for that claim. If you're about to tell me that there would be a blue wave and they'd be impeached then you have necessarily accepted that they could do that. There are no consequences to things you can't do because if it can't happen then there can't be consequences to it.

On what basis could they rule that?

Anything they want.

That can't just declare that. A state would have to ban gay marriage first.

Yes, obviously, and they could uphold that ban without providing good legal reasoning. This is what people have been telling you.

[The Jamesian Republic]

A state could hypothetically try to limit gay marriage in some way, and the ensuing court case could be brought to the Supreme Court, where they could overrule the past ruling by interpreting the Constitution differently than what it was previously.

This is a reasonable argument. I don't see how a state could limit it though.

Maybe they could prohibit it by letting the counties decide if it is legal?

[San Lumen]

That would require a constitutional Amendment. Judges should not be elected.

All people in power in the three branches should be elected and serve under a legally mandated amount of time. 10 years.

No judges being elected is how you get people like Roy Moore.

[Vassenor]

That would require a constitutional Amendment. Judges should not be elected.

All people in power in the three branches should be elected and serve under a legally mandated amount of time. 10 years.

Elected judges in lower courts have lead to all sorts of stupid bullshit. Like a judge reacting to losing an election by just freeing everyone put before him between the election and the end of his term.

[The Jamesian Republic]

All people in power in the three branches should be elected and serve under a legally mandated amount of time. 10 years.

No judges being elected is how you get people like Roy Moore.

You get people like Roy Moore because he has an R by his name and nothing more. In Alabama if you got an R by your name people will vote for you. Doug Jones was only elected because my state couldn’t bare the stigma of having a pedophile as our senator but we are okay with a former college football coach being our senator because he backs Trump and nothing more,

[San Lumen]

This is a reasonable argument. I don't see how a state could limit it though.

Maybe they could prohibit it by letting the counties decide if it is legal?

That is plausible.

[Kowani]

Florida Supreme Court holds that criminal defendants who exercise their right against self-incrimination by refusing to admit guilt may be punished with higher sentences due to "lack of remorse” (5-2)