President Trump says gay marriage is settled law and he's "fine with it"!

[BuckToothMoron]

thank you Milo for your one-man lobbying effort!

Anyone can believe in right to marriage or right to health care, or right to life
as a Political Belief.

But that doesn't mean people consent to judges and federal authorities
making it law for everyone.

That is their opinion of course...One day I hope to have single payer in this country with free college like in countries like Germany.

College isn't free in Germany, it isn't free anywhere. I think what you mean college is paid for by the government thru increased taxes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

 

[Yarddog]

someone called "emily" needs to shut the hell up!

Why? are the big words making your head hurt?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that states never make decisions based on religion or politics?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

I don't think that was the point. The point is the states can make whatever laws they want and the SCOTUS can decide if those laws infringe on constitutional rights or not. Many believe The SCOTUS overstepped their bounds when they interpreted Obamacare to be a tax, even though it was not written as a tax, nor ever represented as such.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

 

[Spare_change]

thank you Milo for your one-man lobbying effort!

Anyone can believe in right to marriage or right to health care, or right to life
as a Political Belief.

But that doesn't mean people consent to judges and federal authorities
making it law for everyone.

That is their opinion of course...One day I hope to have single payer in this country with free college like in countries like Germany.

Oh! You mean all those countries going bankrupt, right???

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.

I'm taking it a step further:
if we KNOW political or religious beliefs are involved
such as DOMA and right to marriage, and we know people's beliefs don't agre e,
we should already know that making a law one side objects to is
ALREADY BIASED and going to be challenged.

Do we really ne ed to pass it first and fight through courts to do that?
THAT WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY
and in the meantime, if a law stands until it is changed,
THAT LAW IS PROHIBITING OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE SIDE.

So I would say NO it is NOT constitutional to pass a law
that people KNOW is abridging the beliefs of one by favoring the other!
That's unethical, wasteful, and/or negligent if people don't have the
judgment to see why this is unconstitutional.

HYPOTHETICALLY
YES govt could make or pass any law through the system.
But if this is deliberately over the objections of people of a different or opposing cre ed,
I argue that is ABUSIVE and NOT constitutional.
If a whole PARTY "conspires" to push a bill against the beliefs of others,
I even hold that as gross negligence or "conspiring to violate
equal civil rights of other people"

So I would argue AGAINST such a wasteful abusive practice,
and yes I do believe it causes damage and harm, not just
financially but destroys relations and faith in govt integrity and NEUTRALITY.

See www.ethics-commission.net
govt officials are NOT supposed to put party or
[personal interests before govt duty to protect equal interests
of ALL people of ALL beliefs, REGARDLESS of party affiliation
(or I argue that's discirmination by creed and
conspiring to violate equal civil rights and protections under law)

Now, you or anyone here do NOT have to agree to my beliefs
for them to be valid. If I had LOWER standards than govt,
then following my beliefs might be unlawful in conflict with govt.
By my standards are HIGHER than what govt permits.

So if anything it's MY beliefs in consensus that are violated
when govt can be abused to "override beliefs" of people
that I consider against my Constitutional beliefs about govt ethics.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that states never make decisions based on religion or politics?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

I don't think that was the point. The point is the states can make whatever laws they want and the SCOTUS can decide if those laws infringe on constitutional rights or not. Many believe The SCOTUS overstepped their bounds when they interpreted Obamacare to be a tax, even though it was not written as a tax, nor ever represented as such.

I disagree...I think that's exactly the point she was making.
She seems to attribute a purity and wisdom to laws made by states that's apparently lacking in the federal government.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.

I'm taking it a step further:
if we KNOW political or religious beliefs are involved
such as DOMA and right to marriage, and we know people's beliefs don't agre e,
we should already know that making a law one side objects to is
ALREADY BIASED and going to be challenged.

Do we really ne ed to pass it first and fight through courts to do that?
THAT WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY
and in the meantime, if a law stands until it is changed,
THAT LAW IS PROHIBITING OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE SIDE.

So I would say NO it is NOT constitutional to pass a law
that people KNOW is abridging the beliefs of one by favoring the other!
That's unethical, wasteful, and/or negligent if people don't have the
judgment to see why this is unconstitutional.

HYPOTHETICALLY
YES govt could make or pass any law through the system.
But if this is deliberately over the objections of people of a different or opposing cre ed,
I argue that is ABUSIVE and NOT constitutional.
If a whole PARTY "conspires" to push a bill against the beliefs of others,
I even hold that as gross negligence or "conspiring to violate
equal civil rights of other people"

So I would argue AGAINST such a wasteful abusive practice,
and yes I do believe it causes damage and harm, not just
financially but destroys relations and faith in govt integrity and NEUTRALITY.

See www.ethics-commission.net
govt officials are NOT supposed to put party or
[personal interests before govt duty to protect equal interests
of ALL people of ALL beliefs, REGARDLESS of party affiliation
(or I argue that's discirmination by creed and
conspiring to violate equal civil rights and protections under law)

Now, you or anyone here do NOT have to agree to my beliefs
for them to be valid. If I had LOWER standards than govt,
then following my beliefs might be unlawful in conflict with govt.
By my standards are HIGHER than what govt permits.

So if anything it's MY beliefs in consensus that are violated
when govt can be abused to "override beliefs" of people
that I consider against my Constitutional beliefs about govt ethics.

So, just to take an example, you'd have no problem allowing Muslims the right of veto on any new laws that are proposed?

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.

I'm taking it a step further:
if we KNOW political or religious beliefs are involved
such as DOMA and right to marriage, and we know people's beliefs don't agre e,
we should already know that making a law one side objects to is
ALREADY BIASED and going to be challenged.

Do we really ne ed to pass it first and fight through courts to do that?
THAT WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY
and in the meantime, if a law stands until it is changed,
THAT LAW IS PROHIBITING OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE SIDE.

So I would say NO it is NOT constitutional to pass a law
that people KNOW is abridging the beliefs of one by favoring the other!
That's unethical, wasteful, and/or negligent if people don't have the
judgment to see why this is unconstitutional.

HYPOTHETICALLY
YES govt could make or pass any law through the system.
But if this is deliberately over the objections of people of a different or opposing cre ed,
I argue that is ABUSIVE and NOT constitutional.
If a whole PARTY "conspires" to push a bill against the beliefs of others,
I even hold that as gross negligence or "conspiring to violate
equal civil rights of other people"

So I would argue AGAINST such a wasteful abusive practice,
and yes I do believe it causes damage and harm, not just
financially but destroys relations and faith in govt integrity and NEUTRALITY.

See www.ethics-commission.net
govt officials are NOT supposed to put party or
[personal interests before govt duty to protect equal interests
of ALL people of ALL beliefs, REGARDLESS of party affiliation
(or I argue that's discirmination by creed and
conspiring to violate equal civil rights and protections under law)

Now, you or anyone here do NOT have to agree to my beliefs
for them to be valid. If I had LOWER standards than govt,
then following my beliefs might be unlawful in conflict with govt.
By my standards are HIGHER than what govt permits.

So if anything it's MY beliefs in consensus that are violated
when govt can be abused to "override beliefs" of people
that I consider against my Constitutional beliefs about govt ethics.

So, just to take an example, you'd have no problem allowing Muslims the right of veto on any new laws that are proposed?

idb
Anything Muslims could do illegal are already illegal if you are talking about civil or criminal abuses.

What I MIGHT propose to ad d into law,
not just for Muslims, but ANY collective entity whether religious or political
nonprofit or business corporation, educational, charity, even media as a COMPANY (not the content),
is require states to license these corporations under the condition
they respect the same equal protections of rights as under the Bill of Rights
and 14th Amendment. ie hold Corporations to the same standards
we use to prevent govt abuses as a form of "collective authority"

So NONE of these type of corporations can abuse
their "collective" influence, authority or resources to VIOLATE individual
civil rights including due process and right to petition for redress of grievances.

They'd all have to pledge to respect equal protections and have a process
for resolving conflicts so no complaints or grievances are obstructed.

If we cut down on religious or political abuses by ALL groups,
then the nonsense with corporate interests skewing legislation,
or religious groups abusing individuals would all have to be addressed equally.

Not just targeting Muslims, or Catholic priests, or political parties,
but NO collective abuse would be allowed to go without check!

 

[emilynghiem]

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

idb
1. my friends on the left don't THINK in terms of Constitutional laws.
that's not their way of saying they object.
they say they don't AGREE with it or believe it's corporate conflicts of interest,
and that's their way of saying it's against their "free choice"
and their BELIEFS about singlepayer.
(so I'm the one who has to translate free choice to mean
free exercise of their beliefs, and that they are being deprived
of liberty when they committed no crime)

2. it's because of these two "political beliefs" that either
a. govt is responsible for health care for the public because "health care is right"
b. health care is outside the jurisdiction of federal govt and belongs to states or people
that any laws made on this are touching on beliefs, left and right,
and so any conflict they don't consent to is violating one side's beliefs or the other!

not just political views, but these are SPECIAL because they are *BELIEFS*.
they are inherently held and cannot be changed by force of govt
without going against someone's nature. it's deeper than just a secular view or opinion on a law.

3. the SCOTUS decision by Justice Roberts
interpreted or "changed" the law to be a TAX in order to justify approving it as constitutional
(the court STRUCK DOWN the other arguments on general welfare and on commerce clause)

However, the law WAS NOT passed through Congress as a TAX but as a health bill.
arguably, it would have FAILED had it been presented as a TAX.

Thus it remains open to debate, and those who approve or believe in it accept
this mixed interpretation as law, while those who don't argue it really WASN'T
passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, and therefore did not meet Constitutional standards.

to remedy this, someone on another site suggested
that before such laws are presented to Congress
there should be a vote is it Constitutional or not,
or does it require an Amendment? Then it could
have been clearly written out if this was a tax revenue bill
or was it a public health bill, and voted accordingly.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.

I'm taking it a step further:
if we KNOW political or religious beliefs are involved
such as DOMA and right to marriage, and we know people's beliefs don't agre e,
we should already know that making a law one side objects to is
ALREADY BIASED and going to be challenged.

Do we really ne ed to pass it first and fight through courts to do that?
THAT WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY
and in the meantime, if a law stands until it is changed,
THAT LAW IS PROHIBITING OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE SIDE.

So I would say NO it is NOT constitutional to pass a law
that people KNOW is abridging the beliefs of one by favoring the other!
That's unethical, wasteful, and/or negligent if people don't have the
judgment to see why this is unconstitutional.

HYPOTHETICALLY
YES govt could make or pass any law through the system.
But if this is deliberately over the objections of people of a different or opposing cre ed,
I argue that is ABUSIVE and NOT constitutional.
If a whole PARTY "conspires" to push a bill against the beliefs of others,
I even hold that as gross negligence or "conspiring to violate
equal civil rights of other people"

So I would argue AGAINST such a wasteful abusive practice,
and yes I do believe it causes damage and harm, not just
financially but destroys relations and faith in govt integrity and NEUTRALITY.

See www.ethics-commission.net
govt officials are NOT supposed to put party or
[personal interests before govt duty to protect equal interests
of ALL people of ALL beliefs, REGARDLESS of party affiliation
(or I argue that's discirmination by creed and
conspiring to violate equal civil rights and protections under law)

Now, you or anyone here do NOT have to agree to my beliefs
for them to be valid. If I had LOWER standards than govt,
then following my beliefs might be unlawful in conflict with govt.
By my standards are HIGHER than what govt permits.

So if anything it's MY beliefs in consensus that are violated
when govt can be abused to "override beliefs" of people
that I consider against my Constitutional beliefs about govt ethics.

So, just to take an example, you'd have no problem allowing Muslims the right of veto on any new laws that are proposed?

idb
Anything Muslims could do illegal are already illegal if you are talking about civil or criminal abuses.

What I MIGHT propose to ad d into law,
not just for Muslims, but ANY collective entity whether religious or political
nonprofit or business corporation, educational, charity, even media as a COMPANY (not the content),
is require states to license these corporations under the condition
they respect the same equal protections of rights as under the Bill of Rights
and 14th Amendment. ie hold Corporations to the same standards
we use to prevent govt abuses as a form of "collective authority"

So NONE of these type of corporations can abuse
their "collective" influence, authority or resources to VIOLATE individual
civil rights including due process and right to petition for redress of grievances.

They'd all have to pledge to respect equal protections and have a process
for resolving conflicts so no complaints or grievances are obstructed.

If we cut down on religious or political abuses by ALL groups,
then the nonsense with corporate interests skewing legislation,
or religious groups abusing individuals would all have to be addressed equally.

Not just targeting Muslims, or Catholic priests, or political parties,
but NO collective abuse would be allowed to go without check!

So you'd have to register with the government as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Communist, or a Trade Unionist?
Would you have to wear an identifying badge of some sort?

I'm sure that's never been tried before - ever...hmmm...what could possibly go wrong?

Hey...maybe if you were a member of The Party you could get away without having to wear a badge!

 

[Kosh]

thank you Milo for your one-man lobbying effort!

Another reason why the far left tactics of (insert phobia here) did not work.

 

[idb]

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

idb
1. my friends on the left don't THINK in terms of Constitutional laws.
that's not their way of saying they object.
they say they don't AGREE with it or believe it's corporate conflicts of interest,
and that's their way of saying it's against their "free choice"
and their BELIEFS about singlepayer.
(so I'm the one who has to translate free choice to mean
free exercise of their beliefs, and that they are being deprived
of liberty when they committed no crime)

2. it's because of these two "political beliefs" that either
a. govt is responsible for health care for the public because "health care is right"
b. health care is outside the jurisdiction of federal govt and belongs to states or people
that any laws made on this are touching on beliefs, left and right,
and so any conflict they don't consent to is violating one side's beliefs or the other!

not just political views, but these are SPECIAL because they are *BELIEFS*.
they are inherently held and cannot be changed by force of govt
without going against someone's nature. it's deeper than just a secular view or opinion on a law.

3. the SCOTUS decision by Justice Roberts
interpreted or "changed" the law to be a TAX in order to justify approving it as constitutional
(the court STRUCK DOWN the other arguments on general welfare and on commerce clause)

However, the law WAS NOT passed through Congress as a TAX but as a health bill.
arguably, it would have FAILED had it been presented as a TAX.

Thus it remains open to debate, and those who approve or believe in it accept
this mixed interpretation as law, while those who don't argue it really WASN'T
passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, and therefore did not meet Constitutional standards.

to remedy this, someone on another site suggested
that before such laws are presented to Congress
there should be a vote is it Constitutional or not,
or does it require an Amendment? Then it could
have been clearly written out if this was a tax revenue bill
or was it a public health bill, and voted accordingly.

Yes, now I understand.
People on the right are concerned about whether issues are lawful or not.
People on the left are more concerned about personal freedoms and rights.

 

[Kosh]

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

idb
1. my friends on the left don't THINK in terms of Constitutional laws.
that's not their way of saying they object.
they say they don't AGREE with it or believe it's corporate conflicts of interest,
and that's their way of saying it's against their "free choice"
and their BELIEFS about singlepayer.
(so I'm the one who has to translate free choice to mean
free exercise of their beliefs, and that they are being deprived
of liberty when they committed no crime)

2. it's because of these two "political beliefs" that either
a. govt is responsible for health care for the public because "health care is right"
b. health care is outside the jurisdiction of federal govt and belongs to states or people
that any laws made on this are touching on beliefs, left and right,
and so any conflict they don't consent to is violating one side's beliefs or the other!

not just political views, but these are SPECIAL because they are *BELIEFS*.
they are inherently held and cannot be changed by force of govt
without going against someone's nature. it's deeper than just a secular view or opinion on a law.

3. the SCOTUS decision by Justice Roberts
interpreted or "changed" the law to be a TAX in order to justify approving it as constitutional
(the court STRUCK DOWN the other arguments on general welfare and on commerce clause)

However, the law WAS NOT passed through Congress as a TAX but as a health bill.
arguably, it would have FAILED had it been presented as a TAX.

Thus it remains open to debate, and those who approve or believe in it accept
this mixed interpretation as law, while those who don't argue it really WASN'T
passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, and therefore did not meet Constitutional standards.

to remedy this, someone on another site suggested
that before such laws are presented to Congress
there should be a vote is it Constitutional or not,
or does it require an Amendment? Then it could
have been clearly written out if this was a tax revenue bill
or was it a public health bill, and voted accordingly.

Yes, now I understand.
People on the right are concerned about whether issues are lawful or not.
People on the left are more concerned about personal freedoms and rights.

No the far left is only interested in making government your mother and father and making sure that you follow the rule of law that they are exempt from.

 

[idb]

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

idb
1. my friends on the left don't THINK in terms of Constitutional laws.
that's not their way of saying they object.
they say they don't AGREE with it or believe it's corporate conflicts of interest,
and that's their way of saying it's against their "free choice"
and their BELIEFS about singlepayer.
(so I'm the one who has to translate free choice to mean
free exercise of their beliefs, and that they are being deprived
of liberty when they committed no crime)

2. it's because of these two "political beliefs" that either
a. govt is responsible for health care for the public because "health care is right"
b. health care is outside the jurisdiction of federal govt and belongs to states or people
that any laws made on this are touching on beliefs, left and right,
and so any conflict they don't consent to is violating one side's beliefs or the other!

not just political views, but these are SPECIAL because they are *BELIEFS*.
they are inherently held and cannot be changed by force of govt
without going against someone's nature. it's deeper than just a secular view or opinion on a law.

3. the SCOTUS decision by Justice Roberts
interpreted or "changed" the law to be a TAX in order to justify approving it as constitutional
(the court STRUCK DOWN the other arguments on general welfare and on commerce clause)

However, the law WAS NOT passed through Congress as a TAX but as a health bill.
arguably, it would have FAILED had it been presented as a TAX.

Thus it remains open to debate, and those who approve or believe in it accept
this mixed interpretation as law, while those who don't argue it really WASN'T
passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, and therefore did not meet Constitutional standards.

to remedy this, someone on another site suggested
that before such laws are presented to Congress
there should be a vote is it Constitutional or not,
or does it require an Amendment? Then it could
have been clearly written out if this was a tax revenue bill
or was it a public health bill, and voted accordingly.

Yes, now I understand.
People on the right are concerned about whether issues are lawful or not.
People on the left are more concerned about personal freedoms and rights.

No the far left is only interested in making government your mother and father and making sure that you follow the rule of law that they are exempt from.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[P@triot]

That is their opinion of course...One day I hope to have single payer in this country with free college like in countries like Germany.

Hey nitwit...nothing is free. You can spend a few years paying for your own college or you can spend the rest of your life paying for societies college. Which one makes more sense? Here's a quick reality lesson for you. Pay close attention...

 

[emilynghiem]

YES idb that's what I'm SAYING
if court ruling touch on BELIEFS, that's out of govt jurisdiction,
so NEITHER side will accept something biased the other way.
They are BOTH right that the courts HAVE no right to "make laws" either way!
EXACTLY!

So the correct answer is NO
if the court receives a grievance, case or issue involving clashing beliefs,
the judges ought to have the Constitutional ethics to REJECT the case,
kick it back to the people or states, and make it clear of course it isn't constitutional
if one side's beliefs are being imposed on the other. So fix the law,
rewrite where both sides agree, or remove it from govt, write separate
policies and let each side choose!

States can pass laws, but if the people's rights or beliefs aren't protected
equally of course they are going to reject it.
Do you really need to bring it to a federal judge to figure that out for you?

Of COURSE people aren't going to agree if BELIEFS are involved.
That doesn't belong in govt anyway, for that very reason!!
Like DUH?

So, there wasn't so much as murmur from conservatives when the SCOTUS upheld the nationwide tax subsidies for Obamacare.

Were you away that day?

Dear idb maybe I couldn't hear the murmur
from the yelling on both sides where everyone I know on the left
who wants Singlepayer REJECTS the ACA mandates and corporate payoffs,
(but just expects the right to do all the fighting for them, as one of my
friends explained it. They have limited resources so they focus elsewhere
on pushing for a more comprehensive health care plan through govt instead of ACA)

And everyone I know on the right already ARGUES the mandates are unconstitutional.
The easiest way to fix that is make mandates and compliance OPTIONAL.
So anything else that comes with that is optional.

The whole thing is rejected, by both sides.
then they cherry pick parts of health care they do want to keep.

Which is the same as making the whole thing OPTIONAL to follow.

Everyone you know on the right argues that the mandates are unconstitutional?
But not everyone you know on the left?
I thought you were arguing against laws being made for political reasons yet you're saying that the mandate shouldn't be in law because of some people's political views on it?

By the way...what does the SCOTUS say?

idb
1. my friends on the left don't THINK in terms of Constitutional laws.
that's not their way of saying they object.
they say they don't AGREE with it or believe it's corporate conflicts of interest,
and that's their way of saying it's against their "free choice"
and their BELIEFS about singlepayer.
(so I'm the one who has to translate free choice to mean
free exercise of their beliefs, and that they are being deprived
of liberty when they committed no crime)

2. it's because of these two "political beliefs" that either
a. govt is responsible for health care for the public because "health care is right"
b. health care is outside the jurisdiction of federal govt and belongs to states or people
that any laws made on this are touching on beliefs, left and right,
and so any conflict they don't consent to is violating one side's beliefs or the other!

not just political views, but these are SPECIAL because they are *BELIEFS*.
they are inherently held and cannot be changed by force of govt
without going against someone's nature. it's deeper than just a secular view or opinion on a law.

3. the SCOTUS decision by Justice Roberts
interpreted or "changed" the law to be a TAX in order to justify approving it as constitutional
(the court STRUCK DOWN the other arguments on general welfare and on commerce clause)

However, the law WAS NOT passed through Congress as a TAX but as a health bill.
arguably, it would have FAILED had it been presented as a TAX.

Thus it remains open to debate, and those who approve or believe in it accept
this mixed interpretation as law, while those who don't argue it really WASN'T
passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, and therefore did not meet Constitutional standards.

to remedy this, someone on another site suggested
that before such laws are presented to Congress
there should be a vote is it Constitutional or not,
or does it require an Amendment? Then it could
have been clearly written out if this was a tax revenue bill
or was it a public health bill, and voted accordingly.

Yes, now I understand.
People on the right are concerned about whether issues are lawful or not.
People on the left are more concerned about personal freedoms and rights.

this is very close idb Thanks
for simplifying this more

1. where they agree, the right does have a concept of free choice called "civil liberties" and the LAW states that these cannot be deprived without due process of law, conviction by law, and penalty by law. The left just expresses this as what they believe to be rights (such as marriage or health care rights) but they don't call these beliefs, free exercise of their religion, creeds, but outright state them as RIGHTS. (the right also refers to their "free exercise of religion" directly, but the left does not invoke this to refer to their equivalent of their beliefs, so again that is why they paraphrase this concept as freedom, rights, free choice etc.)

The solution I propose to this problem is to call them all creeds or beliefs, and THEN these "rights" that one side believes in but the other does not, can STILL be treated equally under the law without bashing each other for what they believe about them or not.

But if both sides come at each other, already declaring something a "right by law" that is outside the other sides' beliefs, they aren't even defining the rule of law the same way. So that's why I am saying to start from the neutral ground that both sides have their BELIEFs, and within that realm they can state what they see as rights or govt authority or NOT.

2. Another thing I notice that left and right ASPIRE to focus on:
the left CLAIMS to be more about diversity and inclusion (to the point where laws may be interpreted loosely to accommodate more people) while the right CLAIMS to be more about "rule of law" (to the point where if this is too legalistic it excludes people from equal protection)

We know that both sides violate the principles they push for. EX: the right contradicts themselves if they don't respect laws on religious freedom equally for Muslims as they do Christians, while the left contradicts inclusion if they exclude Christians and their opposing beliefs.

I AGREE with you the right attracts more of the "rule of law" personality types and leadership styles in terms of Constitutional laws and principles. What I find with the left leaning Constitutionalists are more "letter of the law" type of "rule of law" that isn't the same thing, or people who see it so openly, as "optional" they don't seem to follow it all, or know there are standard limits on govt.

I tend to stick with the basic spirit and "universal" principles of the law, similar to conservatives on the right, but my openness in interpretation and "different ways of saying the same concept" to accommodate diverse beliefs and cultural mindsets "gives me away" as the more liberal minded progressive than my fellow Constitutionalists who tend to be from the opposite camp.

The Libertarian and indy Constitutionalists I have met are somewhere in between. Some are more adept with the rule of law approach, and others are more natural law/anarchist types that are open to anything.

Fascinating to me. I may grow old and tired of everything else in life, but how people think and say similar concepts but in their own ways, I always find stimulating, where my brain won't shut off meditating over these things!