Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:32 AM PDT by conserv13
And from a strictly Calvinist (and sovereign Arminian) point of view, it was THE decision that God sovereignly ordained (for good or for bad) for our country at this time.
Curious. Are you pro stare decisis?
Starae decisis is critical. It allows contiunuity, rather than constant relitigation of an issue. Litigation has to end somewhere.
And the first rule of holes is: keep digging. Right.
I see. Yes, we defintiely disagree. :o)
Stare Decis is dead.
Litigation IS endless and continus.
Now we have the ratche effect. We move left but never right. It makes conservative appointments useless.
Wrong. Homosexuals are "equally protected" under the Constitution. A critical difference.
???? Do you mean "ratchet"?
We move left but never right.
That's definately not true. Look at United States v. Lopez and US v. Morrison and tell me the Supreme Court didn't lurch towards the right as it resurrected restrictions upon the Commerce Clause, and limited Wickard.
The supreme court is not bound by stare decisis. Particlualry in regard to questions of constitutionality.
Indeed stare decisis should not be used by them in determining the constitutionality of a law, particularly if a justice is of the belief that the court has previously ruled incorrectly on the same issue.
They may change their minds as often as they desire or are so compelled by their adherence to the constitution.
Any justice who decides the constitutionality of a law based on stare decisis and not on the constitution is, IMO, not worthy of sitting on the bench.
The justices are compelled to uphold and defend the Constitution as they believe it to mean. Any adherence to stare decisis when they have questions about whether the court was wrong in the past is a violation of their oath.
It's not absolute, but it is critical. One must be cautious in overruling old precedents. Remember the old Roscoe Pound line, "The law should be stable, but never standing still"? It has to be able to evolve, adapt, and learn, but it can't just change willy-nilly. Starae decisis is critical for that - and that's why mainstream jurists - like it looks like Roberts is shaping up to be - have a deep respect for precedent, even while remaining mindful of its limitations.
Not necessarily. He could've either been helping out a colleague or fulfilling a 'pro bono quota' that some law firms have as a requirement. Either way, it was excellent experience for him. I'd much rather have a SCOTUS nominee who knows his Constitutional law and uses that to make decisions than to judge using personal feelings or political bias.
I guess I just don't get it: why is it that Liberals are detested for doing the very things you expect of a supposedly good Conservative? You don't really want that kind of slanted justice, do you?
In every other area of the law I would agree. But in constitutional law, stare decisis should be irrelevant. Each justice is charged with upholding and defending the constitution. Each time a new issue is brought up or an old issue is revisited it should be examined with new eyes and with a dedication to instituting the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. Reliance on stare decisis is tantamount to shirking their duty as justices. Their duty is to interpret the constitution as they see it not as William O Douglas or William Brennan saw it. It is a sworn duty and it is a non-delagable duty. They cannot delegate that responsibility to dead men who were wrong in the past simply because of a respect for stare decisis.
STARE DECISIS IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. IT CANNOT BE USED TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT THE JUSTICES CAN CONSIDER IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!!!!!
When push comes to shove, judicial review of Congressional Legislation is not in the constitution. But the oath to uphold and defend the constitution is part of the oath the justices take. They take no oath to the principles of "stare decisis". Their loyalty is to the document and not someone's prior opiinion of what the document does or does not say or mean. It is an individual oath and not a corporate oath. They owe a duty to the constitution and a duty to God (whether they think he exists or not).
What is the difference?
Homosexuality defines homosexuals. Without their homosexuality, homosexuals would not exist.
So if you are saying there is "equal protection" of homosexuals under the Constitution, you are also saying homosexuality is a constitutionally protected right.
It most definitely is not.
I don't think there's any way to interpret it other than that the state can't draft a law that allows homosexuals (et al) to have advantage in a discrimination suit simply because they are homosexuals.
It doesn't say that homosexuals can't file a discrimination suit.
They can.
They can't file one where there's a law that gives them a leg up in a discrimination suit simply because of their homosexuality, BECAUSE the state is not permitted to draft such a law.
That's the only interpretation possible from that legislation you posted, and I'm likewise convinced that it could have been better written, but that no other conclusion was possible even written as it was.
So...both you lawyers are wrong, and I, a preacher, am right. (File under: Divine Right of Preachers...:>)
I think you are wrong. It appears to give them a distinct disadvantage under the law.
I believe you can constitutionally pass a law that will deny any person the right to file suit for discrimination based upon "sexual orientation". But in order for that suit to pass equal protection muster, it must not deprive any individual from equal protection under the laws. In other words it must be reciprocal and essentially apply to all persons "equally." Thus a law prohibiting any lawsuit of any kind for a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation or even sexual behavior would pass constitutional muster but it must allow the homosexuals the right to discriminate against heterosexuals and families without fear of lawsuit. IOW you must remove sexual orientation as the basis of any suit and not merely as the basis of a suit against homosexuals.
Colorado could have solved the problem by making homosexual behavior illegal (as then it would bar any discrimination since the person discriminating would be discriminating against those engaged in criminal activites -- which would be legal and would bar any claim for discrimination by operation of law), but the supreme court in Lawrence closed that door.
After hearing arguments from both sides, I lean towards a finding that the statute in question was poorly drafted and denies equal protection under the laws to all citizens and unconsitutionally singles out a specific group for denial of rights available to other citizens based solely upon a perception that they belong to a group which engages in activites that are legally sanctioned by the state.
I will need more persuasive arguments from your side to make me vote to uphold this particular piece of leglislation. I am inclined at this point to agree with the majority.
Here are my question to those who agree with the minority:
1) Under this law could a person file a suit against a homosexual person for denying them access to the homosexual's restaurant, apartment building, store, exercise facility or other accomodation becuase the homosexual percieves that they are heterosexuals?
Could a homosexual be sued for denying anyone access to homosexually owned accomodations because the homosexual perceived them to be fundamentalist christian heterosexuals or that he perceived that they othewise had a bias against homosexuals?
If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then, in my opinion, the statute does not provide equal protection to all citizens under the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.