Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's true, the Court has ruled. But it doesn't mean that Steven's reasoning of the law wasn't stronger than the majority's. Jill citing Steven's dissent only asks that you put an argument out there of what's wrong with Steven's dissent. It's an intellectual exercise.
We use intellectual exercise to test the validity of our opinions. It's a better litmus test than deciding validity based on how a majority voted.
I'm not a learned enough Constitutional lawyer to parse Steven's opinion and I doubt anyone else here is either. It would take days, or longer, to look up all the references, read the opinions and transcripts of the cases, formulate an argument and come back with it. And, in the end, it would be a pointless exercise because none of us here have the power to overturn the Court.
Whether or not we consider the Courts ruling as valid is a non-issue because they DID rule that way and, according to our Constitution and over 200 years of case law, that's the end of it until it's revisited. The Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitutionality of a law, not us, and when they make a ruling that's the end of the matter. There is no higher court of appeal.
In the realm of law, a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court is as valid as it gets.
I'm not a learned enough Constitutional lawyer to parse Steven's opinion and I doubt anyone else here is either. It would take days, or longer, to look up all the references, read the opinions and transcripts of the cases, formulate an argument and come back with it. And, in the end, it would be a pointless exercise because none of us here have the power to overturn the Court.
Whether or not we consider the Courts ruling as valid is a non-issue because they DID rule that way and, according to our Constitution and over 200 years of case law, that's the end of it until it's revisited. The Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitutionality of a law, not us, and when they make a ruling that's the end of the matter. There is no higher court of appeal.
In the realm of law, a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court is as valid as it gets.
Stevens did do a 20-minute summary that can be usefully employed in an analysis. I don't think you have to be a Constitutional scholar to read the opinions. The references and related transcripts are important, but what's more important is how the justices explain their rationale behind their decision. They are telling us how they read the Constitution, and then logically apply the Constitution to the case at hand. I think Stevens presented a cogent summary of his opinion, and at 40+ pages, his dissent is meticulously presented. There are several presumptions in the Kennedy opinion that are flawed, in my opinion. And Thomas, well, don't even get me started.
Stevens did do a 20-minute summary that can be usefully employed in an analysis. I don't think you have to be a Constitutional scholar to read the opinions. The references and related transcripts are important, but what's more important is how the justices explain their rationale behind their decision. They are telling us how they read the Constitution, and then logically apply the Constitution to the case at hand. I think Stevens presented a cogent summary of his opinion, and at 40+ pages, his dissent is meticulously presented. There are several presumptions in the Kennedy opinion that are flawed, in my opinion. And Thomas, well, don't even get me started.
Steven's always offers well-thought out and documented opinions, but this time a majority of the Court disagreed with his assessment.
I think not. Just as non-citizens can't contribute to a campaign, foreign corp. won't be able to either....unless you have some evidence that says they will be able to.
You can quote Justice Steven's dissenting opinion till the cows come home and it won't make any difference. The Court has ruled and that's that. It is now the law of the land and no matter how much we don't like it, as good American's and citizens of a free country based upon the rule of law, we are obligated to accept that decision until either Congress or the Court visits the issue again.
Steven's had his opportunity to present his case, which he did, and the majority of the Justice's disagreed with it.
You asked me to show you where the majority erred. I showed you where it erred by quoting the errors that were pointed out by Justice Stevens in his dissent. And instead of addressing the content of that position, you lecture me as if I were completely ignorant of what Supreme Court rulings mean in the scope of how the law operates, and spew this nonsense of, "What's done is done. Deal with it." Stop talking to me (and us) like we're morons.
I will take your refusal to come up with a cogent rebuttal to mean that you know little to nothing about actual law. You just like to make big, sweeping statements about how "majority rules" and we're too stupid to understand you, and post a list of the cases that the majority relied upon so you look like you're smarter than you really are (woo hoo for copy/paste!).
I'd ask you to defend why the court exceeded the scope of what they were actually asked to rule on by the Plaintiffs, but I have no confidence that you even know that's what happened, let alone how to address it.
You asked me to show you where the majority erred. I showed you where it erred by quoting the errors that were pointed out by Justice Stevens in his dissent. And instead of addressing the content of that position, you lecture me as if I were completely ignorant of what Supreme Court rulings mean in the scope of how the law operates, and spew this nonsense of, "What's done is done. Deal with it." Stop talking to me (and us) like we're morons.
I will take your refusal to come up with a cogent rebuttal to mean that you know little to nothing about actual law. You just like to make big, sweeping statements about how "majority rules" and we're too stupid to understand you, and post a list of the cases that the majority relied upon so you look like you're smarter than you really are (woo hoo for copy/paste!).
I'd ask you to defend why the court exceeded the scope of what they were actually asked to rule on by the Plaintiffs, but I have no confidence that you even know that's what happened, let alone how to address it.
And P.S., it's Americans, no apostrophe.
No, what you showed me was how you THINK the majority erred. What you think, or I think, is completely irrelative except for the sake of argument.
No, what you showed me was how you THINK the majority erred. What you think, or I think, is completely irrelative except for the sake of argument.
Truly, the mind boggles. Except for the fact that the whole point of message board forums is to participate in discussions "for the sake of argument", you make perfect sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
