Supreme Court does it again...

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » December 4, 2002, 12:38 am

Ok...in my AP Government class im supposed to follow these two court cases for an extended period of time and see how they turn out...but first, i'd like to see what everyone else thinks the Supreme Court SHOULD do?

My opinion? The Supreme Court has always had a history of NOT taking court cases that are CONTROVERSIAL and deal with extremely broad issues...they broke this trend when they undertook Gore V. Bush...and they have broken it once again in undertaking these cases regarding Gay Rights and Affirmative Action...

What should they do in my opinion? The Supreme Court should rule AGAINST Affirmative Action, yes you can call me sac-religios because i myself am spanish, but in all honesty, no one: whites, blacks, hispanics, no one should get an unfair advantage when it comes to ANYTHING; much less getting into college. Getting into college should always be based simply on MERITS and not simply because you aren't white or you aren't black. For a century the minorities in this country fought for their civil rights because they were being treated unfairly simply because of the color of their skin...and now, minorities are getting INTO college simply based on the color of their skin and white kids are NOT getting into college because of the color of their skin? Frankly, we (minorities) are being extremely hypocritical with this entire issue..
As for Gay Rights, since I myself am Gay, I think the Supreme Court should vote FOR Gay Rights. Gay people are a MINORITY just like Blacks and Hispanics; if our government can give Blacks and Hispanics equal rights, why can't they give another minority, gay people, the same rights as everyone else.

Anywho...post how you voted and why...have fun!

PS: Let's NOT turn this into a flame thread please, keep it civilized and keep it atleast somewhat intelligent heh...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » December 4, 2002, 12:48 am

Totally agree with you. Affirmative action, imo, only reinforces the ignorance that we are different in the eyes of business. Until people start seeing everyone on the same level, -isms will continue to be fueled.

I also am very passionate about gay rights. I feel that the government has yet to condemn homophobic behavior and continues to support the notion that gays are "deviant" individuals. This attitude is NO different than racism and is something I refuse to tolerate.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 4, 2002, 12:52 am

I believe they are only supposed to issue oppinions and interpret laws, so I would have to actually read more about what they are looking at and relate it to the constitution or something to answer this properly.

To tired and uninterested so who cares wins!

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » December 4, 2002, 12:54 am

The Constitutional Issue is this...

Is it consitutitonal for minorities to get an ADVANTAGE over OTHER applicants to colleges such as the University of Michigan simply because they are minorities? Does Civil Rights legislation protect the rights of minorities to be allowed into college based on their race and not much else?

Is it constitutional for Gay couples to have the SAME rights as Heterosexual couples...such as marriage liscences, taxes, homeowning etc etc...

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 4, 2002, 12:55 am

I don't have a problem with gay rights as long as they don't put up a fucking quota for it. (READ: Affirmative Action) And there are no fuckwad lawyers named Johnny Cockran to spawn from it to call out people/organizations for lack of gay people. Other than that Trek pretty much nailed it.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 4, 2002, 12:58 am

Well, I guess if there is the chance it would possibly increase free lesbian pr0n production, I would vote yes.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 4, 2002, 1:01 am

I agree, do away with affirmative action for all of the reasons you cited. Race minorities perhaps needed a jump start to make up for the gross descrimination that was rampant in the past. Now that roots have been established, racism is no longer an issue (note I did not say it does not exist), there is no need for affirmative action.

Gay rights....it's gonna happen, eventually, but that does not mean I have to like it. I mean it's one thing to say I disagree with the lifestyle due to religious beliefs, but it's another to honestly think they will not have the same rights as everyone else. Here comes the rub, if they vote against it they send a statement that the core of this countries laws passed down from our forefathers is based on religion. If they vote FOR gay rights, then they are saying religion plays no part....because that's the only reason why it would, solely for religious reasons. Time for them to put up or shut up. Common sense says they will shut up, and vote for their rights. They will not go on record as upholding rules that are based on religious views.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 4, 2002, 1:23 am

Completly agree with ya Fesuni

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 4, 2002, 2:08 am

The sad fact is that any deviant behavior in a large enough percentage of people could become mainstream and mandated-equal if this passes.

I want Pot Smokers Rights... I bet theres more pot smokers than cock smokers...

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 4, 2002, 2:11 am

/nod Fash

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 4, 2002, 2:33 am

I'll go do some surfing and find out what the two cases are. I know the AA one. It is in the context of Law School admissions and should make a good platform to finally get rid of most forms of Affirmative Action.

"Gay rights" is way to big of a catagory for your description to be right. I'll be back in a bit to figure out whether it is in the good catagory of gay rights that I support (getting rid of government impossed distinctions - e.g. no gays in military, gays can't marry, gays can't adopt, etc.) or in the bad catagory that I hope never become laws where the government imposses restrictions on private individuals (can't fire gays, can't hate gays, can't kick gays out of the Boy Scouts, etc.).

brb.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 4, 2002, 2:49 am

Ahh, the Gay thing is a review of an old precedent set in Bowers v. Hardwick discussing the right of consenting adults to have sex. Even the right wing Justice's are on record as disagreeing with the outcome of Bowers. This is not a major case by any stretch. The case will be decided 6-3 or 7-2 depending on Thomas. Kennedy will draft the majority opinion and will be joined by Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, Breyer and Ginsburg. Rehnquist will dissent and will be joined by Scalia, who may or may not write seperately. Thomas will write seperately and either dissent - critisizing sodemy laws as stupid, but not unconstitutional, or concur in the judgement, but base his opinion on Equal Protection (Kennedy will base his on substantive due process).

Just so we are all clear here. This case is all about whether a State can pass a law making it criminal (a felony carrying upto 35 years inprissonment in this case) if I fuck my boyfriend in my own home. I am really suprised even the most right wing Christian likes the idea of throwing me in jail for fucking my boyfriend.

Edit: off topic, but I will agree with Fash. I want Pot Smokers rights too(and the right to do other drugs too).

Mitzey · Post by **Mitzey** » December 4, 2002, 2:52 am

Someone can elaborate or correct if im wrong - the 'gay right' issue is coming from a case in Texas concerning their sodomy laws i think - at least thats what i read in the paper.

The law in Texas says its illegal for 2 men to engage in acts of sodomy but it is not illegal if its a man and a women. They are arguing that if its legal for a man and women to do it it should be legal for 2 men to do it, or conversly if its illegal for 2 men it should be illegal for a heterosexual couple as well. Some states still say its illegal for anyone to engage in acts of sodomy or even oral sex without commenting on the gender of those involved.

To me this seems like a case of - well doh... But the larger question becomes if the court agrees the law cant discrimanate based on the gender of the 2 people involved in a sex act commited in private between concenting adults does this then apply in a broader sense to marriage, insurance coverage, survivor rights etc etc...

Anyway - id say no on the affirmative action - for much the same reasons stated above - there are better ways to promote minority education. And id say yes on the gay rights - they arnt asking for any special considerations they just want to be treated equally.

Mitzey

Mitzey · Post by **Mitzey** » December 4, 2002, 2:56 am

hmm you posted while i was typing Aaeamdar - correct me if im wrong i really thought this case was different because of the gender issue. Arnt they arguing more about the fact that the law is (or mabye its just that the law is only applied) different based strictly on gender of the couple engaging in the sex act?

Mitzey

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 4, 2002, 3:00 am

Sex, not gender. (Sex: Gender | Male: Masculine) But yes. It is the same as Bowers, however, since Justice White noted that while the law in Bowers (Georgia) was written generically, it would only be applied to Homosexual couples. (This consession by Georgia was neccessary to bypass an earlier case that made it unconstitutional to apply Sodemy laws to a married Hetrosexual couple in their home.)

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » December 4, 2002, 3:20 am

+ Gay Rights
- Affirmative Action

Because if we give the Gay community full legal status...We dont wanna have them asking for affirmative action...

Sad that giving fundamental right to some folks requires an SC ruling isn't it? I reckon the Constitution clearly provides this already but noooooo some people do not understand the spirit of the law...

Affirmative Action well it has actually accomplished a lot in its days of existence but I think its about time for some revision as it has become a bastion of the less meritorious seeking to push themselves above those who are striving & deserving...

In the words of Michael Stipes: Jefferson I think we're lost! (wonder if he considered the double entendre when he wrote that lyric about their bus driver)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 4, 2002, 7:09 am

Yeah I agree with you guys. Now that nobody in the world is racist anymore we don't need affirmative action.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 4, 2002, 10:28 am

My memory may be faulty but don't we already have something that says approximately:

"All people are created equal and have equal rights under the law"

Whites, blacks, latinos, gays, etc... all seem to be people to me, regardless of other differences.

Affirmative action has been a method of reverse discrimination for 10-20 years in many(most?) areas. Sex and/or race should be a non-issue, it shouldn't even be on the application.

Gay "rights" is a way of a community forcing others to justify/acknowledge their existance. I'd guess the large majority of straight folks couldn't care less what you do in your home, I certainly don't.

I don't advertise my sexual preference or make an issue of it, in common with most hetro folks. Most gays don't either for that matter I'd guess, it falls into the none of your business catagory. Those extroverted folks that need me to justify their existance, probably much have deeper issues than just being gay.

As a community, this is an effort towards legal status of a group that doesn't actually exist in a real sense. And likely wouldn't be dicriminated against if those effected didn't bring up the issue.

It's not a matter of "don't ask, don't tell". It's a matter of common courtesy, more along the lines of "It's none of my business, don't tell me, I don't care".

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 4, 2002, 11:25 am

I am definitely against all forms of affirmative action. Race should have absolutely nothing to do with getting into college or getting a job and promotions later on.

I can see where they have a problem with the Gay rights case. The Texas law is barbaric and a blatant invasion of privacy in a person's home. If someone wants to have sex (gay or otherwise) in the privacy of their own home then no one else has the right to break in and arrest you for it.

As for gay rights, I believe that there should be a right to gay marriage and gay marriages should get all the rights that hetero partners get now. I don't believe that gays should get minority classification and special treatments though. The difference between a gay man and a black man is that it is obvious that the black man is black and a minority. A gay man (or woman) could be faking it to get special privileges. Example: If you found out you could get a sweet ass job if you pretended to be gay, would you pretend? I bet most people would.

Now if they were able to come up with a genetic test to prove homosexuality then I wouldn't have a problem with them getting minority status.

My opinion is that it isn't anyone's business what someone wants to do with their personal lives. Do what makes you happy and fuck everyone else.

Deward

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 4, 2002, 11:37 am

Affirmative action is no longer needed as a federally mandated program. I have yet to see anyone discriminated against on the job with regards to religion, color, nationality, or sexual preference on any job I have been in.

Gay rights? To discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference should be just as wrong as it would be to discriminate based on color. To give them the same rights as married couples is a whole different story. Why should a same sex couple get more rights and privileges than 2 straight men living in the same house? I would say hell no to giving them more rights than someone who is not married. Heterosexual couples get tax breaks and privileges based on them raising families (or the assumption that they would). You give me ONE valid reason that a same sex couple should get more privileges and tax breaks than 2 unmarried single people living together in the same household for an extended period.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2002, 11:37 am

I can see affirmative action for education but not for emplyoment. You'd be surprised about the high school and under educational differences that still exist today depending on which community you live in. W/out citing examples I was privy to, let's just say that underadvantaged people can, and often do, work harder than someone given all of the best opportunities.

Why is it that people assume it's only blacks who are involved with affirmative action?

Edit: Tax breaks are specifically tied to children. It's far more beneficial for my wife and I to file separately than to do it jointly. Once we have a few extra "dependents" running around, filing jointly will make more sense.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » December 4, 2002, 11:58 am

Affirmative action has plus and minuses regardless.

But what kind of people you fuck giving you a special consideration? Searyx probably fucks sheep, does he get legal consideration next? Simple fact is that who or what you choose to stick your dick or tongue into is not and should not be a law issue, between consenting adults.

Oh yeah and rugrats should not equal tax breaks, why should I pay higher taxes to counter people that cannot live life without breeding.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 4, 2002, 12:17 pm

Here goes my conservative club pass.

+ gay rights

- affirmative action

Because to consider any individual on the basis of anything other than their own merits makes you a fucking idiot.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2002, 12:20 pm

Don't ask me. I'm sure I pay more taxes than most (in america) and worse, a higher percentage as well. That doesn't even include the outragous property taxes NJ has the gall of charging and that's primarily for public schools.

But it is what it is, so if I have kids in the next couple of years, you can be damn sure I'm going to get my fucking break.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » December 4, 2002, 12:22 pm

Simple fact is that who or what you choose to stick your dick or tongue into is not and should not be a law issue.

Are you saying its ok for you to stick your dick into a 4 year old boy?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2002, 12:24 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Here goes my conservative club pass.

Because to consider any individual on the basis of anything other than their own merits makes you a fucking idiot.

You forgot the all important aspects when it comes to education referred to as potential and desire.

bonechip · Post by **bonechip** » December 4, 2002, 1:14 pm

im surprised at some of your answers, as they vary greatly from your actions.

in RL, being anon isn't a big enough deal to get 500 flames in 30 seconds. normally a "hey, in this private club we prefer anon's not be used or you will be labeled a troll" and your post will be removed in 1 hour, would have solved that unpleasantness.

so anyway, as i read this i couldnt help but think of some of the ppl here. pages 3 and 13 generated the biggest chuckles. http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=9285

is it easier to say you are "aclu" minded than to actually be? im not a JW, i never invite them into my home, and also hate answering the door as they always come when im on the toilet or somthing. let the flames begin

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » December 4, 2002, 3:39 pm

Damn bonechip, you are such a whiny little bastard that I must welcome you to STFU. This thread had nothing to do with your petty little whines whatsoever, and this I should be treated better insistance is a clear sign that you did not have enough attention paid to you by your parents.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 4, 2002, 3:46 pm

Hahaha!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 4, 2002, 3:50 pm

I don't have kids yet but I am actually looking forward to the tax breaks I will get for them. My taxes are way too fucking high as it is and every way I can come up with to cheat the system I will.

Not to mention the fact that kids are expensive as hell. Unless you are trailer trash and just have them to get the welfare check.

To get back to the subject of this thread though. I don't see why married gays can't enjoy the benefits of hetero marriage. They won't be able to get the dependants discount (unless they adopt) but they should be able to share health benefits and such if they wish. Of course they are better off not getting married in most cases because they would be liable for the Marriage tax penalty then. Once the government starts getting numbers on the extra cash they can get there then I don't think it will take long to legalize same sex marriages.

Deward

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 4, 2002, 4:00 pm

Deward wrote:...but they should be able to share health benefits and such if they wish.

They already can in most US companies. The government has nothing to do with it, unless they happen to be government employees.

They don't get a default tax break, not sure what the impact of that is. I haven't needed to look in a long time.

The bulk of the issues I see brought up are really non-issues. It's just another pretext to require others to recognize them as a group.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 4, 2002, 4:08 pm

bonechip wrote:im surprised at some of your answers, as they vary greatly from your actions.

in RL, being anon isn't a big enough deal to get 500 flames in 30 seconds. normally a "hey, in this private club we prefer anon's not be used or you will be labeled a troll" and your post will be removed in 1 hour, would have solved that unpleasantness.

so anyway, as i read this i couldnt help but think of some of the ppl here. pages 3 and 13 generated the biggest chuckles. http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=9285

is it easier to say you are "aclu" minded than to actually be? im not a JW, i never invite them into my home, and also hate answering the door as they always come when im on the toilet or somthing. let the flames begin

Since you didn't read what I wrote in the other thread or if you did read it, you didn't listen, welcome to STFU.

Edit: I voted for Gay Rights and against affirmative action.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 4, 2002, 4:19 pm

This has nothign to do with marriage or taxes or any of the other issues being discussed here. I am really hopeful the 14 people who voted no to "gay rights" are really just having a knee jerk reaction to those words. The case is solely about with two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their home can be sentenced to jail for up tp 35 years.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 4, 2002, 4:22 pm

That is why it's fucking stupid that the law exists in the first place.

I voted for gay rights and against aa.

However, i'm not in the U.S so it doesn't apply to me, but its the ideals that matter^^

bonechip · Post by **bonechip** » December 4, 2002, 4:26 pm

Since you didn't read what I wrote in the other thread or if you did read it, you didn't listen, welcome to STFU.

Edit: I voted for Gay Rights and against affirmative action.[/quote]

no, i may have missed it Aran, there was so much to read.

BTW, i voted for gay rights and against AA. i dont want a doctor that made it to med school because of aa, and wouldnt care if he was gay.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » December 4, 2002, 4:33 pm

I'm not an American so your Supreme Court's decision will likely have little impact on me, unless I become one in the future, but as everyone, i have an opinion.

Affirmative action - I can sympathize with Kyou's view in that there are always some racist pigs, but the way to eliminate it is not by propogating against a different group. "Role models" from various communities need to be encouraged to develop, but there needs to be a way to do it without discriminating against merit.

Gay rights - I see this as a lifestyle choice, similar to religion. My understanding is that it is illegal in the US (and Canada and other countries) to discriminate against religious choice, so why should other lifestyle choices be different, as long as they violate no other laws. That is illegal to perform some sexual acts with another consenting adult is something that I find a little extreme... especially in a country that espouses itself to be the "most free country in the world".

noel · Post by **noel** » December 4, 2002, 4:54 pm

It should be noted that the 'Gay Rights' case has implications for heterosexual couples as well. If any of us guys hook it up with our girlfriends/wives/etc. in TX, and decide we want to 'tap that ass', we can go to jail for that.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 4, 2002, 4:59 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:This has nothign to do with marriage or taxes or any of the other issues being discussed here. I am really hopeful the 14 people who voted no to "gay rights" are really just having a knee jerk reaction to those words. The case is solely about with two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their home can be sentenced to jail for up tp 35 years.

I would have to see what the exact issue the Supreme Court would be voting on verbatim. The "gay rights" issue that I would refer to is that of the rights of homosexuals to be married and have the extra rights and privileges given to heterosexual married couples. If the issue is up to the Supreme Court about gays not having the basic human rights that every citizen of the US should have, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 4, 2002, 5:07 pm

Actually, Aran, unless I misread the TX law, that is not the case. In fact, the reason this case has made it to the Supreme Court is most likely because the TX laws are specifically targetted at homosexual acts. Married heterosexuals are protected by Greenwald v. Conn. I am fuzzy on it, but I think there was an extension of Greenwald to non-married heterosexual couples. Bowers v. Hardwick decided to not extend Greenwald to homosexual couples.

This really is not my area of expertise, so I could be wrong (and if someone thinks I am, I'll be happy to do some research on it), but I think as things stand now, though some States draft their sodomy laws broadly, it is unconstitutional to apply those laws to hertosexual acts (I am 100% certain they cannot be applied to the married). These cases are all based on substantive due process. Bowers v. Hardick came along shortly after Greenwald and was also a case based on substantive due process. For reasons unknown, Equal Protection was not considered in that case, even though in the lower courts, Georgia conceded that their Sodomy laws would not be enforced against heterosexual acts (and they made this concession to specifically get around the Greenwald line). Bowers, then, should have provided a good platform for an Equal Protection case, but it was never pursued that way (likely due to feelings that Equal Protection jurisprudence would have been unhelpful at the time).

Now, the Texas law is homosexual acts only. But, even if it were broadly drafted, Greenwald and its line prohibits the application of those laws to heterosexual acts. So, regardless, all Sodomy laws presently prohibit only homosexual acts.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 4, 2002, 5:23 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:...two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their home can be sentenced to jail for up tp 35 years.

Regardless of what the law says or gender involved, how are they going to get caught? Without reading the law, I really don't know what it's aim was, other than as a general act placed there to enforce someones version of morality at some point.

No judge is going to issue a search warrant in order catch folks packing fudge. No prosecutor is going to ask for one either for that matter.

The right to poke someone up the kiester isn't what is being fought for publicly, though that may be a side effect.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 4, 2002, 5:56 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Actually, Aran, unless I misread the TX law, that is not the case...

Thanks for the clarification, I assumed incorrectly because I know there are still several states in the US where it is the case. Makes more sense why it's being considered a 'gay' issue now.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » December 4, 2002, 6:58 pm

Regardless of what state you are in...if my best friend has the right to fuck his girlfriend anywhich way he wants in the privacy of HIS HOME...then I should have the right to do whatever i please with whoever i please in the privacy of MY home...

The same applies to "kissing in public", which is illegal in some places to prevent homosexuals from kissing out on the streets...if my best friend is allowed to kiss his girlfriend in front of me, then i am allowed to kiss my boyfriend in front of my best friend...period

Pubin · Post by **Pubin** » December 4, 2002, 7:14 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote: then i am allowed to kiss my boyfriend in front of my best friend...period

i knew it.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » December 4, 2002, 7:38 pm

Ya Pubin...its a known fact now

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » December 4, 2002, 8:46 pm

ya we should be allowed to do that ...so what if it makes people unconfy? they need to learn to get with the age ...

VeeshanVault

Supreme Court does it again...

How should the Supreme Court rule on the two cases they have recently undertaken: Gay Rights and Affirmative Action?

Supreme Court does it again...

On the topic of Gay Rights..

suprised

Re: suprised

Re: suprised