|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [154552311] Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 01:34
For a great top ten website, ListVerse.com, I'm submitting a top ten list of most important SCOTUS decisions. My list so far, which is subject to cutting, ranking, and a short editorial comment for each:
Marbury v Madison (will be #1)
Brown vs Topeka Board of Education
Dred Scott v Sandford
Plessy v Ferguson
Texas v Johnson
Miranda v Arizona
McCulloch v. Maryland
Roe v Wade
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
United States v. Nixon
Furman v. Georgia
Others I considered but rejected are Bush v Gore (no precedential value) and Kelo (baaaad decision, but too new to have much of an obvious affect yet).
Any others I should be including? I'm sure there are some I'm going to smack my head when I see it.
Thanks |
| | | 1 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 01:52
|
International Shoe
and
Alford
are acouple to consider. Certainly there are others that might come to mind at a more reasonable hour...
|
|
| | |
| | | 3 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 04:29
|
Arguably the most important case is will always happen to be the last time the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the second amendment applying to the people and not some government controlled militia.
I would have said United States v. Miller since it was the clearest SCOTUS statement affirming that as an individual right. However I think there was a more recent case overturning city bans violating the 2nd amendment that offhand just may qualify as the new best protection of RTBA.
|
|
| | |
| | | 5 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 10:53
|
Griswold v. Conn. is arguably more important and almost as horrible a decision as Roe.
The Slaughterhouse cases have to be on a list as they set the stage for the development of several lines of 14th Amendment issues.
|
|
| | | 6 | SZ on San Juan Is.
ID: 4775319
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 10:53
|
Furman v. Georgia
I cracked this in law school:
"Furman v. Georgia? What's the spread on that case?"
:)
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 11:09
|
Thanks, MBJ. Gideon certainly needs to be included (smacks head).
Baldwin: I'm avoiding recent cases for the same reason as Kelo: Good or bad, the recent cases haven't had much time to really influence things yet.
|
|
| | | 8 | SZ on San Juan Is.
ID: 2737112
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 13:37
|
Yeah, I'm quite fond of Gideon.
Bates v. Kentucky was an important case that put an end to a horrible practice that MBJ's brethren are now famous for.
|
|
| | | 9 | Astade
ID: 38542218
Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 13:58
|
What about Mapp vs. Ohio? Pretty important when it comes
to civil rights and what evidence can be used in the court of
law. Has that been superceded by a later case?
|
|
| | | 10 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 01:16
|
I have just read that Morales v Daly ruled that you cannot claim the 5th amendment to avoid the census' intrusive questions. And higher courts wouldn't hear it.
Lower courts can overturn the constitution. Amazing. Pretty significant.
|
|
| | | 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Aug 10, 2009, 03:10
|
First three written. I need to re-edit these (and probably re-cast Furman, since (like the decision) it is all over the place). The site I'm writing for is quite non-legal, so feedback welcome:
3. Furman v. Georgia (1972): This case is an example of the Court taking on an issue but being unable to clarify the issue much in the end. In attempting to determine if the death penalty in these 3 consolidated cases (which included Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas ) violated the “cruel and unusual” provision of the Constitution, nine justices wrote nine separate opinions. While overall they answered the question “yes,” they were unable to consolidate that around any single consensus reason. Two of the justices felt the dealt penalty was always “cruel and unusual” punishment, while several of the justices wrote about the arbitrary nature of how the death penalty is applied, with particular emphasis on how capital cases appear to have a racial bias. The immediate effect of the case was a temporary halt in to have states revise their statutes surrounding the death penalty, which helped the court decide in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) that capital punishment was not “cruel and unusual” in all cases, and laid out some criteria and procedures to allow mitigating evidence in the states’ capital sentencing schemes.
Quote: (Justice Douglas) The generality of a law inflicting capital punishment is one thing. What may be said of the validity of a law on the books and what may be done with the law in its application do, or may, lead to quite different conclusions.
It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual" if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.
2. Gideon v. Wainright: This 1963 case, decided by a unanimous Court, required state courts to provide legal counsel to those who could not afford their own counsel. Previous to this, (and after Powell v Alabama (1932)), many states assigned lawyers for defendants only for capital cases. The Gideon case clarified the necessity for legal counsel as a fundamental right in all cases at all levels. Together with the later Miranda v Arizona, this case helped establish a firmer hold of the rights of the accused. And because of the necessity of setting up a clear procedural system so that the right to counsel is met (as opposed to handling the necessity for defendant counsel on a case-by-case basis as was done pre-Gideon), Gideon also helped extend stare decisis wider by applying a systematic answer to the problem and making changes only by weighing new information against a precedential bias.
Quote: From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him
1. Marbury v Madison (1803): The particulars of this case are not as important as the fact that this case decided, and set into motion, judicial review of the law. In particular, the great John Marshall firmly placed the Supreme Court in its place to decide the constitutionality of the laws and actions by the other two branches of government. Virtually no other case would be on this list if not for this particular case—indeed, the nature of our government would have been quite different without the grounding in judicial review this case brought about.
Quote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
|
|
| | | 12 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 00:40
|
Kelo: Home to Feral Cats.
I know we had a Kelo thread around here somewhere...
Anyway, this case has something to piss off most everyone, I think.
|
|
| | | 13 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 09:51
|
I am surprised we are not hearing more stories like that. I remember hearing a lot about how cities were using eminent domain to take peoples houses and business away. I wonder how many others projects have turned into Urban blight.
|
|
| | |
| | | 15 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 16:32
|
I wish there were some easy way to bring them back to life. Don't want to bug guru every time.
Boikin - I was reading in NYT about the urban planners bulldozing some neighbor back in the 50s to build big museums and stadia and such. Completely destroyed the area, and it never recovered. Houston maybe? Can't remember.
In any case, it's been going on for decades. Probably centuries.
|
|
| | | 16 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 16:33
|
That said, I can understand public works. Sometimes it is simply necessary. Not always, but sometimes. Takings for the sake of private companies is just crap.
|
|
| | |
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 02:57
|
What makes you think that "liberals" don't support the second amendment? Because we sometimes make fun of people who think it overshadows the rest of the Constitution?
|
|
| | | 19 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 10:11
|
I fully support the right of individuals to carry personalized nuclear-tipped rocket launchers without any restrictions whatsoever.
Anyone who doesn't believe this is a good thing is clearly a Trotsky-worshipping zeitgeister who wants to globalize the liberal agenda.
|
|
| | | 20 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 10:17
|
Baldwin - you'd be a lot more enlightened person if you'd stop applying your own irrational fears to your own generalizing statements.
based on the "liberals" here, your generalizations are usually completely wrong and mis-informed.
not all liberals are opposed to the second amendment. i think many are opposed to completely free and clear gun rights, such as those rules that make it relatively easy to own assault rifles or loopholes (such as those involving gun shows) that make owning a gun easier than driving a car.
i believe in the right for Americans to own guns. i also believe in extremely strict regulation of it, including waiting periods and background checks.
as long as you are a law-abiding citizen, as long as you can show the responsibility to own a fire arm, then why shouldn't you be able to?
|
|
| | | 21 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 10:32
|
I hardly believe any libs here find that such an "amazing development." I don't know that it necessarily has anything to do with any "irrational fears" you harbor but it's been clear for a long time that you really don't understand the perspectives of the American left as well as you believe you do.
Go back and look at the 2nd Amendment discussions we've had here. You'll find no consensus from the left in favor of the politics you typically ascribe to them. About 2/3 of the arguing is trying to explain to Boxman that if he isn't cool with his neighbor keeping a howitzer cannon pointed at his daughter's bedroom window, then he can't possibly insist that "shall not be infringed" must be interpreted in literal and absolute terms.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 00:56
|
I'm just about finished with this thing. Been writing and revising it for some time. Some of these are overly long, and I have not yet written commentary for Texas v Johnson or Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. But criticism is welcome.
Here are 10-7. #10 is too long and I'll probably cut the third paragraph, but here 'tis:
10. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954, then 1955): In the wake of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), race relations in the United States were generally distinguished by “separate but equal”: The belief that so long as public accommodations were equivalent for both whites and non-whites, that the discrimination was permitted. The Court rejected this argument (and thus, set aside Plessy), partly based upon a review which included the fact that separate facilities were rarely equal at all. In arguing the case, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall not only pointed out that many facilities were grossly unequal in terms of physical facilities, teaching qualifications, curricula, and so on, but demonstrated the psychological harm to students attending sharply unequal, and unqualifying, schools.
In 1955 the Court took up the case again, in order to settle the question of timing for its decision that schools desegregate “with all deliberate speed.” While this decision muddied the waters a bit, the legal basis of the original decision remained unchanged, and set into motion many of the social and legal changes in America, including the civil rights movement and ongoing equality struggles.
It should be noted that while nowadays the decision is almost universally hailed across the political spectrum, there are still questions (mostly among conservative legal minds) as to the arguments made which led to the decision. Many conservative judicial thinkers (such as Clarence Thomas) feel that the “psychological harm” argument was overstated and therefore carried too much weight in the final decision. Others pointed to the fact that the equality argument the Court agreed with was a large hole in the position of Constitutional Originalists since the ratifiers could not possibly have believed equality should apply to other races in the way Brown was decided.
Quote: “We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.”
9. Dred Scott v Sandford (1857): This decision was virtually a slam dunk for pro-slavery forces, at a time in which many Northern states were agitating against slavery. Dred Scott brought suit for his release after his attempt to purchase his freedom from the widow of his owner was rejected. Since Scott resided for several years in states and territories in which slavery was prohibited, he argued that this required his emancipation.
The Court ruled that they had no jurisdiction in the case, but then went on to rule on a host of issues which were not before it. According to the Court, not only was Dred Scott a slave, but they ruled that slaves could never be citizens with the right to sue. The Court also attached this non-standing to sue to the descendents of slaves. Finally, because slaves were personal property, the Court ruled that the Congress erred in the Missouri Compromise in declaring it a free territory, and that neither the Congress nor territorial governments can ban slavery.
The Court based much of its decision mostly on the fears of what would happen if Dred Scott was successful in suing for his freedom, including the fear that former slaves might hold meetings amongst themselves, and carry guns.
Dred Scott was never directly overruled by the Court, but most of the decisions were rendered moot by the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which were based upon the Fourteenth Amendment (1968).
Quote: “If the Constitution recognises the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal … has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.”
8. Texas v. Johnson (1989): flag burning text tk
7. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Like many early Court cases, the issues being discussed in this case (and the long term implications) far outweighed the case at hand. This case was about the refusal of a bank established by Congress to pay a state tax on its notes. The tax was mandated by the State of Maryland on notes of all banks not chartered by the State.
The State of Maryland argued that because the Constitution did not specifically grant Congress the power to establish banks, that the Bank of the United States was itself unconstitutional. The case for the Federal Government hinged upon an interpretation of how limiting the Necessary and Proper clause (Article I, section 8) of the Constitution is. John Marshall, for the Court, wrote that anything not specifically prohibited in the Constitution is permissible by Congress in order for Congress to utilize its clear and even implied powers. Furthermore, within its own sphere of influence, States cannot hinder the actions of the Congress in acting out its necessary and proper actions.
The effect of this ruling was twofold: It sharply limited the powers of the States in their relationship with the Federal Government, and it greatly expanded the means through which Congress can act by giving their implied powers as much weight as clearly defined powers. It also allowed that Congress can use virtually any non-prohibited means to carry out its powers in the United States.
Quote: “The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.”
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 00:58
|
numbers 6-4:
6. Mapp v Ohio (1961): This case helped settle the question of whether evidence obtained through an illegal search was admissible in State courts. While the question of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts (the exclusion rule) had been established since Weeks v. United States (1914), its general application to State courts would not occur for another 47 years, mostly because of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not provide a shield for defendants who were convicted based upon illegally-obtained evidence.
The case was about a Cleveland police raid of a home as a result of an anonymous tip. Despite not being denied entry to the home by Mapp, the police broke in anyway, pretending to have a warrant that did not actually exist. In the search of the home they found pencil drawings of pornographic images, and arrested Mapp for possession of the images based upon the evidence seized in the raid.
By a 6-3 ruling, the Court applied the exclusion rule to State courts, ruling that the Fourth Amendment’s ban against unreasonable search and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process requirement combine to require that evidence from illegal searches cannot be used to convict someone. In a concurring opinion, Justice Black pointed out that the Fourth Amendment combined with the Fifth Amendment’s ban against self-incrimination required the exclusion rule.
Since Mapp, the police and the courts have been busy defining exactly what makes a search illegal, including the role that incidental or “plain sight” evidence plays. But after Mapp, the basics of evidence harvesting are in place.
Quote: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.
. . . Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.”
5. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
4. United States v. Nixon (1974): In this 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court limited the ability of the office of the President to claim executive privilege in order to deny access to evidence under its control. The case itself was about taped conversations and other documentation of meetings in the White House related to the Whitewater break in and subsequent cover up. Many of those meetings were between President Nixon himself and others implicated directly in the break in and cover up. Despite making four appointments to the Court, Nixon was dealt a series of setbacks to his claims what the Court felt was overbroad definitions of his powers as president, including United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) and later Train v. City of New York (1975).
Quote: “No person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant’ in a criminal trial.”
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 01:00
|
Yer top 3:
3. Furman v. Georgia (1972): This case is an example of the Court taking on an issue but being unable to clarify the issue much in the end. In attempting to determine if the death penalty in these 3 consolidated cases (which included Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas) violated the “cruel and unusual” provision of the Constitution, nine justices wrote nine separate opinions. While overall they answered the question “yes,” they were unable to consolidate that around any single consensus reason. Two of the justices felt the dealt penalty was always “cruel and unusual” punishment, while several of the justices wrote about the arbitrary nature of how the death penalty is applied, with particular emphasis on how capital cases appear to have a racial bias. The immediate effect of the case was a temporary halt in to have states revise their statutes surrounding the death penalty, which helped the court decide in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) that capital punishment was not “cruel and unusual” in all cases, and laid out some criteria and procedures to allow mitigating evidence in the states’ capital sentencing schemes.
Quote: (Justice Douglas) “The generality of a law inflicting capital punishment is one thing. What may be said of the validity of a law on the books and what may be done with the law in its application do, or may, lead to quite different conclusions.
It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual" if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.”
2. Gideon v. Wainright: This 1963 case, decided by a unanimous Court, required state courts to provide legal counsel to those who could not afford their own counsel. Previous to this (and after Powell v Alabama in 1932), many states such as Florida assigned lawyers for defendants only for capital cases. The Gideon case clarified the necessity for legal counsel as a fundamental right in all cases. Together with the later Miranda v Arizona, this case helped establish a firmer hold of the rights of the accused. This case also helped extend stare decisis wider by applying a systematic answer to the problem at hand and making changes only by weighing new information against a precedential bias.
Quote: “From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”
1. Marbury v Madison (1803): The particulars of this case are not as important as the fact that this case decided, and set into motion, judicial review of the law. The great John Marshall firmly set the Supreme Court in its place as the ultimate authority to decide the constitutionality of the laws and actions by the other two branches of government. Virtually no other case would be on this list if not for this particular case—indeed, the nature of our government would have been quite different without the grounding in judicial review this case brought about. And individual rights would doubtlessly have been weaker not only for United States citizens, but for citizens of those countries who have used the US Constitution as the basis of their own.
Quote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
|
|
| | | 25 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 11:19
|
Picketing at funerals
Today SCOTUS has extended free speech far enough to allow the infliction of emotional distress from a private (read non-government) group upon other private citizens.
Obviously I'm no SCOTUS Justice. But I really don't get this one. The Constitution 'shields them from liability,' makes it sound as if there is an open season to do whatever you want. No government entity was suing them. This was a private citizen suing for emotional distress because they went too far. I can understand no criminal charges. I can understand SCOTUS saying, "We can't stop them from delivering their message." But I can't understand SCOTUS saying, 'They have free form to abuse people however they see fit and not answer for it.'
|
|
| | | 26 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 14:02
|
I despise what those people do. In fact a story about them coming to a town very close to where I grew up was the reason the "Christian Conservatives" thread was started.
But I think SCOTUS got it right.
|
|
| | | 27 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 14:49
|
Yeah, same here, MITH. Exactly how I feel. Interesting on Alito's dissent.
|
|
| | | 28 | Tree
ID: 60121615
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 19:06
|
it's one of those things you HATE, but the right to act like a jackass is one of the things that makes this country great.
|
|
| | | 29 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 20:10
|
I agree with Alito's dissent. Those were pretty much my thoughts. To me, this was never about 'do they have the right' To me its about, 'if they excerise that right to the harm of others, what do we do about it.'
I find the majority decision that Westboro (or anybody) is 'shielded from liability' to be abhorrent. They've effectively taken away an agrieved's right to sue. Civil liability, in my eyes, is the last line of defense. The right to sue has always been our shield against abuse of other freedoms.
Let me state clearly - Westboro has the right to picket and I agree 100% that they do. But I cannot agree that they have the right to free reign with no threat of repercussions even in a civil case. This has always been a civil case. Nobody is censoring them. Nobody is telling them they cannot picket and say what they want. Nobody is infringing on their free speech. But allowing a civil suit for harm done does put them in a position where they have to make the choice to temper how they deliver their message.
It may be a very fine line and some (or even many people) may see the threat of being sued vs the threat of getting their message out as a 'no brainer, I'll keep silent.' But that is an opinion. The reality is, those people are making a choice to keep silent. But they still have the right speak out. And lets face it, before this ruling that threat of being sued was in place and Westboro still chose to do what they wanted, regardless of any harm they could cause and regardless of any negative repercussions for that harm. Now SCOTUS has stripped away that last layer of protection. There is no choice. You have a message, be as radical and abusive as you want. You are free from any repercussions. Do what you want.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 21:07
|
The majority's opinion that they are expressing their First Amendment rights means that they are shielded even if the expression causes distress or strong emotions in those to whom that expression is directed.
The shielding isn't absolute (Westboro members can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) but the bar is set quite high when the content of their message is the problem.
Living in a society with rights means, unfortunately, having to live in a society where Westboro members can engage theirs like the a$$holes they are.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boldwin
ID: 21227318
Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 19:52
|
From what I gather the key was that their protest could not be heard by the harassed from where the protesters were standing thus no harassment. They are getting very sophisticated in just barely complying with the law.
This as extreme an example of a 'hard case' tempting the creation of bad law as you can imagine. As hard as the nazi parade in Skokie.
Surely there is a way to use public opprobrium to nullify whatever profit Westburo expects to gain. I would like to hear an interview of anyone who was attracted to that church by that publicity.
|
|
| | | 32 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 17:24
|
Kelo, ten years later.
Ten years later the land is still empty and Susette Kelo is still out her little pink house and beautiful property.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 17:40
|
They are filming a documentary or movie, not sure which, called 'Little Pink House' about the issue.
|
|
| | | 34 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 19:09
|
Local governments dont need to go as far as eminent domain to screw residents out of their property values. They can re-zone at will, and there is little that the little guy can do about it but cause costly delays that may have a chance of slowing the project to its failure. Zoning law and construction projects are perhaps the most popular forms of graft in local governments.
All you can do is hope you dont get victimized by the former and vote against levies for the latter.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 00:28
|
See thread: Taking of Antelope Valley.
|
|
| | | 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 10:25
|
The battle for marriage equality, is over. It has been won.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples across the country have a constitutional right to marry, regardless of what state they live in. This brings marriage equality to all of the states where same-sex marriage bans were still in place or still being enforced to some extent: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. The precedent would also apply to U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico.
The decision in the case (Obergefell v. Hodges), unsurprisingly written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, relies on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor hall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If states allow people to marry people of the opposite sex of their choice, they must allow people to make the same choice for spouses of the same sex.
|
|
| | | 37 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 11:11
|
Soon our culture will begin to wrestle with what else we deem acceptable. Bruce Gender's antics have already made us all wonder, what's next? Is there anything that will remain taboo? Polygamy, beastiality, necrophilia?
The real challenge is how we modify all the other givens we have in society to adapt to this new law. There's Probate law, Entitlements, Child Support, Sex Education, Unisex Bathrooms, and many more we all will soon start to realize, as we all must re-define our roles in society. Hope we are up to the task of re-inventing our society and I hope it's for the better. There are several millenniums of culture that is about to be seriously disrupted.
Bruce Gender and Rachel Dolezal have already taught us that we can even steal our own identity. Tell me truly, do you even know how to act now? There are no rules, except make sure you dont offend anyone when you insist they behave normally .
|
|
| | | 38 | weykool
ID: 472331022
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 11:52
|
what's next? Is there anything that will remain taboo? Polygamy, beastiality, necrophilia?
When you look back at human history the most obvious answer is pedophilia.
|
|
| | | 39 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 14:16
|
I wonder what Vegas thinks? Polygamy, pedo or beastiality will 'win' next?
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 14:28
|
One of the very last signs before Armageddon is that the anti-christ would finally be unafraid to come out of the dark and into the open and stand up.
'Forward thinkers' have chosen their direction from Neitzche's 'The AntiChrist' which advocates the overturning of the entire moral order. All bad would be considered good. All good would be considered bad.
The composite anti-christ is well and truly coming out and standing up proud as Bruce but on the whole, not nearly as willing to get along with those who retain their morality.
|
|
| | | 41 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Fri, Jun 26, 2015, 16:01
|
I dont need to evoke images of the anti-Christ to argue the value of our historically monogamous heterosexual family's definition. One need only contemplate how the rules may have come about, as one considers the challenges of leadership to maintain social order, sustain public support, and replenish the ranks in the face of competing societies. Ours is the one that succeeded by the way.
I've tried to envision where this new path will take us, and have concluded that it will inevitably lead to a polygamous society that is matriarchical. It can only survive by being repeatedly conquered by those who have not adopted our new ways and convincing our conquerors to switch to our way of life. Good luck with that.
Men should be men, and women should be women - when you turn us all into women, real men will conquer us. Thank an over protective mother when you are unable to defend yourself, let alone your offspring. And dont look to call 911 or the special forces, they'll all be too busy decorating cakes, making flower arrangements, and improving Feng shui of the workplace to defend you.
|
|
| | | 42 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 06:20
|
Always listen to what your enemies actually tell you they intend to do.The Gay Manifesto 1987
THIS ESSAY is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles.
==========================================
We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
==========================================
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises.
We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.
==========================================
We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you.
==========================================
We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence -- will be abolished.
The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated.
Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory.
They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
=============================================
All churches who condemn us will be closed.
=============================================
Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic.
All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. [aka anything you want to see in art, entertainment and the media - B]
Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion.
======================================
Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
==========================================
We shall rewrite history,...
...history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages.
We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!
PhilFam Committee Notes
* BACKGROUND: The above essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the 15-21 February 1987 Congressional Record. The ideological foundation is Leninist philosophy adapted to gay advocacy.
* INTEL: This manifesto of hate is simultaneously a mission statement and declaration of war adopted by the militant gay community Considering the success they have had so far...
Considering that they have an agenda they are following with a strict religious zeal and the public at large does not have an agenda...
Don't sneer.
There is no expectation they will not achieve every one of these goals unless an opposition force in society can survive their attacks, become influential culturally, and successfully push back.
Post script. Yesterday twitter errupted with the hashtag #LoveWins.
Irony, can you feel the love?
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 06:26
|
This and only this, wherever you look.
Oh, they made a show of it yesterday.
|
|
| | |
| | | 45 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 00:08
|
its a false threat. Quit already, with the BS Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 03:09
|
Yeah, that's just you keeping everyone dumb and anesthetized until it's a fait acompli.
2000 - "We just want to come out of the shadows."
2005 - "We just want equality."
2013 - "We just want you fired."
2015 - "We won't close your church." [tee hee]
"Anyone who lets you post on the internet will be harrassed."
"Anyone who hires you will be crushed."
"Anyone who listens to you will be punished."
"Anyone who has anything to do with you will be punished."
All false threats. Just give Sarge a little more time. Nothing to worry about.
|
|
| | | 47 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 20:23
|
Following predicates to their logical conclusions is not a "slippery slope" and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to lull you to sleep.
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 53520299
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 10:20
|
Always nice to come back and find our resident Christianist grumbling about the Anti Christ coming because gays can marry in more states here in the US.
Love wins, in the end. Christ is happy, I believe.
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 10:42
|
Salon being obvious about their position on Twitter:Gay marriage should obviously be legal, but we don't support equal protection for polygamists because that isn't fashionable yet
|
|
| | | 50 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 10:44
|
PD
What are you going to say when all the churches are closed?
|
|
| | | 51 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 11:10
|
Amen?
|
|
| | | 52 | Khahan
ID: 235252910
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 11:25
|
Actually I understand where Boldwin is coming from here. It wasn't that long ago that being gay was criminalized in our culture. From the 50s to the 60's to the 70's to the 80's, 90's and today we can follow a gradual societal acceptance for homosexuality.
From a legal perspective homosexuality, polygamy, incest, pedofiles - they all started out in the same place - as deviant, illegal behavior.
One of those behaviors is now legal despite a long history that says otherwise. For Boldwin to jump up and say, "See, it happened once it IS happening with others," is a little presumptious. But for others to tell Boldwin, "No, it can never happen." is a little disingenuous and ignores evidence right in your face.
My personal opinion - I could see a case for polygamy. Its already legal in a small section of the country and it involves relationship and certain legal rights (the way gay marriage does. For example- tax benefits, right to health benefits, visitation rights in hospital etc). And most importantly its a decision about a relationship made between consenting adults. To me, that last part is key. Though I couldn't for the life of me figure out why anybody would want to subject themselves to more than 1 wife at a time!!!!
And I'm not saying whether I agree with polygamy or not. Just stating the parallels I see between polygamy and homosexuality from a legal perspective.
Some of the other current deviant behaviors I don't really see ever being 'in fasion' or culturally accepted. They are just different from homosexuality and I think always have been. They don't involve consenting adults and typically involve predatory behavior.
|
|
| | | 53 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 11:52
|
An emotionally immature 18 year old is seduced by an older man...law to the side, is that OK?
Is S&M OK? If wife consents, how can we condemn wife beating? Watch where you head with this my friends.
If you screw the pooch, what rights does the bitch have?
|
|
| | | 54 | Khahan
ID: 235252910
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 12:58
|
An emotionally immature 18 year old is seduced by an older man
Notice I said, "consenting." Stating emotionally immature is very ambiguous for a scenario. I can think of many emotionally immature situations that would be ok and I can think of many that would not be. For those that aren't ok its called rape and is non-consensual.
S&M - if both parties are involved and willing and ok with the degree of S&M then what business is it of anybody else? The government needs to be in our bedrooms less, not more. Again, this is consensual. If an S&M kind of kink is going on and one party says stop and the other party doesn't -its no longer consensual.
|
|
| | | 55 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 15:05
|
Unfortunately, law has to be black and white if it is to be effective.
"Consenting" has many flavors, adult is defined as 12:00:01 local time of the day of your 18th birthday.
If Ray Rice's wife does not press charges, what is he guilty of? Charges were dismissed, right?
Care to take a swing at the animal rights one?
Which is more dangerous, climbing up a slippery slope or down one?
|
|
| | | 56 | Khahan
ID: 235252910
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 15:11
|
The animal one is easy Bean - it involves 2 living beings - only one of which can give its true consent. The donkey can't say yes or no (except apparently in Tiajuana according to my cousin in the Navy).
And I'm not saying these things cannot be challenged by some enterprising person in the future. Just that I think the chances of them succeeding based on the arguments or methods used by the gay community do not apply (or should not). I think its a different animal (no pun intended considering the nature of the post) to discuss necrophilia, beastiality or pedophilia than it is to discuss homosexuality, polygamy or bdsm.
I do think at some point somebody will try as a way to legitimize themselves. I just think they will fail and will always fail.
|
|
| | | 57 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 15:38
|
You seduce a girl at her 18th birthday party which is held the night before her birthday in California. You get to 2nd base at 11:59. Are you a pedophile? What if she was born in Austrailia and has technically been on the planet for 18 years at the time? What if she was a boy instead? And if he had an IQ of 83? Or he had big tits and looked 21?
If you give the dog a biscuit, then offer her to your buddy, are you a pimp? Or does your buddy have to give you something in exchange? How bout if he lets you borrow his sheep in exchange? Are you just swingers then? Honest your honor she was giving me those F*** me eyes, she was asking for it.
Now about the equine in Tijuana, I have been empowered to speak for all male jack asses, he was consenting.
|
|
| | | 58 | Khahan
ID: 235252910
Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 15:51
|
Or he had big tits
Well there you, whole question is moot. Big tits=permission for anything!
|
|
| | | 59 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 05:31
|
For Boldwin to jump up and say, "See, it happened once it IS happening with others," is a little presumptious.
No, actually we can trace the same process in action.
Professors in college have written detailed 'defenses' or arguments for the pedo [for example] being legalized. And they did it decades ago.
What are you uneducated? Unsophisticated?
Kinsey Institute produced phony research surveys involving the worst sex offenders pretending to show how commonplace, healthy and normal it was. Many decades ago. They've got a phony RIND study claiming it isn't necessarily harmful to the kids.
What are you anti-science?
The UN has written twisted descriptions describing it in the language of child rights to the kind of sex they want. Just waiting to pull it out of the drawer and make it law of the globe.
What are you anti-children? A backward thinking anti-globalist?
The same sort of bodies that twisted the APA into calling homosexuality healthy are doing it with pedo. They are following the same course. Saying it's only a sickness if it disturbs the perpetrator. They've even gotten the APA to delist it as a sexual deviations designated “paraphilia”, and calling it an orientation instead. If it's just a natural state...
Now true, they've now backtracked when called out on it, but these changes actually were already made in the DSM-5. By the DSM-4 version they had already reduced the definition of pedo to only mean...only a disorder if it ’caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.’”
In otherwords, as long as the pedo feels fine with it and isn't troubled by it, he's healthy.
They are only waiting for the public opprobrium to die down enuff that they can squeak these changes in permanently and enshrine them in law.
As soon as they do that they will make genuine research revealing the negative effects a career ender for that researcher.
It's not presumptuous to point this out. There's a paved highway already built for this process.
What with a couple million people already enjoying 'Big Love' on their TV screens, I'd bet polygamy noses out pedo in the normalization derby but they are both certainly going to happen in these end times. And much beyond.
You'll forget you ever opposed it. You'll put a rainbow overlay on your facebook page and celebrate it with #LoveWins hashtags.
Or you'll be join the persecuted majority.
|
|
| | | 60 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 05:39
|
"Yeah, this is the HR dept calling. Yeah, we've discovered some troubling old social media entries of yours we'd like to discuss. We feel the LBTQRSTIIGU4=m community might feel threatened by your continued employment."
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 53520299
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 08:37
|
So you are now against at-will employment? Good to hear. See you at the union organizational meeting...
|
|
| | | 62 | Bean
ID: 14147911
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 11:10
|
If you masturbate regularly, can you claim your hand as a dependent? Does the melon have to be consenting? If you were a tropical fruit, which would you be?
Its a new world, so many unanswered questions.
|
|
| | | 63 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 14:56
|
Who get's custody? The dog&tree or the corpse/undertaker when the melange breaks up?
|
|
| | | 64 | Khahan
ID: 115453015
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 16:45
|
Another big case for the supreme court - SCOTUS will hear case about union dues.
There's 2 parts of this:
1) Unions paying dues into lobbying for political parties. As we all know, Citizens United personified corporations giving them free speech rights. I think that decision especially actually paves the way for the SC to rule that non-union members cannot be forced to pay dues.
2) Many states that are considered 'pro-union' require unions to protect workers who are not members. If those workers do not have to pay (and don't pay) then this needs to change. A union should not owe anything to somebody who doesn't participate.
|
|
| | | 65 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022
Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 17:40
|
What do you do when the union conspires with the boss to get the free workers fired?
|
|
|
|