55
56

Huckabee: You don't have to follow Obergefell because Dred Scott is still the law of the land (msnbc.com)

ZBLongladder が 投稿

全 58 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ZBLongladder[S] 27ポイント28ポイント  (17子コメント)

R2: Dred Scott was overruled by the 14th Amendment, and is thus no longer legally binding. Supreme Court decisions that haven't been overruled by a later decision or Constitutional amendment, on the other hand, most certainly are the law of the land.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's something about the antebellum/Civil War/Reconstruction decisions and amendments that creates this enormous draw for conservative/libertarian folks to spew complete nonsense.

Ran into a libertarian yesterday who kept spamming a thread in one of the subs I mod with ideological opinions about the ACW, and couldn't seem to wrap his head around the fact that the Texas v. White decision very much means that secession is/was/remains a constitutionally illegitimate remedy.

Long story short, three of their accounts are now shadowbanned.

[–]sprgrssJudgment Arrested 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

Not to mention a war in which 500,000 Americans died.

[–]ANewMachine615Due Process Ain't Drops of Water 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Well, that decided that slavery was going to become illegal. Dredd Scott had a lot of different parts to its decision, but "slavery is legal" was hardly the precedent it set, so it's not like the Civil War actually overruled Dredd Scott.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a rather conservative estimate.

[–]AlanLolspan 22ポイント23ポイント  (10子コメント)

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

[–]xeio87 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

And he's running for president.

[–]Thurgood_Marshall 8ポイント9ポイント  (8子コメント)

But I'm pretty sure he knows he can't win the nomination. I think he's doing it to increase the value of his brand and put the religion right's views back into the national spotlight. Santorum is the only other candidate playing that card, but nobody gives a shit about him anymore.

[–]ANewMachine615Due Process Ain't Drops of Water 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah, he's running for a slot on Fox's talking-heads panel again.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Fox's talking-heads panel

Their tagline should be "Where things Stop Making Sense."

[–]Icehouse24ozCanI only read legal fiction. 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then they'd play Talking Heads without authorization, and David Byrne would sue.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would not be saddened by that course.

[–]Atropine1138 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fox News --> Building on Fire?

[–]JohnnyMnemo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or, "the retirement plan for washed up politicians"

[–]urnbabyurn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, the candidates this time are so much better than McCromney was and he came in second.

[–]JohnnyMnemo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Santorum is the only other candidate playing that card, but nobody gives a shit about him anymore.

Like, where has he been at with the Kim thing? I figured he'd be all over it, but if he's commenting it hasn't been reported.

[–]Thurgood_Marshall 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

You would think someone calling for a Constitutional convention would at least have a single fucking clue about what a constitutional amendment does.

[–]TheComputerLovesYou 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Isn't that a convention to celebrate the constitution?

[–]urnbabyurn 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, that's a constitutionally awesome convention.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not when the person calling for the Constitutional convention is a complete fucking demagogue.

[–]233776879 14ポイント15ポイント  (19子コメント)

The worst thing about this is that he could have cited Korematsu and he would have had a point.

[–]snobord 7ポイント8ポイント  (8子コメント)

That would require far more legal knowledge than he has.

[–]ANewMachine615Due Process Ain't Drops of Water 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

And it'd have suggested that rounding up brown people and putting them in camps was a bad thing, which the Trump wing would apparently be OK with.

[–]snobord -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

If it's based on the fact they're not here legally and not on the fact they're brown I have no problem with that if it's not too wasteful of resources. Not legally allowed to be here? Round up your black, brown, white, and yellow to your heart's content.

And, no, I'm nowhere near the Trump wing. I'm not even in the GOP wing.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

If it's based on the fact they're not here legally and not on the fact they're brown I have no problem with that if it's not too wasteful of resources.

What do you mean? I have trouble seeing how it's not almost inherently wasteful of resources.

[–]snobord 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Practically, it's probably not very economical to go out of your way hunt down 11 million people just to deport them.

[–]turtleeatingalderman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Both the cost of doing so and the loss in productivity that will inevitably result...

[–]chimneytop 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

set up a self reporting system and make it so that people voluntarily show up to be deported /s

[–]turtleeatingalderman 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wasn't something like that Romney's plan?

[–]chimneytop 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jeez, I hope that wasn't the whole plan. I can see deporting like 10,000 people per year that way, but that's it. You'd need to have a major penalty, political will to carry out the penalty and aggressively enforced involuntary deportations as well if self reporting was to affect anything at all.

[–]JohnnyMnemo 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

wow

"held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights"

this is basically the legal justification for all of the NSA/Snowden stuff. And according to wikipedia, actually hasn't been overturned so still sets precedence. Correct?

[–]233776879 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

As far as I know Korematsu is still good law. I don't know how well the ruling applies to surveillance though.

[–]Atropine1138 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, plus if you overturn Korematsu you overturn the case which birthed the idea of strict scrutiny (and the only example that I know of of a race-based classification surviving SS). Horrible decisions can still produce useful precedent.

[–]jambarama 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It has been widely discredited, but never officially overturned. Congress did a few reports concluding the case was decided in error, the solicitor general all but abandoned it as precedent, and several SCOTUS justices have written about it as an error (breyer and scalia come to mind).

But it is still technically good law, which means you never know who's going to argue it in the next national security "emergency."

[–]ccmulligan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Korematsu hasn't been overruled, but we don't exactly follow its rulings either. Stare decises doesn't require you to follow a previous case, as all cases can be limited to their facts. It just says that ceteris paribus like cases should follow earlier ones.

[–]JackEsq 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Technically Korematsu's conviction was vacated after a writ of coram nobis, however the SC decision is still good law.

[–]psuedopseudoAdversely possesses karma 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends what you mean by "good law" -- Lochner for instance has never been explicitly overturned, but has been recognized as emphatically wrong in countless opinions.

[–]HelperBot_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis

HelperBot_™ v1.0 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 14179

[–]Thurgood_Marshall 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or Buck v Bell. But even with my cynicism I don't worry about either of them.

[–]PlowbeastMichael Scott declares sovereignty! 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Huckabee has been throwing around the Dred Scott analogy for the past week; it's like he looked it up on Wikipedia Mobile and just ran with it without scrolling down or even clicking on the keywords.

[–]fiendzone 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It will only be 769 milliseconds before this makes it way around the Grandma-sphere, and starts to get quoted on memes on Facebook.

[–]aluben_x 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Soo...does he support slavery? I'm confused.

[–]Thurgood_Marshall 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean like BDSM? Most definitely.

[–]dircs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's clearly wrong in his legal analysis, but let's be clear on one thing: Huckabee is not a fiscal conservative, and the article is wrong to classify him as "far right" in my opinion. A more accurate description would be "religious nutbag" or perhaps "Christian jihadist."

As a fiscally conservative and religious person, let me sincerely apologize for any insanity this man spews and respectfully request that you not assume that most other conservatives and Christians are as idiotic as him.

[–]Juniorseyes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I learned about the 14'th amendment when I was 9 or so. Over 40 years ago, long before specific stuff like "black history month", in another country, in another language. What the actual fuck?