Republicans in NC file bill to defy same-sex marriage decision

[Bloody hooker 6,445]

To the Republicans of NC:

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, M Monstre said:

Doesn't it need to be overturned by getting a new case though? From my understanding, you just can't overturn something, but you'd need a completely new case to change the precedent. Like, you can't just overturn Roe v. Wade, you'd need a new case that gets brought up to the Supreme Court and then try to overturn it from there, but even then, that's pretty difficult. 

Exactly. If this NC bill passes and someone rightfully sues the state, a new case would be added.

It'd likely get overturned at the appellate level and not make it back to the Supreme Court, but with conservative justices in a conservative state it could find its way before the judges and with the new composition it'd likely be granted cert (AKA they take the case).

As for your point on the "new" argument/case that needs to be presented, it's half right. In a perfect world only a "new" case would be brought to the Supreme Court, but if a few conservative judges have an agenda and push the same case all the way back up to the Supreme Court, they Court can take it and issue whatever verdict they please.

There is actually some precedent for this. Plessy v. Ferguson Brown and Board of Education is a good example of where the Court will take up two similar cases with similar arguments and different times and come to different decisions based on a different composition. 

Furthermore, the Court is not bound to the specific question at hand. This means that the Court can make just about any Constitutional verdict about anything; it doesn't have to relate just to the case. 

Dred Scott v. Sandford is a great historical example of this. Dred Scott was a slave that sued for his independence when is "owner" took him to a free Norther state, and the lawyers presented the arguments for/against the suit. However, the Supreme Court issued a verdict that went beyond the scope of the case and issued opinions that made it illegal for Northern States to be a safe-haven for runaway slaves, even though Dred Scott was not a runaway slave.

Spoiler

Just so you know this case is widely viewed as the worst Supreme Court rulings, but I wouldn't put anything past this administration 

 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 hours ago, The Fame Joanne said:

Yes but I think it will rarely be even with a system that allows the president to pick the judges 

The liberals don't want even, they want to have a majority so when a case like the gay marriage one goes to the court, the court rules in favor of progress. Right now, the court has 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and a moderate. 

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

2 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

The liberals don't want even, they want to have a majority so when a case like the gay marriage one goes to the court, the court rules in favor of progress. Right now, the court has 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and a moderate. 

I'm sure both sides want a majority tho

it's imo opinion a very bad idea to let the President pick the judges 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, The Fame Joanne said:

I'm sure both sides want a majority tho

it's imo opinion a very bad idea to let the President pick the judges 

I understand what u mean. I'm very partisan, so I want to pack the court with liberals.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

15 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

The liberals don't want even, they want to have a majority so when a case like the gay marriage one goes to the court, the court rules in favor of progress. Right now, the court has 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and a moderate - conservative!

Fixed it for you.  

 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

18 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

Well... blue states are declaring themselves sanctuary states, so I don't see how people can condemn this without condemning them. 

Unless u admit to being a partisan **** like I do, in which I case I say "**** YOU NORTH CAROLINA!!!!!!!!!!"

Blue states are becoming sanctuary states in response to an Executive Order (ie. law made by one person, POTUS). Red states are trying to defy a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States (ie. law struck down by majority of a 9-person bench after hearing both sides). I think there's a huge difference due to that. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 hours ago, IndieKylie said:

Blue states are becoming sanctuary states in response to an Executive Order (ie. law made by one person, POTUS). Red states are trying to defy a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States (ie. law struck down by majority of a 9-person bench after hearing both sides). I think there's a huge difference due to that. 

No there's not, either way they're defying the federal government. 

The Executive branch and judicial are equally powerful. 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

Just now, Born To Slay said:

No there's not, either way they're defying the federal government. 

The Executive branch and judicial are equally powerful. 

There most certainly is a difference. They may be equal branches of government, but supreme court decisions and executive orders (which were put in place to create holidays, not policy) are not equal. 

Your argument is flawed, as executive orders are used to bypass the Legislative Branch, which is "equally" powerful. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

1 minute ago, IndieKylie said:

There most certainly is a difference. They may be equal branches of government, but supreme court decisions and executive orders (which were put in place to create holidays, not policy) are not equal. 

Your argument is flawed, as executive orders are used to bypass the Legislative Branch, which is "equally" powerful. 

Yes, the legislative branch is equally powerful, they have the right to pass legislation to undo an executive order. But unless they do so, the executive order stands as law. 

And in terms of legal enforcement, they absolutely are equal. 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

15 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Yes, the legislative branch is equally powerful, they have the right to pass legislation to undo an executive order. But unless they do so, the executive order stands as law. 

And in terms of legal enforcement, they absolutely are equal. 

Actually, he legislative branch rarely "undoes" an executive order. An executive order typically stands unless a lawsuit is brought against it, which it then goes to the court system.

You're straying the discussion from the original context, as we're not discussing 'legal enforcement' of executive order v. supreme court decisions. We're discussing a state attempting to bypass a federal Supreme Court decision, which has established and upheld (by law) that same-sex marriage is covered under the Constitution (therefore, meaning a state cannot deny these rights to gay individuals), versus a state challenging an Executive Order, which was not drafted by the Legislative Branch (a group of 485 individuals that, by in large, understand lawmaking and law itself), is in the midst of being challenged in several court systems across the country, and remains a legal 'gray-area'. Furthermore, the sanctuary cities/state executive order passed by Trump does not mean they are illegal, it simply restricts the movement of Federal funding to those areas. 

I know you're trying to play devil's advocate here, but the situations are not comparable.

[Born To Slay 10,996]

16 minutes ago, IndieKylie said:

Actually, he legislative branch rarely "undoes" an executive order. An executive order typically stands unless a lawsuit is brought against it, which it then goes to the court system.

You're straying the discussion from the original context, as we're not discussing 'legal enforcement' of executive order v. supreme court decisions. We're discussing a state attempting to bypass a federal Supreme Court decision, which has established and upheld (by law) that same-sex marriage is covered under the Constitution (therefore, meaning a state cannot deny these rights to gay individuals), versus a state challenging an Executive Order, which was not drafted by the Legislative Branch (a group of 485 individuals that, by in large, understand lawmaking and law itself), is in the midst of being challenged in several court systems across the country, and remains a legal 'gray-area'. Furthermore, the sanctuary cities/state executive order passed by Trump does not mean they are illegal, it simply restricts the movement of Federal funding to those areas. 

I know you're trying to play devil's advocate here, but the situations are not comparable.

They may rarwly un-do it but if they don't then it's on them. They have the power to check the president on that. All they have to do is pass a bill that undoes the executive order. If the president vetos it, then the congress could override the veto if they see fit. Trump's use of executive order is not abusive (hell Obama passed his own EOs that were accused of overreach). And if it is, that's for a court to decide. So Trump's order is a law and violating it is illegal. 

Now you make a good point in that Trump order is really about funding for these states. So you got me there. 

That said, keeping illegal immigrants is against federal law, so it's still illegal for a state to do it.

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

Just now, Born To Slay said:

They may rarwly un-do it but if they don't then it's on them. They have the power to check the president on that. All they have to do is pass a bill that undoes the executive order. If the president vetos it, then the congress could override the veto if they see fit. Trump's use of executive order is not abusive (hell Obama passed his own EOs that were accused of overreach). And if it is, that's for a court to decide. So Trump's order is a law and violating it is illegal. 

Now you make a good point in that Trump order is really about funding for these states. So you got me there. 

In regard to the first paragraph, to be fair...it is insanely difficult to pass legislation undoing an Executive Order. The amount of votes needed to override a Presidential veto is high. That being said, Obama most definitely used Executive Orders to push through his own legislation, just as Trump has. It's something I said was a mistake when he did it, cause once you open that box...someone like Trump can come in right behind him and abuse it further. Sets terrible precedent. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

1 minute ago, IndieKylie said:

In regard to the first paragraph, to be fair...it is insanely difficult to pass legislation undoing an Executive Order. The amount of votes needed to override a Presidential veto is high. That being said, Obama most definitely used Executive Orders to push through his own legislation, just as Trump has. It's something I said was a mistake when he did it, cause once you open that box...someone like Trump can come in right behind him and abuse it further. Sets terrible precedent. 

If you don't have enough votes to override, then there must be at least some level of support for the agenda. 

I see what ur saying about Obama but I don't think he had a choice, the GOP refused to work with him. It was either use EOs or essentially be a powerless president.

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

8 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

If you don't have enough votes to override, then there must be at least some level of support for the agenda. 

I see what ur saying about Obama but I don't think he had a choice, the GOP refused to work with him. It was either use EOs or essentially be a powerless president.

Oh, trust me, I get WHY he did it. But I also knew that it was something that could be further abused by a subsequent president...which it is.