SCOTUS Blocks Florida's anti drag law

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2023, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The law was overly broad, hence the block. If they removed the more vague language or inserted more specificity then it would likely be fine. I wonder why this gets such quick treatment but all the unconstitutional gun laws get mired in the courts for fricken years?

Because the court is actually a political theater and it they know the public is not on their side on gun laws.

(11-17-2023, 02:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand that, except for some reasons the stays on gun laws are consistently overturned.  I don't think you can make the claim that banning all drag shows is the goal when the law specifically states shows conducted in front of minors.  Is having minors in the audience a prerequisite for having a drag shows?  If not then the law wouldn't ban all drag shows.  As stated above I agree that the law as written is overly vague, making a stay a reasonable order.

Because of the above. Also because of the public safety perception. The argument that these shows are harmful to minors is asinine but it is a little harder to overcome the public safety perception on gun laws.

It all boils down to politics. Everyone likes to pretend that the SCOTUS is some apolitical body making their decisions based on the Constitution, but that's a farce.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-18-2023, 02:51 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Ah calling something a strawman - the easier way of saying "well that's a devastating point I cannot make a point against". But maybe you're right and the conservatives of this country aren't trying to repeal all the progress we've made in voting rights and bodily autonomy and I've just been imagining that for the last 20 years. If so, my bad.

Well, in regard to your first sentence, no, that's not the case at all.  As to the rest, I am a pro-choice person, always have been, but I understand the pro-life argument.  As for voting, I don't think voting should be the easiest thing to accomplish.  Voting has an enormous impact.  Ensuring one person is getting their one vote is not a bad thing.  You are correct that the GOP wants to make it overly onerous.  What you're not mentioning is that the Dems are trying to make it far too easy.  one suppresses the vote of a prat of the populace and the other is ripe for abuse. 

Quote:As a country, we make up less that 5% of the world population but somehow account for everything in the world in the mind of most Americans.

Sorry, but I don't see how this addressed any point i made here.

Quote:Tell me then why pot is illegal. Because it's let's addictive than nicotine, causes less bodily harm than tobacco and alcohol, and is great for pain without all the harmful side effects of morphine. I mean, a quick search on the history of its legal status proves my point, but that'd mean you'd have to try.

Because the US is a puritanical country and alcohol and tobacco have a long history of consumption.  But let us not forget that even alcohol was made illegal for some time, largely due to that puritanical nature.  I know you won't try and make an argument that prohibition was due to racism as well.

Quote:I'll make it as simple as I can - porn isn't any different than any other form of media. It's an overblown production of an otherwise natural act, sure. America's inherent prudishness makes it weird, that's it.

Oh, on this you could not be more incorrect.  While I have no issue with porn in general it can have extremely harmful psychological effects, especially when children are exposed to it.  

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children

Quote:Not so poor that I misspell things like 'poor', but point taken. Schools in poor neighborhoods aren't exactly known for being bastions of learning, after all. (The pot shot at the typo is a joke btw)

Having a lot of experience with this exact issue I can tell you that a large part of that rests at the feet of the parents of the children who attend these schools.

Quote:The government can also take away the people's guns, but you'd be adamant that it'd be wrong. Just because the government can, doesn't mean that it's what's best for the country or its citizens.

ON that you'll get no argument from me, especially because that's not the argument I'm making in this thread.  I am saying that governmental restrictions on parenting already exist and will always exist.  Arguing against the FLA law because it restricts parents isn't a solid foundation on it's own for opposing this law.

Quote:As to the last sentence, yes - teachers do know more than parents in terms of education. It's their entire job. I wouldn’t trust a baker to put on crown on one of my teeth. I don't know when it happened, but this country really needs to go back to trusting its experts on things.  

True, within limits.  And I'd also restrict that to the field of academics.  I have mentioned before that a sizeable number of my close friends are teachers.  They will all tell you that among newer teachers there is a disturbing trend of oversharing their personal lives and views with the students.  Being friends with them on Instagram, messaging them on social media, etc.

Quote:Again, just because they can doesn't mean they should. 

I'm with you - I personally wouldn't take my child to a drag show. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to hide anything from them. An educated child makes far better decisions than a child who is sheltered (see also: abstinence only sex education versus ACTUAL sex education).

Plus the government getting involved in people's personal lives reeks of overreach, which I'm sure everyone agrees is not great.

And again, I wouldn't really argue with you on these points.  I have issues with the FLA law as well, and in general I don't believe it's necessary.  But our whole discussion is predicated on a disagreement over whether the government can impose limits on parental discretion.  To which I think we both agree that they can, even if we might disagree about the limits of that ability and to what subjects that should extend.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-18-2023, 09:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the court is actually a political theater and it they know the public is not on their side on gun laws.


Because of the above. Also because of the public safety perception. The argument that these shows are harmful to minors is asinine but it is a little harder to overcome the public safety perception on gun laws.

It all boils down to politics. Everyone likes to pretend that the SCOTUS is some apolitical body making their decisions based on the Constitution, but that's a farce.

I am not saying this to be funny or mean at all.  Watching you descend further into the depths of cynicism over the years is honestly a bit depressing.  While I have not doubt that politics plays a hand in SCOTUS decision making, and always has, I don't think it's as far gone as you believe.  

[Belsnickel]

(11-19-2023, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not saying this to be funny or mean at all.  Watching you descend further into the depths of cynicism over the years is honestly a bit depressing.  While I have not doubt that politics plays a hand in SCOTUS decision making, and always has, I don't think it's as far gone as you believe.  

I am not saying that the SCOTUS has gotten any better or worse on the political nature of it, just that it is what it is. I've always felt this way about the court, though. I also wouldn't say what I am is cynical, or at least I wouldn't have until I looked up the definition.

In all seriousness, I am not all that cynical. My wife calls be a skeptical pragmatist. I have a lot of skepticism towards those in the highest levels of government and business. I'm a strong believer in servant leadership and, for the most part, that isn't something we see in our political leaders. Why I wouldn't say I am a cynic, though, is because I believe deeply in democratic principles. I believe in the systems as they should be and seek to change those systems for the better. A cynic would not do that. I recognize that there are those that will corrupt the system but on a whole people are good, we just need to protect our systems from those that seek power and will corrupt it. Hell, I am a high-level volunteer in an organization whose mission is to prepare young people to make moral and ethical decisions throughout their lifetimes. That being said, I never sought the role I have. I was asked to be in this position and every day I feel a high degree of imposter syndrome because I don't feel like I deserve the role. I just try to do right by those around me. It is because of that attitude that I am skeptical of those that seek out authority and wield it at the highest levels.

[grampahol]

Well I for one am thrilled that kids in Florida can now watch old episodes of Monty Python..and M*A*S*H! 

[Belsnickel]

(11-19-2023, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not saying this to be funny or mean at all.  Watching you descend further into the depths of cynicism over the years is honestly a bit depressing.  While I have not doubt that politics plays a hand in SCOTUS decision making, and always has, I don't think it's as far gone as you believe.  

On an additional note to this, things like this are why I hold the view I do on the courts: https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast

Whether or not you agree with the rulings of the courts, including SCOTUS, things like the influence men like Leo have on the court highlight that it is a political body rather than purely rooted in the legal theory.

[samhain]

(11-23-2023, 10:33 PM)grampahol Wrote: Well I for one am thrilled that kids in Florida can now watch old episodes of Monty Python..and M*A*S*H! 

I guess Bugs Bunny can breathe easy for a bit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2023, 11:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: On an additional note to this, things like this are why I hold the view I do on the courts: https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast

Whether or not you agree with the rulings of the courts, including SCOTUS, things like the influence men like Leo have on the court highlight that it is a political body rather than purely rooted in the legal theory.

Interesting, I will give this a listen.  I know I'm only speaking about Superior Court judges here, and in CA, but I've found judges to be influences far more by liberal politics than conservative.  I even had one bench officer cite "systemic racism" as a factor for a lenient sentence.

[Belsnickel]

(11-24-2023, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting, I will give this a listen.  I know I'm only speaking about Superior Court judges here, and in CA, but I've found judges to be influences far more by liberal politics than conservative.  I even had one bench officer cite "systemic racism" as a factor for a lenient sentence.

While the attention right now is on the ethics concerns and influence regarding conservative justices and judges, I have never expressed surprised at all of the revelations because it was something I knew to be occurring all around. The big difference right now is that the SCOTUS has been ruling in a way contrary to the national public opinion that have really reshaped the legal landscape in the past few years. This gets the attention of journalists and causes them to ask questions now that the general public is interested in but people like me who pay far too much attention to government and politics have been unhappy about for decades. Well, not me personally because I've been aware of it for only 20 years, but still.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2023, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While the attention right now is on the ethics concerns and influence regarding conservative justices and judges, I have never expressed surprised at all of the revelations because it was something I knew to be occurring all around. The big difference right now is that the SCOTUS has been ruling in a way contrary to the national public opinion that have really reshaped the legal landscape in the past few years. This gets the attention of journalists and causes them to ask questions now that the general public is interested in but people like me who pay far too much attention to government and politics have been unhappy about for decades. Well, not me personally because I've been aware of it for only 20 years, but still.

One of the things that I find interesting about this is that the initial Roe ruling was a far greater case of judicial activism than the Dobbs ruling.  That a more constitutionally consistent ruling would cause such a flurry of interest is rather indicative of judicial activism being in the eye of the beholder.

[Belsnickel]

(11-24-2023, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the things that I find interesting about this is that the initial Roe ruling was a far greater case of judicial activism than the Dobbs ruling.  That a more constitutionally consistent ruling would cause such a flurry of interest is rather indicative of judicial activism being in the eye of the beholder.

Honestly, I find the whole concept of "judicial activism" to be utter bullshit for this very reason. The term is used by those that disagree with a ruling/opinion but in reality every single decision has a dose of judicial activism when you look at the Black's definition of the term. Every jurist has a method to how they interpret the law and that is a subjective decision and one that is often malleable for them. They may be originalist or textualist on one case and go more off script for another, but they will twist their logic to make it fit in their mind so they can alleviate their cognitive dissonance.

And don't get me wrong, I am not bashing the idea of judicial activism. I am a firm believer that if a legislature doesn't want their laws to be interpreted a certain way or executed in a certain way, then they need to craft laws that take these things into account. I have been fighting this battle with one of the boards I am on for my city where I chair a quasi-judicial governmental board and have to tell people all the time that if they don't like my interpretation they should talk to their state legislator to they can change the law. I just think we need to be honest about our system because until we can be we don't stand a chance of improving things.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2023, 03:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I find the whole concept of "judicial activism" to be utter bullshit for this very reason. The term is used by those that disagree with a ruling/opinion but in reality every single decision has a dose of judicial activism when you look at the Black's definition of the term. Every jurist has a method to how they interpret the law and that is a subjective decision and one that is often malleable for them. They may be originalist or textualist on one case and go more off script for another, but they will twist their logic to make it fit in their mind so they can alleviate their cognitive dissonance.

And don't get me wrong, I am not bashing the idea of judicial activism. I am a firm believer that if a legislature doesn't want their laws to be interpreted a certain way or executed in a certain way, then they need to craft laws that take these things into account. I have been fighting this battle with one of the boards I am on for my city where I chair a quasi-judicial governmental board and have to tell people all the time that if they don't like my interpretation they should talk to their state legislator to they can change the law. I just think we need to be honest about our system because until we can be we don't stand a chance of improving things.

A thousand times this.  I am consistently amazed by how sloppy and poorly worded so much legislation is when passed.  I have assisted in the writing of policy for my department on several occasions and the amount of loopholes I had to fix, or items that needed clarification, were enormous.  You have people writing laws about subjects they have zero firsthand experience in and they seek absolutely no input from those that do. 

[*pally*]

(11-24-2023, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting, I will give this a listen.  I know I'm only speaking about Superior Court judges here, and in CA, but I've found judges to be influences far more by liberal politics than conservative.  I even had one bench officer cite "systemic racism" as a factor for a lenient sentence.

Aren't Superior Court judges elected in California?  If so it would be logical to assume they would generally follow the mindset of the people who vote for them.

Leonard Leo has really focused on influencing appointed federal-level and state-level judges while building up his stockpiles of believers from the college level on up.  Every judge appointed by Trump to the judiciary, for example, has been a member of Leo's Federalist Society.  Every member that DeSantis appointed to the Florida Supreme Court has his thumbprint on them.  He donates lots and lots of money to Republican officials countrywide especially those who have a say over the judiciary.

He helped influence Ohio into changing the laws making our previously non-partisan Supreme Court to one representing parties. 

The money from the Federalist Society helped to build the careers of all 6 conservative Supreme Court judges.  No one knows where he gets his money from and his records are protected by the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling.   The one where they declared corporations "people" with individual rights.

The influence this one man has is dangerous to democracy.  I'd say the same thing if he were a liberal.  Leo is the man behind the curtain behind many of the culture war instigators and laws.  No single individual should have that much say over American politics and justice...no one.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-24-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: Aren't Superior Court judges elected in California?  If so it would be logical to assume they would generally follow the mindset of the people who vote for them.

Respectfully, judges should follow the law, not the whim of the voters.

Quote:Leonard Leo has really focused on influencing appointed federal-level and state-level judges while building up his stockpiles of believers from the college level on up.  Every judge appointed by Trump to the judiciary, for example, has been a member of Leo's Federalist Society.  Every member that DeSantis appointed to the Florida Supreme Court has his thumbprint on them.  He donates lots and lots of money to Republican officials countrywide especially those who have a say over the judiciary.

He helped influence Ohio into changing the laws making our previously non-partisan Supreme Court to one representing parties. 

The money from the Federalist Society helped to build the careers of all 6 conservative Supreme Court judges.  No one knows where he gets his money from and his records are protected by the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling.   The one where they declared corporations "people" with individual rights.

The influence this one man has is dangerous to democracy.  I'd say the same thing if he were a liberal.  Leo is the man behind the curtain behind many of the culture war instigators and laws.  No single individual should have that much say over American politics and justice...no one.  

Yeah, again I'm not familiar with this guy, so I will give this information a look.  My preference is that the law as written allows little interpretation and that judges actually follow it. I realize this does not always happen.  But it also happens in both directions.  There are recent 2A cases that have directly contradicted the ruling as clearly defined in Bruen.  And I do mean directly contradicted (interest balancing for instance).  I'm all for calling out judges who refuse to follow the law, I just wish people would do so whenever it occurs, not just when the ruling displeases them.

[*pally*]

(11-24-2023, 10:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, judges should follow the law, not the whim of the voters.


Yeah, again I'm not familiar with this guy, so I will give this information a look.  My preference is that the law as written allows little interpretation and that judges actually follow it. I realize this does not always happen.  But it also happens in both directions.  There are recent 2A cases that have directly contradicted the ruling as clearly defined in Bruen.  And I do mean directly contradicted (interest balancing for instance).  I'm all for calling out judges who refuse to follow the law, I just wish people would do so whenever it occurs, not just when the ruling displeases them.

Where did I say that the judges don’t follow the law? Just because a liberal judge may interpret a law differently than a conservative judge in no way means that they aren’t following the law.

Bruen was decided less than a year ago. People are still trying to figure out its limits. Just like there are still cases trying to push the Dobbs decision into a mechanism to ban abortion. This is what happens when SCOTUS changes decades of precedents.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2023, 08:34 AM)pally Wrote: Where did I say that the judges don’t follow the law?  Just because a liberal judge may interpret a law differently than a conservative judge in no way means that they aren’t following the law.

When you said this, "If so it would be logical to assume they would generally follow the mindset of the people who vote for them." I'm talking criminal law in my post, so there isn't a lot of room for interpretation.

Quote:Bruen was decided less than a year ago. People are still trying to figure out its limits.  Just like there are still cases trying to push the Dobbs decision into a mechanism to ban abortion.  This is what happens when SCOTUS changes decades of precedents.

First off, your supposition that Bruen overturned any precedent is 100% false.  I directly addressed this in the post your responded to.  Bruen expressly forbid interest balancing, i.e. saying public safety interests can justify restriction on a Constitutional right, and judges are literally still using it when they rule against 2A cases.  Here is an example.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ninth-circuit-magazine-ban-18420246.php

"The state has presented evidence that magazines holding more than 10 cartridges “pose a significant threat to public safety,” the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 7-4 decision late Tuesday. “The public has a compelling interest in promoting public safety, as mass shootings nearly always involve large-capacity magazines.”


This is, again, expressly forbidden in Bruen. This isn't "figuring out limits" this is deliberately ignoring a SCOTUS ruling you don't like.

[Belsnickel]

(11-25-2023, 01:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When you said this, "If so it would be logical to assume they would generally follow the mindset of the people who vote for them." I'm talking criminal law in my post, so there isn't a lot of room for interpretation.


First off, your supposition that Bruen overturned any precedent is 100% false.  I directly addressed this in the post your responded to.  Bruen expressly forbid interest balancing, i.e. saying public safety interests can justify restriction on a Constitutional right, and judges are literally still using it when they rule against 2A cases.  Here is an example.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ninth-circuit-magazine-ban-18420246.php

"The state has presented evidence that magazines holding more than 10 cartridges “pose a significant threat to public safety,” the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 7-4 decision late Tuesday. “The public has a compelling interest in promoting public safety, as mass shootings nearly always involve large-capacity magazines.”


This is, again, expressly forbidden in Bruen. This isn't "figuring out limits" this is deliberately ignoring a SCOTUS ruling you don't like.

Eh, I would challenge your description of the impact of Bruen. Were it unconstitutional to consider public safety, or the idea of "interest balancing," in restricting individual liberties related to rights guaranteed in the Constitution then there would be a complete dismantling of our legal code in this country. Bruen moved 2A cases from intermediate to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest to limit individual liberties, which is why the language was used as it was in the article you quoted. Do I agree that they have proven a compelling state interest? No. But I would say they are trying to say they are in line with Bruen by applying the strict scrutiny standard.

Now, I know that there is the whole argument surrounding the historical analog, as well. But we have seen recently that even SCOTUS is wiling to upend that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2023, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I would challenge your description of the impact of Bruen. Were it unconstitutional to consider public safety, or the idea of "interest balancing," in restricting individual liberties related to rights guaranteed in the Constitution then there would be a complete dismantling of our legal code in this country. Bruen moved 2A cases from intermediate to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling state interest to limit individual liberties, which is why the language was used as it was in the article you quoted. Do I agree that they have proven a compelling state interest? No. But I would say they are trying to say they are in line with Bruen by applying the strict scrutiny standard.

Now, I know that there is the whole argument surrounding the historical analog, as well. But we have seen recently that even SCOTUS is wiling to upend that.

You're being far too kind.  The "compelling public safety" excuse was what they used to hang their hat on pre-Bruen.  Bruen directly addressed it and refuted it.  That they are still using it to justify their partisan rulings is clear evidence that they are ruling based on their own beliefs and not the actual law as clearly defined by SCOTUS.  Here is direct text from the ruling itself, 

"The Second Amendment is not subject to “any judge-empowering interest-balancing." (bottom of page 14)


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/10/10/23-55805.pdf


Any judge still using it is purposely ignoring the actual law.

[Belsnickel]

(11-25-2023, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're being far too kind.  The "compelling public safety" excuse was what they used to hang their hat on pre-Bruen.  Bruen directly addressed it and refuted it.  That they are still using it to justify their partisan rulings is clear evidence that they are ruling based on their own beliefs and not the actual law as clearly defined by SCOTUS.  Here is direct text from the ruling itself, 

"The Second Amendment is not subject to “any judge-empowering interest-balancing." (bottom of page 14)


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/10/10/23-55805.pdf


Any judge still using it is purposely ignoring the actual law.

Oh, yeah, I just read an analysis on Bruen and they did get rid of means-end test, which is really, really a bad thing. The compelling state interest is still a part of it all, they just need to show that there is a historical analog to root it in. It is interesting, though, because the Rahimi decision was what it was, it really muddied the waters on what SCOTUS was looking for, there.

I have to say, though, getting rid of the means-end test is a very bad thing, IMO, and if that were used as precedent for other strict scrutiny decisions it could dismantle our government.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-25-2023, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, yeah, I just read an analysis on Bruen and they did get rid of means-end test, which is really, really a bad thing. The compelling state interest is still a part of it all, they just need to show that there is a historical analog to root it in. It is interesting, though, because the Rahimi decision was what it was, it really muddied the waters on what SCOTUS was looking for, there.

I have to say, though, getting rid of the means-end test is a very bad thing, IMO, and if that were used as precedent for other strict scrutiny decisions it could dismantle our government.

How so?  I'm sure you have specific examples, but what always pops into my mind when interest balancing comes up is the people who say things like, "If it saves just one life, then it would be worth it" and similar pablum.