“Conservative” Supreme Court turns Liberal

[zh cohen]

What are you talking about. They ruled on existing federal law.

No, they changed an existing federal law. Everyone concedes that the law as passed did not include a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

[CountValentine]

No, they changed an existing federal law. Everyone concedes that the law as passed did not include a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

No they ruled the prior law covers protection for gays.
"the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

[CountValentine]

Any deals on cheese with all the wine-ing going on? 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmakers-tear-into-john-roberts-over-daca-ruling/ar-BB15GbDo?li=BBnb7Kz

[yesitsme]

could someone please explain to me how BO pen has more weight then trumps?

[CountValentine]

could someone please explain to me how BO pen has more weight then trumps?

Wrong thread.

[PlatinumGuy]

could someone please explain to me how BO pen has more weight then trumps?

My understanding is that Trump won't write an EO to repeal BOs EO and is insisting BO's EO is illegal and null without being repealed.

[Mikes@Micro]

could someone please explain to me how BO pen has more weight then trumps?

It prob wont look good politically.

Kinda reminds me of purim story where Achashveirosh couldn't repeal first proclamation to kill the jews so needed to make a second one that they are allowed to fight back

[S209]

Lets stick to your OP. What liberal decisions are you referring to? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't one of them discrimination in the work place?

Yes, one of them was that ruling. It went against a standard conservative principle that the original intent of the drafters of a law is what matters and it is not up to later judges to discern new meaning that the original law never intended, because that falls under the duties of the legalization branch and not the judiciary.

Next question?

[CountValentine]

Yes, one of them was that ruling. It went against a standard conservative principle that the original intent of the drafters of a law is what matters and it is not up to later judges to discern new meaning that the original law never intended, because that falls under the duties of the legalization branch and not the judiciary.

Next question?

Except you are wrong. The ruling was based on existing law. The dissent took your position and it failed.
So if that is one of the cases in your OP then striking down discrimination must not be a conservative value.
Not that we got that straight I have no more questions at this time. 

[S209]

Except you are wrong. The ruling was based on existing law. The dissent took your position and it failed.
So if that is one of the cases in your OP then striking down discrimination must not be a conservative value.
Not that we got that straight I have no more questions at this time. 

All court decisions are “based on existing law”, else the court wouldn’t be able to rule. The question is whether we look at original intent or try to interpret new meaning into the words based on current understanding. The original drafters of the law obviously never meant what the decision ruled, so the court ruled against standard conservative principles.

[CountValentine]

The original drafters of the law obviously never meant what the decision ruled, so the court ruled against standard conservative principles.

You can say this all you want but you are still wrong.

"the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

[S209]

You can say this all you want but you are still wrong.

You’re saying that’s not a standard conservative principle?

Originalism is a legal philosophy that holds judges should interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights by determining what its language meant to the people who originally ratified it.

From here

[S209]

"the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

Exactly. That’s a very popular liberal stance known as “the living Constitution”.

[CountValentine]

You’re saying that’s not a standard conservative principle?
From here

You and others (dissent view also) keep saying that was not the intent of the law. The majority said it was covered under the current law. They didn't add anything and I know you disagree but SCOTUS has the final say. Not me or you.

[S209]

You and others (dissent view also) keep saying that was not the intent of the law. The majority said it was covered under the current law. They didn't add anything and I know you disagree but SCOTUS has the final say. Not me or you.

Nobody claims it was the original intent. Surely you don’t believe it was their intent either. I know they said that and ruled that way, hence

What’s up with the Supreme Court these days? One landmark liberal ruling after another.

[yungermanchik]

SCOTUS has the final say. Not me or you.

noone is arguing that point.

What is being pointed out here is that traditionally the conservative philosophy on the role of the supreme court is to figure out whether something fits with the INITIAL intent of the founders and the liberal philosophy is to try to figure out what they would've said had such circumstances existed then.

Now a "conservative" SCOTUS is adopting the liberal outlook. 

[CountValentine]

Nobody claims it was the original intent. Surely you don’t believe it was their intent either. I know they said that and ruled that way, hence

You are wrong nobody claims it was the original intent. You and others can repeat it as many times as you want and you will still be wrong. You might not agree it was the original intent but just turn on the TV and you will see others are claiming it was. 
This was a 6-3 not a 5-4 decision. I take them at their word.

[CountValentine]

Just so their is no confusion. The majority of people that are upset is because of the result, not how they arrived at the result.

[Jellybelly]

Just so their is no confusion. The majority of people that are upset is because of the result, not how they arrived at the result.

So are you retiring your paint brush now?

[CountValentine]

So are you retiring your paint brush now?

You must be joking. Just ordered a ton more of supplies.
What color should I use for hypocrisy (not this thread)?