US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The question is now that workforce regulations cover the standard of Union workers, do you believe that Unions should exist in such a powerful format @ChaimMoskowitz

I wouldn't agree they are powerful meaning businesses have the upper hand. There are some situations where unions have the upper hand like teachers unions.

[aygart]

If you don't like the rules that were democratically voted for then leave. In this case find a job were you are not freeloading off due paying members.

And the gated community homeowner's association voted that they will collect $100 from each member to give to the local Church of Scientology. These rules were voted for democratically. If you don't like the community then leave!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

And the gated community homeowner's association voted that they will collect $100 from each member to give to the local Church of Scientology. These rules were voted for democratically. If you don't like the community then leave!

OK or vote them out.

[Boruch999]

OK or vote them out.

You may as well use the Constitution as toilet paper, or move to Venezuela, or both.  The Constitution enshrines individual liberties against encroachment by the majority.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You may as well use the Constitution as toilet paper, or move to Venezuela, or both.  The Constitution enshrines individual liberties against encroachment by the majority.

If SCOTUS is going to overturn long standing decisions based on politics then we are all going to need some toilet paper. Depending on your political beliefs you will just need it at different times.

[aygart]

OK or vote them out.

I can tell you that the vote would get overturned by any court in this country in a heartbeat. This is the core or constitutional protections and a blatant violation of the establishment clause. The same goes for coercing or limiting political speech. A majority has no right to do that. Majorities can be extremely tyrannical. It is easy to find many examples of that throughout history. The purpose of these amendments to the constitution is to protect against exactly this attitude of yours. This attitude is clearly counter to the founding pricipals of this country and that you wrote them is extremely concerning. That you seem to believe in the ability of the majority to coerce individual freedom is very telling.

This is more based on your reply about the homeowners assoc than about the union which I agree is much more complex. Even regarding the union the answer is not that this is what the majority voted so too bad. That is definitely unconstitional.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I can tell you that the vote would get overturned by any court in this country in a heartbeat. This is the core or constitutional protections and a blatant violation of the establishment clause. The same goes for coercing or limiting political speech. A majority has no right to do that. Majorities can be extremely tyrannical. It is easy to find many examples of that throughout history. The purpose of these amendments to the constitution is to protect against exactly this attitude of yours. This attitude is clearly counter to the founding pricipals of this country and that you wrote them is extremely concerning. That you seem to believe in the ability of the majority to coerce individual freedom is very telling.

This is more based on your reply about the homeowners assoc than about the union which I agree is much more complex.

Anyone can come up with examples to twist things as you did and I played along. This discussion is about unions.
What we have is what seems like a political court overturning a long standing practice. It you don't see the danger in that nothing I say will change that.

[Boruch999]

If SCOTUS is going to overturn long standing decisions based on politics then we are all going to need some toilet paper. Depending on your political beliefs you will just need it at different times.

I don't know which long standing decisions you are referring to.  I was specifically responding to your suggestion that a majority of condo dwellers can force a religion on all condo dwellers.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I don't know which long standing decisions you are referring to.  I was specifically responding to your suggestion that a majority of condo dwellers can force a religion on all condo dwellers.

I wasn't serious about the condo dwellers. SCOTUS overturned a 41 year old decision. It said non-members should have to pay for collective bargaining that they benefit from. How is that against our constitution?

[Boruch999]

I wasn't serious about the condo dwellers. SCOTUS overturned a 41 year old decision. It said non-members should have to pay for collective bargaining that they benefit from. How is that against our constitution?

I'm sorry for missing the joke.

They held that having to pay for something they had no choice to opt out of was akin to compelled speech and violated the First Amendment.

[aygart]

It doesn't look like you are understanding what I wrote. I will try to elaborate later or maybe look over again and see that we are not really disagreeing about that only you are taking it too far.

The opinion of the court regarding whether or not the travel ban was discriminatory has two parts to it. One is whether or not the EO was in and of itself discriminatory and the second was if the rhetoric used by the Administration can be used to show that even if it is not discriminatory on its face it is was still done for discriminatory purposes. The court ruled that they may only use the rule itself to judge whether or not it is discriminatory and cannot consider other context.

The opinion of the court was that a rule CAN be considered discriminatory even if it does not expressly include discrimination. This is called Rational Basis Scrutiny and is addressed explicitly in the opinion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis

Rational BasisOverviewRational basis review is a test courts may ise to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Rational basis is the most lenient form of judicial review, as both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are considered more stringent. Rational basis review is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.  Origin and TestThe phrase "rational basis" was first described in U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938). In order for a statute or ordinance to pass rational basis review:the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest

• there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals

The court's opinion was that this order passes such scrutiny.

Given the standard of review, it should come as no surprise that the Court hardly ever strikes down a policyas illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny. On the few occasions where we have done so, a common thread has been that the laws at issue lack any purpose other than a “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973). In one case, we invalidated a local zoning ordinance that required a special permit for group homes for the intellectually disabled, but not for other facilities suchas fraternity houses or hospitals. We did so on the ground that the city’s stated concerns about (among other things) “legal responsibility” and “crowded conditions” rested on“an irrational prejudice” against the intellectually disabled. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 448–450 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).And in another case, this Court overturned a state constitutional amendment that denied gays and lesbians accessto the protection of antidiscrimination laws. The amendment, we held, was “divorced from any factual contextfrom which we could discern a relationship to legitimatestate interests,” and “its sheer breadth [was] so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it” that the initiative seemed “inexplicable by anything but animus.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 632, 635 (1996). The Proclamation does not fit this pattern. It cannot be said that it is impossible to “discern a relationship to legitimate state interests” or that the policy is “inexplicable by anything but animus.” Indeed, the dissent can only attempt to argue otherwise by refusing to apply anything resembling rational basis review. But because there is legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification.
The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. .......
The Proclamation, moreover, reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple Cabinetofficials and their agencies. ......Three additional features of the entry policy support theGovernment’s claim of a legitimate national security interest. First, since the President introduced entry restrictions in January 2017, three Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Sudan, and Chad—have been removed from the list of covered countries.........Second, for those countries that remain subject to entryrestrictions, the Proclamation includes significant exceptions for various categories of foreign nationals. The policy permits nationals from nearly every covered countryto travel to the United States on a variety of nonimmigrant visas.........Third, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants.....

This means that based on the legal scrutiny given to the EO itself the court found that it was not a Muslim ban. GOALPOST!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

They held that having to pay for something they had no choice to opt out of was akin to compelled speech and violated the First Amendment.

Come on. We have to pay for numerous things we can't opt out of. I pay taxes for schools without receiving any benefit. Here they are getting big benefits.

[aygart]

I'm sorry for missing the joke.

They held that having to pay for something they had no choice to opt out of was akin to compelled speech and violated the First Amendment.

You missed the boat. They found that the issue was that they were being forced to pay for political advocacy and binding negotiations they were opposed to. Their needing to pay was not in and of itself an issue but rather what they were coerced to pay for.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The opinion of the court regarding whether or not the travel ban was discriminatory has two parts to it. One is whether or not the EO was in and of itself discriminatory and the second was if the rhetoric used by the Administration can be used to show that even if it is not discriminatory on its face it is was still done for discriminatory purposes. The court ruled that they may only use the rule itself to judge whether or not it is discriminatory and cannot consider other context.

I only said this a hundred times.

[aygart]

I only said this a hundred times.

This means that the court ruled that the EO is NOT a muslim ban!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You missed the boat. They found that the issue was that they were being forced to pay for political advocacy they were opposed to. The rest was not an issue.

If that is the case then they still have to pay dues for the collective bargaining part? You should read SCOTUS's decision 41 years ago.

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/davidsiders/status/1012043479667445761

[ChaimMoskowitz]

This means that the court ruled that the EO is NOT a muslim ban!

Like I said a hundred times they will not consider anything that is not in the EO. Also as I said a hundred times if Trump didn't say in the EO he was doing this to ban Muslims what else can they find?

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1011874896354295808

[ChaimMoskowitz]

What does it say about someone when their posts are the exact some things/context Trump posts?