Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Gets It Right on Military Recruiting (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? (none)
    gender gets strict scrutiny?  Care to cite a case?  because it doesn't.  it gets heightened scrutiny, not strict.

    Privacy doesn't get strict scrutiny either.  See Casey (abandoning strict scrutiny on abortion in favor of "undue burden" test); Lawrence (applying "rational basis" and not "strict scrutiny" to homosexual conduct case).

    Where does it say that "constitutionally  protected right and class are evolve and EXPAND?!"  Again, citing Casey, the right to abortion was diminished not "expanded."

    Second, race didn't "only get in the box by testing the parameters and incrementally expanding the scope."  The 14th Amendment was targeted SPECIFICALLY to race.  Consequently, it is applied with greates force to the issues of race.  

    Third, do you understand that the issue of the military's policy was not before the court?!  

    •  I said "almost" damnit! (none)
      And asserted interets in fundamnetal rights like speech, free association, liberty, property, unreasonalbe search as seizure, et al listed in something called the bill of rights also are protected by the strict scrutiny test.

      It is NOT limited to race.

      The 14th amendment is an expanding doctrine, not a contracting one, as is the notion of the unenumerated fundamental privacy right.

      You are an arrogant fool - let me guess: law student, 23 years old?

      •  I am a member of the bar (none)
        And you are the one who is arrogant.

        I said the only group classification that gets strict scrutiny is race.

        Privacy does not.  It gets just rational basis, except for abortion.

        That 14th is expanding is nonsense.  See Casey.  though in theory it should neither expand nor contract, as it is not the job of the courts to change the constitution.

        And again, do you understand that the military's policy was not in front of the Court, for it to opine on it.

        •  Nonsense? tell me about equal protection cases (none)
          and the scope of the 14th amendment prior to and after Brown v. Board, then tell me that the parameters are fixed and not evolving.

          The military's policy was the basis for enacting the university anti-discrimination policy that was before the court, and the military was allowed to not comply with the policy, so the military policy was indirectly before the court, who chose to ignore it. This is a legalism.

          Why does the court defer to Congress' constitutional powers to raise armies in a way that violates equal protection, free speech, and association, yet feels free to limit Congress' interstate commerce powers when mere economic interests are adversely impacted?

          We all know what this was about.

          BTW, how about a group (class) of property owners who allege that their land was "taken" without due process? Are they a "group"?

          Credentials don't impress, nor do hypertechnical rationalizations.

          •  Ridiculous (none)
            First, Courts cannot address issues that were not presented to them.  See Article III.  It didn't "choose to ignore it."  The issue was not before the Court, consequently it was powerless to address it.

            Second, Congress' power to raise armies is plenary.  The Court explictly ruled that conditioning money on access does not violate either right to free speech or association.  Law schools are free to bar recruiters, but they must forego the money.  

            Third, i don't even have a clue what you are talking about re: interstate commerce.  Court struck down some laws not because "economic interests are adversely impacted," but precisely for the opposite reason, i.e., that Congress was not regulating any sort of economic activity (e.g., banning guns near schools is non-economic and therefore cannot be regulation of commerce).

            Fourth, I have no clue what property owners allege that their land was taken without due process.  if you are referring to Kelo, the argument was not due process but whether redevelopment was "public use."  And their rights weren't subject to "strict scrutiny."

            Fifth, 14th pre-Brown was erroneously cramped by Plessy.  See Harlan's dissent therein.  14th didn't expand, but the erroneous narrowing of it by Plessy was rectified.

            Sixth, credentials may not impress, but lack of a coherent argument impresses even less.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (29)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Science (22)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site