Skip to main content

View Diary: House passes fair pay bill (Updated) (195 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not amok in this case (5+ / 0-)

    All SCOTUS did was apply the law as Congress wrote it, rather than try to legislate from the bench. They left it up to Congress to fix it, and Congress has now done so.

    It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

    by DanK Is Back on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 03:24:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wait 'til they declare laws unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckhorn okie, kyril, Olon

      For example, until 1937 or so, national health insurance would have been declared unconstitutional as beyond Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition of any law impairing the obligation of contracts, and a taking of private property without due process of law.  These precedents were overruled, but they can 5 to 4 be un-overruled.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 03:44:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  TROLL!!! (5+ / 2-)

      You are full of it.  What SCOTUS did, was ignore Congress' intent.  The decision by SCOTUS ignored aged premises of law like, for instance, a legislative body does not pass a law that makes no sense.  What SCOTUS did was literally read the words, (like the Bible you know which has no imagery or metaphors) and make a nonsensical decision and imputed to Congress a nonsensical law.  This flies in the face of over 200 years of jursiprudence and is the whole basis for this stupid "original intent" and "judicial activism" meme.  You have bought the right-wing BS hook, line and sinker.  But I expect you knew this.

      •  Hr'd for tone (0+ / 0-)

        You are entitled to challenge me on the facts. And I concede that I may have misremembered the details of the case.

        However, if you bothered to even glance at my diaries and comments, you would know that I do NOT take the right wing position on anything, that I have been one of the fiercer critics on this blog of the right's ideological fervor and rejection of reason - two flaws that you have just now demonstrated can also be weaknesses of the left:

        You assumed in your ideological fervor that, because I did not read the verdict the way you did, that I must be a "troll"; and

        On the basis of one disagreement alone, you rejected the requirements of reason and stereotyped me into a pigeonhole of your own making.

        If nothing else, the fact that I have the ability to HR your comment should tell you your overwrought and overhasty assumption is mistaken.

        It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

        by DanK Is Back on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 04:44:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, I've had time to calm down (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heiuan, kyril

        and I withdrew the HR. But, please, next time you should also take some time to think before you blast off like this when it wasn't called for.

        It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

        by DanK Is Back on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 06:00:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DanK Is Back

        some of the best legal minds on this blog agree with Dan in this matter.  Ask Adam B about this decision some time.

        The apocalypse will require substantial revision of all zoning ordinances. - Zashvill Political compass -7.88 -7.03.

        by Heiuan on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 08:46:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But they overruled 30 years of precedent (12+ / 0-)

      by the lower courts that construed the law as Congress wrote it.  The five right wingers did not have to do this.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 03:47:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  boy... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Josiah Bartlett, kyril, SciVo

      that wasn't really how it seemed at the time.  At the time the opinions were more that it was a super-strict and petty over-constructionist reading, clearly against the intent of the existing law (to the point that the existing law as they interpreted it didn't even make much sense).  But, I haven't read the laws myself and am not a lawyer, so I can't really say either way.

    •  Does anyone know... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Casual Wednesday

      ...who wrote the original law?

      •  This one amends several existing laws (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Free Spirit, kyril

        From Thomas LOC:

        A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

        Barbara Mikulski of Maryland was the prime sponsor and there were 54 co-sponsors.

        It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.

        by Casual Wednesday on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 09:01:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site