Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2017, 08:05:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  BSA v Dale
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: BSA v Dale  (Read 997 times)
Rust Belt or Die
BuckeyeNut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1317


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.09

View Profile
« on: March 18, 2017, 07:31:53 pm »
Ignore

An old case now, but I'm curious what people think of it, having recently debated it.

What strikes me, immediately, is how funny it is that Kennedy went from the swing vote here to the swing vote Obergefell v. Hodges. As for the case itself, it pains me, but I think it was decided correctly. Homosexuality is as much an expression as heterosexuality is. Indeed, any scoutmaster who publically expressed a message of a sexual nature -- be it a call for the practice of family planning -- should be barred from the scouts. That would never happen, but Chief Justice Rehnquist points out it isn't a matter for the Court to mandate ideological consistency for an organization, citing Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette.

A counterpoint someone made to me, and I one I found intriguing, is that the Scouts enjoy privileged access to public land and other government perks, as so they should not be considered a fully private organization. Hence, they cannot discriminate in determining their membership.
Logged

MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2017, 12:13:13 pm »
Ignore

I also have thought the Supreme Court came to a valid conclusion in BSA v. Dale. It's the four dissenters who worry me more. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Groups of Boston, Inc. was unanimous, so I can't help but wonder how the four dissenters in the Boy Scouts case can reconcile their votes in these two cases.

Justice Kennedy's willingness to be supportive of both the Boy Scout's First Amendment rights as well as being consistently "pro-gay" in four other major gay-rights cases -- Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges -- does not particularly surprise me. Years before he was even appointed to the Supreme Court, when he was on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he wrote an opinion holding that it was constitutionally permissible for the federal government to ban gays from the military. Kennedy has been consistently trying to avoid making any comparison between race and sexual orientation, and I doubt he has even made up his mind about whether sexual orientation is an individual's choice.  He can and he does define liberty and equality whichever way he wants as he goes about "interpreting" the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. His ideology is moderate, which places him at the apex of power within the Supreme Court. I loathe him.
Logged

Most important issue in presidential politics: appoint the most objective interpreters of law to the Supreme Court, preferably originalists. Most important legislative issue: adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2017, 11:35:07 pm »
Ignore

Jurisprudential minds will always loathe swing justices because their general voting pattern is original and difficult to comprehend from a jurisprudential perspective.
Logged

"Too often, we judge other(s)... by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions."

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines