What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

[Kasz216]

Bong Lover said:

Kasz216 said:

Bong Lover said:

 

I guess it is bad form to bring up a thread over a week later, but this is too ridicolous to let stand.

You have no idea what precedence would be set if DADT had been left alone and the injunction had been allowed to stand. You don't know if parts of DADT would be split off and found to be constitutional, you don't know that an injunction on DADT would not promt the creation of a modified law, you basically just assume that letting the injunction stand would produce the exact same outcome as the reapeal act that later was passed. In short, you are speculating on what you think would have happened.

Second, there was no new presedence set by the injunction the Log Cabin Republicans won. The legal presedence that allowed their case to be successful was already set in 2003. What other legal presedence you think the Log Cabin Republicans court case would have produced you have not cared to mention, but I think it's fair to say that the precedence that case might have set (and I doubt it would set any) would have nothing to do with gay rights.

A)  Again... the case was already ruled on!  DADT was ruled unconsitutional and that it must be repealed.   As for the Injunction, that was only in existance because OBAMA REPEALED.  The ruling was DADT is invalid.   The injunction was put there purely for appeal purposes.  Had he not appealed, there would be no injunction, and DADT would be off the books.

B) Gay Rights advocates seem to disagree with you.

 http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2011/09/01/log-cabin-heads-back-court

 

I mean, I'd give Obama a break if it wasn't for the fact that he specifically refused to appeal Prop 8 or 9 or whatever the homophobic California law was.  He let that one go though.

So why'd he fight against DADT being unconsitutional, but not the California Prop?

No real reasoning comes to mind does it?

A) You don't know what you are talking about.

B) This has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I said your claim of letting the injunction on DADT stand would have created a stronger legal precedence for gay rights, I said that is speculative argument. You have still not given a single hint to what kind of precedence would be set that would go beyond Lawerence vs Texas that was setteled in 2003.

To the Prop 8 stuff, how in the world is that relevant?

A) Except I do... look it up?  DADT was ruled unconstituional, and the Injunction was put in place, demanding enforcement of it stop immediatly so the law didn't keep being enforced through the appeals process.  Unless of course, your talking about the injunction of the injunction which is even stronger in my point.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/10/breaking-ninth-circuit-stays-d.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States

 

B) Your joking right?   Lawerence vs Texas' only precedent was that sex acts could not be illegal.  This set no actual precedent in regards to treatment of people who comit those acts.   Which is why it's perfectly legal in most states and in the federal government to just outright fire someone specifically because they are gay.

Like Lofton vs Family Services.

 

Check wikipedia which notes.

On September 9, 2010, Judge Phillips ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that DADT violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.^[11][12][13] Noting the deference that courts are required to show the military in reviewing First Amendment claims, Phillips found that the "sweeping reach" of the restrictions placed on the speech of LGBT military personnel by DADT is "far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake". Phillips also found that DADT violates LGBT personnel's right of association, as it prohibits them from openly joining organizations like LCR for fear of reprisal, thereby depriving them of their ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. Phillips further ruled that DADT violates LGBT personnel's substantive due process rights, as articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, associated with the "'autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.'"^[14]

 

In otherwords, new precedence would be everything bolded.  It goes from "Being illegal to prosecute people on what intimiate acts they do in the bedroom" to "It becomes illegal to be biased against people for the acts they do in the bedroom."