{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by burritosenior:
2/23/2017 4:41:33 AM
10
For your first ans second questions, it isnt a matter of 'you got an answer and your topic isn't important enough to move up.' If there is a potential for a violation of constitutional rights, it can move to the Supreme Court. In fact, those are the ONLY cases the Supreme Court has the authority to see- cases interpreting the constitutional rights of folks. It doesn't matter one lick how inconsequential you find the topic. They judge if it violates someones' rights.
The school refusing to allow her the use of her service dog violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. So the court overturned it. Schools don't get a free pass to make whatever rules they want mate. Saying people should be told 'those are the rules deal with it' defeats the entire purpose of having courts to defend peoples' rights in the first place.
English
-
thats not what im saying. im saying this girl has necessary accommodations yet this supposed "violation" is brought up in the supreme court. How does a service dog warrant this much legal battle?
-
Edited by burritosenior: 2/23/2017 6:37:16 AM[quote]im saying this girl has necessary accommodations[/quote]The Supreme Court says you are mistaken. [quote] yet this supposed "violation" is brought up in the supreme court. [/quote]The supreme court hears cases of potential constitutional violations. This was one. And the court ruled in the girl's favor. [quote] How does a service dog warrant this much legal battle?[/quote]By violating the Americans with Disabilities Act not allowing her to have the means of having equal access to her resources.
-
the supreme court has ruled unconstitutionally before, and they continue to do it here. To disagree with the supreme court is not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution, by the way. I followed the gay marriage case and the supreme court SHOULD have ruled gay marriage irrelevant (technically constitutional) because marriage is not defined in the constitution, however they are ignoring the religious aspect that caused so much controversy. These cases are so irrelevant to the FEDERAL government which is why i mention them at all. Why is it the federal courts problem? why cant the highest tier state court deal with this problem? 90% of the cases presented are irrelevant to the constitution beyond the right to liberty, which is severely vague in this context. Im gonna pull a classic right-ist here and say "show me where in the constitution it says the supreme court should hear trials about this particular circumstance. Or, at the very least, prove to me this problem is a federal issue.
-
[quote]the supreme court has ruled unconstitutionally before, and they continue to do it here.[/quote] I'm not sure if you're trying to say the Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional or not, but if so that's asinine. [quote] To disagree with the supreme court is not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution, by the way. I followed the gay marriage case and the supreme court SHOULD have ruled gay marriage irrelevant (technically constitutional) because marriage is not defined in the constitution, however they are ignoring the religious aspect that caused so much controversy.[/quote]You clearly aren't familiar with the case nor read the majority opinions. Those added with the fact that you are a random person on the internet thinking you understand the law better than the Supreme Court doesn't bode well for your argument. [quote] These cases are so irrelevant to the FEDERAL government which is why i mention them at all. Why is it the federal courts problem? why cant the highest tier state court deal with this problem? 90% of the cases presented are irrelevant to the constitution beyond the right to liberty, which is severely vague in this context. Im gonna pull a classic right-ist here and say "show me where in the constitution it says the supreme court should hear trials about this particular circumstance. Or, at the very least, prove to me this problem is a federal issue.[/quote] Constitutional rights are a matter of citizens of the nation, not of a particular state. The school's policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act according to the Supreme Court. You're welcome to disagree with that interpretation I suppose, but that doesn't change what the interpretation is.
-
im afraid you dont understand. If we are to blindly accept the rulings of the supreme court, then racism, slavery, and segregation may still exist. so would many other social issues the supreme court ruled "constitutional" at that time. We must always question the decision of the federal and state government, as it is our duty as the people of the united states. Therefore, we must criticize each decision with open, tolerant minds and come to conclusions best suited for the nation AND our law of the land. Im not saying the supreme court GENERALLY is right or wrong, but we must view them case by case and decide as a nation "are they doing the right thing in terms of legality?" I could give you a ten page research essay about this, but instead ill just say: https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada how does this act, as defined by the federal government, warrant the supreme court's intervention in local affairs? Or, where in the United States of America's constitution does this case become relevant? If we just bring every local issue to the supreme court then we have effectively defeated the purpose of statehood and local governments.
-
[quote]im afraid you dont understand. If we are to blindly accept the rulings of the supreme court, then racism, slavery, and segregation may still exist. so would many other social issues the supreme court ruled "constitutional" at that time. We must always question the decision of the federal and state government, as it is our duty as the people of the united states. Therefore, we must criticize each decision with open, tolerant minds and come to conclusions best suited for the nation AND our law of the land. Im not saying the supreme court GENERALLY is right or wrong, but we must view them case by case and decide as a nation "are they doing the right thing in terms of legality?"[/quote]Yeah... no. It's up to them to interpret the constitution. They understand it better than you. And it's pretty silly for you to be insisting otherwise, I think. [quote] I could give you a ten page research essay about this, but instead ill just say: https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada[/quote]I really don't think you could. You don't even understand the purpose of the supreme court so I have very little faith you could discuss its judgment. [quote] how does this act, as defined by the federal government, warrant the supreme court's intervention in local affairs? Or, where in the United States of America's constitution does this case become relevant? If we just bring every local issue to the supreme court then we have effectively defeated the purpose of statehood and local governments.[/quote] This is your problem. You're criticizing without even bothering to understand. Their rationale for the decision and why they are judging it is all spelled out in the majority opinion. You not reading it and already saying how wrong the court it is just silly. The information you're asking for is available at your fingertips.
-
so, you dont understand it. and because of that, you think i cant understand it either? what a pathetic reply you made.
-
[quote]so, you dont understand it. and because of that, you think i cant understand it either? what a pathetic reply you made.[/quote] Telling you that you have the means to gain the understanding you lack is not the same as not understanding something myself, mate. The, "I know you are but what am I," argument from grade school is not exactly the most applicable here, I'm afraid.
-
youre either clueless or a troll. doesnt matter either way, thanks for wasting both our time "mate"
-
[quote]youre either clueless or a troll. doesnt matter either way, thanks for wasting both our time "mate"[/quote] Or neither. I told you how to get the information you are asking about. You're making claims about how wrong the supreme court is when you neither know how the court functions nor its rationale, both of which are available at your fingertips. It is nobody's fault but your own that you refuse to read that knowledge.
