Upcoming US Supreme Court docket: Church & State, Affirmative Action, Executive Power, and maybe Gun - Polidicks

[quote][B][U]Cases on the court's docket[/U][/B] [quote][I][U]AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:[/U] Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action[/I] [B]At issue:[/B] Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admission decisions. [B]The case:[/B] Michigan's Proposition 2 was approved by voters seven years ago with 58 percent support. A federal appeals court later tossed the initiative, concluding it "distorts the political process and imposes a burden based on race that violates" the federal Constitution. [I][U]CHURCH & STATE:[/U] Town of Greece, New York, v. Galloway[/I] [B]At issue:[/B] Public prayer in town meetings. [B]The case: [/B]The Town Board of this Rochester suburb had long opened its monthly public sessions with individual prayers. The policy was challenged because virtually all of those invited to offer prayers were Christians, so the board for a time asked a few others-- including a Wiccan, Baha'i leader, and Jewish lay person-- to offer invocations. But local citizens Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens nevertheless sued.[/quote] [quote][B][U]Cases that might be added[/U][/B] [I][U]HEALTH CARE REFORM:[/U] Liberty University v. Lew; Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.[/I] [B]At issue:[/B] A provision in the new healthcare reform law requiring companies and institutions of a certain size to provide insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Can private employers refuse on the claim it violates their religious freedoms? [B]The case:[/B] Appeals by a Christian university in Virginia, an Oklahoma-based retail chain, and a Mennonite family-owned for-profit company. The petitions also make larger arguments in opposing other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, championed by President Obama. These are among more than six dozen separate legal challenges to nearly every aspect of the healthcare law, including the "employer mandate" to provide a minimum level of health insurance for their workers, or pay a federal penalty. [I][U]GUN RIGHTS:[/U] National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives[/I] [B]At issue:[/B] Appeal of a federal law banning sales of handguns to minors by licensed firearms dealers. [B]The case:[/B] Two 19-year-old individuals are part of the original lawsuit brought. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had upheld the law, saying "Congress designed its scheme to solve a particular problem: violent crime associated with the trafficking of handguns from federal firearms licensees to young adult." The ruling does not apply to licensed sales of long rifles, or private handgun sales or gifts to minors.[/quote][/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/court-term-cases/index.html?hpt=ju_c2[/url] I [B]strongly[/B] suggest you read the entire article, I've only posted snippets of each case.

hopefully something will get done, nice to see that my area has a case at the supreme court Rochester i mean

Doesn't really make sense to be able to buy one type of weapon at 18, but it's suddenly an issue if it's a different kind of gun. Especially considering that it's fine for private sales and such for handguns, but you can't buy one from a store?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42447831]Doesn't really make sense to be able to buy one type of weapon at 18, but it's suddenly an issue if it's a different kind of gun. Especially considering that it's fine for private sales and such for handguns, but you can't buy one from a store?[/QUOTE] It makes more sense when you realize that 90% of gun crimes are committed with that one different type of gun. As far as gun control goes, minors not allowed to buy handguns doesn't seem all that totalitarian.

I thought you weren't allowed a handgun until 21 anyways?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42448193]It makes more sense when you realize that 90% of gun crimes are committed with that one different type of gun. As far as gun control goes, minors not allowed to buy handguns doesn't seem all that totalitarian.[/QUOTE] But you're no longer a minor at age 18.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;42448210]I thought you weren't allowed a handgun until 21 anyways?[/QUOTE] Not from an FFL. Private sale or through family doesn't apply. [editline]7th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42447831]Doesn't really make sense to be able to buy one type of weapon at 18, but it's suddenly an issue if it's a different kind of gun. Especially considering that it's fine for private sales and such for handguns, but you can't buy one from a store?[/QUOTE] Their rationale is handguns are easy to conceal and scary therefore they tack on an additional 3 years.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;42448210]I thought you weren't allowed a handgun until 21 anyways?[/QUOTE] You are allowed to own them at 18, you just can't buy ammo or the gun until 21. I was really hoping this NRA case would be against Import Bans, and the Hughes Amendment, but that's still a pipe dream sadly :(

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42448193]It makes more sense when you realize that 90% of gun crimes are committed with that one different type of gun. As far as gun control goes, minors not allowed to buy handguns doesn't seem all that totalitarian.[/QUOTE] No but. It's legal to buy it as a private swap, which is the majority of criminally acquired weapons, but it's suddenly illegal to buy it from a store? [editline]7th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman;42448295]Not from an FFL. Private sale or through family doesn't apply. [editline]7th October 2013[/editline] Their rationale is handguns are easy to conceal and scary therefore they tack on an additional 3 years.[/QUOTE] I understand the rational. It's silly since all it means is that you can easily set up a private arms trade and have it be okay, rather than just directly buying it.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42448277]But you're no longer a minor at age 18.[/QUOTE] Depends on the law. Minor doesn't have one definition at 18. You can't buy alcohol until you are 21 in America either. [QUOTE=Aman;42448295] Their rationale is handguns are easy to conceal and scary therefore they tack on an additional 3 years.[/QUOTE] Or the vast majority of gun crime involves using a handguns. [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42448322]No but. It's legal to buy it as a private swap, which is the majority of criminally acquired weapons, but it's suddenly illegal to buy it from a store? [/QUOTE] If under-21's not being able to buy handguns at a store cuts the supply of handguns down in an area where shooting deaths is high than I would say it's a reasonable law.

You aren't going to see street thugs with much else than a pistol. If they have aks and sawed off shotguns, then they probably aren't your average street gang and have a hookup to a weapons dealer anyway.

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;42449135]You aren't going to see street thugs with much else than a pistol. If they have aks and sawed off shotguns, then they probably aren't your average street gang and have a hookup to a weapons dealer anyway.[/QUOTE] But, both of those are amazingly easily to get. Gang members tend to have SKS/AKs/AR15s. They just don't have them out on the streets because they're incredibly suspicious.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;42449278]But, both of those are amazingly easily to get. Gang members tend to have SKS/AKs/AR15s. They just don't have them out on the streets because they're incredibly suspicious.[/QUOTE] Isnt only 1% of gun crimes involve assault weapons?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42448460] If under-21's not being able to buy handguns at a store cuts the supply of handguns down in an area where shooting deaths is high than I would say it's a reasonable law.[/QUOTE] are there any studies that actually say this because I've never heard of it. a few of the cities/states that implemented handgun bans still have extremely high gun crime.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42448460]Depends on the law. Minor doesn't have one definition at 18. You can't buy alcohol until you are 21 in America either.[/QUOTE] Another ridiculous law.

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42449647]Isnt only 1% of gun crimes involve assault weapons?[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean they still have them?

[QUOTE=Explosions;42449710]Another ridiculous law.[/QUOTE] You're allowed to fight and die in a war, but god forbid you have a beer.

Man, the Supreme Court has [I]a lot[/I] on their plate.

and predictably Facepunch picks the guns one to talk about

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42449814]You're allowed to fight and die in a war, but god forbid you have a beer.[/QUOTE] except if you actually decide to serve your country and get sent off to die you can have a beer on base please never use that argument again because it's painfully ignorant

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42450949]and predictably Facepunch picks the guns one to talk about[/QUOTE] I was curious to see which controversial topic would be chosen.

[QUOTE=Unisath;42450970]except if you actually decide to serve your country and get sent off to die you can have a beer on base please never use that argument again because it's painfully ignorant[/QUOTE] Where is the ignorance exactly? It seems you are taking the argument literally. So I'll rid of all the poetry and make it completely dead pan blunt. At 18, You are allowed to sign up for the US military. However you are not allowed to drink alcohol, until the age of 21. Going off of what you said, yes, apparently soldiers can have a beer on base. But this is not about soldiers drinking. This is about the fact that our country feels you are old enough to kill and be killed, but not old enough to put substances into your own body.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;42451016]Where is the ignorance exactly? It seems you are taking the argument literally. So I'll rid of all the poetry and make it completely dead pan blunt. At 18, You are allowed to sign up for the US military. However you are not allowed to drink alcohol, until the age of 21. Going off of what you said, yes, apparently soldiers can have a beer on base. But this is not about soldiers drinking. This is about the fact that our country feels you are old enough to kill and be killed, but not old enough to put substances into your own body.[/QUOTE] If you decide to kill and be killed, you can have a beer. If you don't, you don't get that privilege. I don't see how that's a problem.

[QUOTE=Unisath;42451025]If you decide to kill and be killed, you can have a beer. If you don't, you don't get that privilege. I don't see how that's a problem.[/QUOTE] I don't see how exactly becoming 21 somehow grants someone the specific and special "privilege" of being in full control of their body and what they put into it. In the end, you're not really even arguing the point, you're simply stating that because a soldier is doing their volunteered job, that they deserve special perks, which others don't deserve the privilege of until they are older.

[QUOTE=Unisath;42451025]If you decide to kill and be killed, you can have a beer. If you don't, you don't get that privilege. I don't see how that's a problem.[/QUOTE] I don't get how I need a privilege to put in my body what I want.

you can have a beer because you aren't in america anymore lol you can't drink on base overseas though last time I checked because they follow American federal law

[QUOTE=Unisath;42451025]If you decide to kill and be killed, you can have a beer. If you don't, you don't get that privilege. I don't see how that's a problem.[/QUOTE] Military bases state side aren't like that. I couldn't go to a bar on camp pendalton and buy a beer until I was 21. The CO can make exceptions like on the Marine Corps birthday, but even then that only happened once for me and the following year they didn't. It's all based on the country that the base is in, so if I was based at Rammstien in Germany then I could drink there. At that point we're talking another country, not here.

since i'm an dumbass and can't read, I thought it said "congress" instead of supreme court and was about to panic. thankfully though, the supreme court and the house have level heads on their shoulders and know and care what we the people want.

for fucks sake can they just issue a yes or no on college entrance profiling, this has been like the 6th or 7th case to go before a federal court and like the 3rd to reach the supreme court. and they all come from Michigan state [editline]8th October 2013[/editline] town of Greece, nys vs gallow seems like they'll rule that one no standing to sue off the bat

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42454873]Is the court using the arguement "religious heritage!" for the church and state case? I really hope not, thats a terrible argument.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court has made conservative judgement in the past, but never on "heritage" or "tradition" like that. They go strictly by the words of the law.