Anonymous #1 7w

economic class btw, “just so happens” to also get the lowest level of judicial review. So a law discriminating against poor people is almost guaranteed to be upheld

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

That and there is big deference in private vs public defenders.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

google strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review. Christians get strict scrutiny—the highest standard of judicial review. LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, poor people, etc get only rational basis review—the lowest standard of judicial review.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

so this means in practice when a government passes a law seen as “infringing” on the rights of christian’s, it’s almost guaranteed to be found unconstitutional. Whereas with laws that target LGBTQ+ or disabled people are almost always going to stand.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yeah that’s bc of the limited constitutional protections they have implied in the 14th vs religion that has explicit protections in the 1st. That’s why I say it’s a legislative problem not judicial one.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

no no no. Don’t try that “we’re not gonna create new protected classes” bullshit with me. The courts can but they won’t. The idea that minority groups should have to amend the constitution to gain their rights is ridiculous and antithetical to the whole idea of the constitution. You are literally requiring that minorities are first accepted by a supermajority of the country for them to have their rights.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

“we can’t stop the discrimination until the discrimination is gone and a majority of people agree that you deserve rights” that’s fucked

1

Anonymous OP 7w

That’s how it works I agree it’s stupid the constitution is amended by a super majority. The constitution and courts is usually where you find individual protections I agree the court should expand the 14th to protect people with certain immutable characteristics. My point is relying on the courts isn’t a solution. Like we’ve already seen a conservative scouts can just come in and overturn any precedent if you want the most protection for your rights you need the legislator to do things.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yeah I agree it’s fucked my point is the courts are limited if you want real protections you need legislation. What happened the last time we relied on the courts for abortion rights?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

legislation works the same way. A different congress can just undo it.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

also, the dems will literally never meet the requirement for cloture again. And they’re too proud and beholden to being the “bigger man” that they’ll never suspend the filibuster.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yes but it’s more unlikely that another congress could undo it vs just four Supreme Court justices.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

i disagree. Structurally congress is almost guaranteed to favor republicans.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I guess if you want to believe that then we can just hope to god we keep getting democrat presidents so we don’t get another conservative scotus.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 7w

that’s just a fact man. Every state getting two senators (which benefits small states more than big states) and the republicans being the only party ok with gerrymandering kind of fucks up the level playing field.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I agree dems should also gerrymander if republicans do. Just like Maine threaten to take away their electoral vote if Nebraska does I agree dems should play these games if republicans do.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

It does favor republicans that doesn’t mean your rights are safer with scotus.

1