What the heck is up with the current Supreme Court?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2024
- Mr. Beat takes a look at the biggest United States Supreme Court decisions of their latest term. After the Marshall Court and the Warren Court, the Roberts Court has now proven to be the third most consequential Court in American history. These decisions are a big freaking deal.
We will be referencing this site:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
All 2021-2022 Supreme Court cases: www.oyez.org/cases/2021
Afterward, stick around for a Q and A.
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
Buy Mr. Beat's book:
amzn.to/386g7cz
How to support Mr. Beat:
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
“Free” ways to show support:
Subscribe to my channel
Turn on notifications
Like, share, and comment on my videos
Connect:
Mr. Beat on Cameo, yo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1...
Mr. Beat on Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat's TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan...
Mr. Beat’s website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat's Pinterest: / iammrbeat
Linktree: linktr.ee/iammrbeat
#mrbeat #socialstudies #politicalscience
Mr. Beat’s second channel: ua-cam.com/channels/JYl.html...
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/62BsM...
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/
Shampoo: rb.gy/vlqeym
Acne fighter: rb.gy/a6dnb0
Wallet: shop.ekster.com/mr-beat2
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/
How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvf/
Command and Control by Eric Scholosser go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvi/
The Age of Fracture by Daniel Rodgers go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvn/
Blowback by Chalmers Johnson go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvw/
The Third Reich at War by Richard Evans go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvt/
Railroaded by Richard White go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwq/
The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwi/
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwk/
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwn/
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Typesy: ereflect.postaffiliatepro.com...
Kids Connect: kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat
Ekster: ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvl...
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
#supremecourt #scotus #ushistory - Розваги
If you scroll down, you will see several comments in which people were obviously triggered by the thumbnail but didn't watch the stream! I'm sorry if you reading this was offended by the thumbnail. Us UA-camrs have to do whatever we can to get you to watch. That said, I predict you'll find that I tried to be as levelheaded as possible during this stream. My hope is that you watch the stream before commenting. Thanks to everyone who caught it live!
you do you. fantastic channel.
I can take hint, sorry about that
@@randomacc7721 i think the gun nail looks awesome
It's just a bit disappointing considering i have always looked at you as a fairly moderate guy (at least when it comes to you on your channel snd in your videos). That thumbnail just really shows like oh wow i see where he stands on this and it's just kinda ridiculous. We can all have our views, and at the end of the day this thumbnail is fine, just kinda disappointing to people who are just looking for an honest moderate straight forward take on our current supreme court. You weren't biased in the video itself which is what matters. Anyways that's all i have to say on this. Have a good day sir!
I didn't know about half of these cases before hand so thank you.
The only presidents to never appoint a Supreme Court justice were William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. James Garfield did manage to appoint one justice to the Supreme Court despite his short term.
George once again spitting the facts.
Surprised about Jim
Hi President Washington
Hello George. How is it going?
Jimmy Carter is the only president to serve at least one full term as president and not appoint a Supreme Court justice.
My favorite thing about Mr Beat is often he says “let’s read this, I want to make sure I get this right.” It’s so refreshing to hear someone want to be right instead of spout whatever
No better Supreme-Court-Coverage than
'Some More News' and 'Second Thought'.
6:34 Dobbs v Jackson women's health organization
23:38 West Virginia v EPA
36:11 Biden v Texas
42:14 Oklahoma v Castro Huerta
47:16 Kennedy v Bremerton school district
57:05 nysrpa v Bruen
58:32 Carson v Makin
1:03:11 Shurtleff v Boston
1:04:10 Houston community college system v Wilson
1:06:51 Ramirez v Collier
1:08:36 United States v Subaydah
1:12:28 Trump v Thompson
1:13:07 nfoib v Department of labor
1:13:42 Biden v Missouri
1:21:02 Moore v Harper
Masturbation always leads to sex it's a gateway tug
@@Travis-tj3mj yeah but i mean it's pretty important to have an active sex life anyways, it's kind of part of being a human, it's biologically speaking what we were made to do.
@@red2theelectricboogaloo961 hahaha u took me seriously
@@Travis-tj3mj oh well. if you want to take that approach to a practical joke who am i to stop you.
@@Travis-tj3mj It’s a very volatile “tug”
Really looking forward to the new supreme court briefs! Those are how I found your channel, keep up the great work :)
That's awesome. Thank you!
@@iammrbeat keep up the great work Aaaron with three As
I love you mr.Beat 🙏. Your free education and commentary helped educate me a lot. 👍
Happy to help!
I liked the stream, especially how you came in with your robe Justice Beat.
It is my belief that no political appointment, conservative, liberal, or otherwise should be lifelong. That's just baffling to me.
i for one completely disagree, if you have justices forced to leave after a few years at a younger age, this will increase the politicisation of the supreme court as it becomes much easier to bribe and influence justices by giving them high ranking jobs in the private sector. i get its already super politicised but most current justices are at least consistent in their judicial philosophy and cant be bought out.
@@jamesfeng24 It’s hard to say this court is not already influenced by the private sector with their eagerness to gut the power of virtually every federal agencies to enforce civil penalties
@@jamesfeng24 The Supreme Court is already overly-politicized. The five (six when Roberts joins) are fanatical in their conservative world view. Making it a shorter term could not make a major difference in the politicized nature of the court.
@@shocktrauma85 “fanatical in their conservatism” you have never met a real social conservative lmao
@@shocktrauma85 maybe one justice is as conservative as u say and there is a liberal justice that matches his voting percentage. Both moderate judges are conservative leaning, far from fanatical.
The death of democracy is a lot like the death of a person; it's a process, not a moment. One might say that, without an amendment explicitly securing the abstract right of the citizenry to vote for president, rather than the state legislatures, this was an inevitable development.
You're undoubtedly my only internet man that makes me completely comfortable when discussing about politics in the us. Glad that professor Dave once teamed up with you, justice Beat.
Thank you! Yeah I know Dave, and he is an awesome dude.
professor Dave is an idiot
@@iammrbeat professor dave is awful
@@ImperiumMagistrate Because he doesn't agree with your politics?
@@0816M3RC no because he is generally wrong and spends most his time attacking flat earthers
I just think it's crazy that 2 presidents that didn't win the popular vote appointed 5 justices that can serve for a lifetime. It's a flawed system to say the least.
Electoral college
And... we live in a Republic, everything is indirectly democratic in the federal government on our end.
The flawed system made the best nation in the world. Can’t deny the results
Bush won the popular vote in 2004. Also the scotus is confirmed by the democratically elected senate so your point is moot. Even then the scotus doesn’t represent the people
@Alex yet we’re the only country that can pay their fair share in international agreements. And every other country is tripping to get under the protection of our country. There is no denying the might and influence of our nation. And it’s ability to allow freedoms simultaneously is extremely impressive. Stating the perspective of foreigners has no logical basis, especially when I can dismiss their perspective based on the fact that their opinions are formed based on other Americans and not government structure
The constitution doesn't mention planes and the internet. I guess there shouldn't be any regulations.
THE INTERNET SHOULD NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAID 'NO!'
@@iammrbeat ABSENCE OF “YES” *HAS* TO MEAN “NO”!
1. The internet is press. We are still writing on here aren't we? That's press and it's protected by the first amendment
2. Flying is not a right just like how abortion isn't
@@iammrbeatThose fall under property rights
This, but unironically
Millard Fillmore offered to nominate Judah P. Benjamin to the Supreme Court as its first Jewish justice, but he declined the offer. Benjamin later served as the Confederate Secretary of State.
I’m glad I got to visit Washington DC a month BEFORE this insanity happened.
I visited DC just a little bit after this happened
Hello Mr. Beat. I just discovered you on UA-cam about two weeks ago and since then have watched many of your videos. Your format of comparing states, cities, countries, etc is great. It makes it much easier and more fun to learn and to remember. Have you ever considered doing other types of comparisons, like between lakes, between rivers, between seas and oceans, between major engineering feats or landmarks? Here are a few I would love to see, and I can suggest more:
Lake Erie vs Lake Ontario -- Lake Huron vs Lake Superior (etc, etc) -- The Amazon vs The Nile (vs the Congo) -- The Empire State Building vs The Burj al Khalifa -- The North Sea vs the Baltic Sea -- The Pacific Ocean vs the Atlantic Ocean. I loved your video on proposed Constitutional Amendments - you are right on. Keep up the good work. I am a subscriber.
Hi Mr. Beat, I think you did a great job of trying to stay objective in this video. Keep up the good work!
Enjoy your style and content 👍 very useful
Glad you enjoy it!
Great video, I feel like there is a huge disconnect between primary sources and what I see online - particularly in relation to the Supreme Court.
It's frustrating that they almost seem to make their decisions more complicated and convoluted on purpose so that most folks don't understand what they're talking about
Thanks for the video!
Thanks for watching!
@51:14 Around this time stamp, you make a really good point about peer pressure. Before games, my High School lacrosse coach would have us all pray before games and allowed those who didn’t want to participate to leave the room. My brother’s first game, he walked out and caught a lot of flak from the other players for it.
So if a student is harassed for praying does that mean everyone should be forced to pray?
Yep. This is exactly what happens when prayer is endorsed in a school context. Kids are not good at respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of religious minorities and atheists. I know from my own experience growing up in the US as an atheist. Kids are painfully _painfully_ bad at handling this, and even if coaches and teachers attempt to make good faith efforts to not make those who abstain feel alienated, their peers will see to it that they do in fact feel alienated and othered, or outright bullied.
@@glenmorrison8080 we are talking about high schoolers. And even then that’s their problem not the school’s problem
@@ImperiumMagistrate So we just let students alienate and bully each other? And we won't force anyone. The coach just won't organize a prayer in the first place.
@@itspowers9107 no that’s why faculty should discipline student who do bully others. Even then kids are constantly bullied for praying. The solution isn’t to force uniformity on everyone. Should students be forced to wear gray jumpsuits and shave their heads so nobody is bullied or peer pressured into anything? The coach prayed on his own and other students willingly joined. Only one kid felt like he was pressured into praying. So we should bend backwards for one person? Again by your logic since the majority of students supported the praying that means prayer should be allowed.
Great stream as always Beat!
Much appreciated
@@iammrbeat his real name is Aaaron Beat with three As
Tyler I wanted to thank you personally as a Haitian American for wanting insight to be brought up. It's one of my reasons I personally didn't like Roosevelt as a president (he fought in it, but wasn't president), and especially despised Woodrow.
Love your work Mr. Beat. If we lied to Congress what would happen to us?
Who "lied" to Congress
Nice livestream Mr. Beat, SCOTUS is very interesting institution that does need some reform in my view
The problem with making election day a holiday is that it doesn't really help those that it is intended to target. Your desk jockeys will get the day off but they already have no problem getting out to vote. The fast food workers, the store clerks, maybe even factory workers (I honestly don't know how many factories would shut down for a holiday); they are all still going to have to work and have just as much inconvenience getting out to vote.
or you take the day off?
@@ImperiumMagistrate If you have to take the day off to vote then you still haven't benefitted from it being made a holiday.
I support anything that can be done to make it easier to vote. I just think that everyone that thinks making it a holiday will substantially help is viewing the issue from a white collar perspective without considering if it will do anything for other segments of the population.
@@roberteltze4850 voting shouldn’t be easier. There is early voting. If only take like 15 minutes to do so. People overrate democracy. This is why i support absolute monarchy since it is more efficient, honest and brings more freedom than democracy
@@ImperiumMagistrate tf
@@johnhenry4024 probably a troll
It’s not a slippery slope fallacy when Justice Thomas names three cases to grease the slope. He’s inviting cases to roll down that slope
At some point, it’s a slippery slope observation. We see the slope, we see the grease. There’s no fallacy when both are present
those cases should be overturned. they were poorly decided
@@ImperiumMagistrate So Loving v Virginia, Griswold v Connecticut, Brown v Board of Education, Obergefell v Hodges, and Lawrence v Texas were wrongly decided? Seriously? YOU are a bigot arguing for a restoration of discrimination and denial of privacy rights for millions of people. No contraceptives? No equal rights for nonwhites? No bodily autonomy for women? Wtf is wrong with you? You're defending racism and hatred because that's textualism's greatest flaw. It's a call to defend the worst ideas humanity has ever had.
@@ImperiumMagistrate No they weren't. Privacy is a right.
@@shakky1512 3 people are involved in a pregnancy, no privacy
@@ImperiumMagistrate your birth was poorly decided
Great stream, thanks!
“Giving it back to the states” is just saying that rights under the Constitution are forfeit at a local level.
Are they not already?
The whole point is that the Supreme Court is saying there wasn’t a right to abortion in the constitution in the first place
@@nebulis6509 we know, every real leftist influencer (and a fair few KKK and central liberals as well) since then has pushed codifying abortion since the decision in roe was blatant partisanship rather than actual interpretation of law.
@@angrydragonslayer I’m aware, the first guy was just saying that “rights are forfeit at a local level” I’m just throwing it out there that as of now, legally that right never existed
Where is abortion in the constitution? I find it funny when liberals say this about abortion which is NOT in the constitution but they are perfectly fine with New York restricting guns which IS in the constitution
Great video.
Hey Mr. Beat! I entered a Super Chat during stream but it must've been missed. You expressed that you find the concept of separation between church and state to be very important and brought up a thought that usually rolls around in my head. When inaugurating a president, the tradition goes that when they are sworn in, they lay their hand on a bible. I've always thought that it would be more logical to land their hand on a copy of the The Constitution. They are executing the powers of the office that the document is responsible for creating. What are you thoughts on that? You did acknowledge that Christianity is the dominate religion in the US, but as we progress as a society, it could be argued that we are becoming more secular altogether.
Great stream btw! Love your videos!
actually as I understand it. the president picks his book, it's a tradition... if we ever get a president from another religion we might get a quran or upanishads or a monty python skit.... All the best JIM
@@jacquespoulemer3577 That would definitely be interesting to see! I wonder what an agnostic or atheist president would choose. Totally fine with Monty Python though! lol
@@LegitNerd500 Tulsi Gabbard was sworn in with the Bhagavad Gita and Ilhan Omar was sworn in with the Quran
@@LegitNerd500 In France they use the constitution. The constitution came from the bible
At least one president historically has put his hand on the Constitution, so perhaps that. Otherwise idk
hooray for Justice Beat!!!!!
Very appropriate entire Mr. Beats
I wonder if the no double-jeopardy rule works both ways: once a court finds you guilty, one cannot force the court to try the case again, even with new evidence.
Originally, no. It was intended to protect citizens from the government, and not vice versa. In other words, if a criminal is found innocent for a lack of evidence, it's the prosecution's fault for failing to prove their guilt.
Unfortunately, certain jurists have... different opinions.
No it does not work that way, once you are convicted you have a whole list of appeals that you are allowed to do, and if they are successful you will get a new trial. Double Jeopardy only kicks in once you are found not guilty barring a seperate sovereign trying you for it
To Charles:
Abortion may not be a basic human right, but healthcare should be. And abortion is a part of healthcare.
What about women in Idaho, who recently voted down an exception to their anti-abortion laws. Meaning if a woman has a dangerous, potentially life-threatening pregnancy, she has no right to abort the dangerous pregnancy and either has to risk her life by continuing to term, travel to another state, or find illegal means to abort the pregnancy.
I disagree. Neither abortion, nor healthcare are basic human rights because neither can be guaranteed. You have a right to seek healthcare but you do not have a right to healthcare. I also disagree with classifying abortion as healthcare as it would be like classifying euthanasia as healthcare.
I expect that once the dust settles most states will settle on laws that allows abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger. We already do that in Texas.
@@CStone-xn4oyand how’s that going for the state of Texas, over a year later. lol.
@@Chikitew Outstanding actually. Thank you for asking.
Are you considering making an audiobook version of your book? After finishing John Green's lastest publication I would love to hear more UA-camrs in a more focused and in-depth look
Mr. Beat. I feel like you are heavily underscoring the EPA case, it removed all regulatory authority from federal agencies unless specifically stated by Congress.
This applies not only the EPA but ATF and FDA
As a music teacher who thought about being a history teacher, I am jealous and want to be a history teacher after looking at your channel. Too late now though haha
You could make a music channel! Go for it!
Thanks for the stream. The Supreme Court Briefs series is by far the most interesting to me.
I must say, not being an American, the fact that supreme court justices are nominated on a political basis AND are nominated for life, while holding so much power, has always felt terrible to me. I'm not surprised at what is happening right now, but this certainly deeply concerns me.
Another thing in the same vein is the religious reverence to the constitution and the founding fathers, especially when it leads to the kind of absurd "historical" analysis used for overturning Roe v Wade... Well, in my country, we have to give numbers to our republics, and all our revolutionary historical figures are controversial, so I guess that explains a lot how I feel about that...
It didn't used to be that way, judges required 60 votes to get approved back in the past but ever since Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell got rid of the filibuster for federal and SCOTUS judges it's been political
what country are you from?
They aren’t nominated on a political basis. Also most countries do the same process.
@@ImperiumMagistrate they are appointed by a president by either party, and represent the general view of that party when they vote.
What bothers me the most about the makeup of the Supreme Court is that a party that has won the popular vote once since 1988 holds a 6-3 advantage.. and the money that went into getting them into their seats.
SCOTUS should also not be able to receive “gifts”.
@@ImperiumMagistrate I'm French.
Come on, they are nominated on a political basis. It is obvious considering what happened during Obama and Trump's terms. Liberal judges were blocked and the court was packed with conservative judges, chosen because they were conservative and would rule in a conservative way.
And no, most countries don't do the same. As most countries don't even have a supreme court in the American way in the first place. This is an institution derived from a common law legal system in a federative republic, it makes little sense in any other context, and most countries don't check both those boxes. Furthermore, nomination for life is not the norm, far from it.
For example, in France, the closest thing would be the Conseil Constitutionnel, as it is the institution in charge of checking the constitutionality of laws. But it is not a court that you can appeal to, and it exerts its control *before* a law is passed, not after. As for their members, they are nominated for nine years, three of them being replaced every three years. Most are former judges or law professors, but some do have a political background in addition. However, when they are nominated (by elected politicians, yes: three by the president of the republic, three by the president of the national assembly, three by the president of the senate), generally they are chosen because they are moderate.
Foreigners like you remind me that we indeed need to be very strict when it comes to the vetting process of letting new citizens into the Union. Not only are your statements moronic and egotistical, you would be the downfall of our Republic.
Very informative
what are the positives of the presidential appointment of justices, looking in from outside it seems fraught with issues
New York has strict gun laws, but strict isn't always the best. I personally prefer Massachusetts gun laws, which are also strict, but actually work against the main causes of gun violence. In MA, for any firearm/ammunition purchase, you need a permit (LTC/FID Card). Anyone who wants to obtain a permit, who qualifies (no criminal history, court order etc.) can get one. You just go to your local police station, fill out an application, do an interview and get proper training. Once you do all that, you will receive your permit and you can purchase firearms. I don’t see any problem with this, as it doesn’t infringe anyone's right to own a gun and makes sure everyone who chooses to carry is screened and trained. The NYSRPA v. Bruen case determined that you don’t need a specific self-defense reasoning, but I don't think the court is going to stop here. MA gun laws clearly work (Lowest firearm mortality in the continental US) and the majority of MA residents supports them. We don’t want judicial overreach by the Supreme Court, (or lower courts) but seeing where the court is heading, we never know.
Never heard of this before. As an pleasant outsider (Canadian, obviously), it seems to me that American people speaking on gun laws tend to be on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Staunch support for gun bans and staunch opposition to gun bans.
Restoring 2A rights is overreach, right? Lmao
@@kiezer21 MA gun laws don't violate 2A. Anyone who wants to "keep and bear arms" can if they so choose.
@@HardlyLegal After asking for permission. I always subscribed to the thought that “a right delayed is a right denied.”
@@kiezer21 The well regulation of the militia saves lives so I'm for it!
1:21:05 Moore v. Harper is definitely gonna be an issue if SCOTUS decides to overturn Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) by siding with Moore on this case, it will bad for a free and fair democracy. State legislatures getting away with partisan gerrymandering for State Houses, State Senates, and U.S. Congressional Districts and potentially deciding to overturn Presidential election results if in the electoral college if the state legislature doesn’t like the out come (and a state legislature likely to be voted in mind you by gerrymandered maps). Courts didn’t do much to interfere with this past redistricting cycle in states such as FL, OH, WI, GA, and TX where Republicans gerrymandered maps or IL and OR where Democrats did but they made a big difference in ensuring fair maps in NC, MI, NY, MD, and PA. Personally as someone who supports more direct democracy and making it easier to vote, if SCOTUS rules with Moore, I’ll be upset. But we’ll see.
1:25:30 Also it’s always NC I’ve noticed when it comes to partisan or racial gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering needs to be completely allowed or completely banned. It's ridiculous that New York and Illinois can get away with radical gerrymandering but Florida can't get rid of the super gerrymandered 5th district because "muh voting rights act"
democracy isn’t an innate good and states like New Mexico and Missouri have racist gerrymandering they make districts specifically to be all minority that’s racist
wonderful post.
The constitution is a contract between the central government and the states. This contract does not necessarily address what may be good policy for the public. It’s a distinction that needs to be made. Just because it’s a good idea it doesn’t mean it’s protected by the constitution. For or against the policy. And is left to the states and to the people.
This is why civics class needs to come back. A worrying amount of people don't understand stuff like this.
I only wish more people understood that! When Mr. Beat mentioned the public opinion website project, the first thing through my mind is that public opinion is irrelevant to how the legal framework, or weight and authority of case law if not clear from statutory, should be applied to the facts and circumstances. Worse, I have listened to people literally say, and not just once, something similar to: our legislation is probably unconstitutional, we do not think States have authority, people cannot make good decisions so we need a law...
I try to remind people when having a conversations on law that there is a reason we have states, not provinces. That health, welfare, and safety is the domain of the states. That the commerce clause has been used in ways never intended. Personally, I think the commerce clause is appropriate to fix insurance (specifically medical) given the nature of insurance. However, the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn (related to how much wheat a farmer could produce) eliminated the direct standard that had been used and established case law that any indirect activity which impacts interstate commerce, no matter how small, could be under control of the Federal government. In my opinion, that just allowed every activity to be subject to Federal control - we might as well just say the 10th amendment has been superseded by the Supreme Court as the commerce clause makes it irrelevant..
Your explanation is shorter, and easier, to start the discussion... My addition to that would be that the contract is being interpreted incorrectly as some justices hold the philosophical view that original intent is irrelevant.
This is a year later but I would like to point out:
The constitution was written by delegates from the states and ratified by conventions inside the states. Truthfully, the Constitution is a contract between the PEOPLE of the States and the Federal government. The people originally decided to give most of governance to States (see list of things Congress can make laws about, 10th amendment, and original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court) BUT again we see that the over time the PEOPLE have chosen to give more power to the federal government (see: 14th amendment, changing how we elect senators). Finally, my last piece of evidence that the constitution is a contract between the states is the amendment process. If the Constitution was a contract between the states and Fed government, then why can state conventions (not state govts) ratify new amendments? With all this in mind, it seems clear to me that the Constitution is a contract between The People and the Federal Government wherein the People have chosen to keep some powers at the State level
Thumbnail goes hard
8:07 Vote to overturn Roe was 5-4; not 6-3. Roberts' concurrence wanted to set the brightline of when a state could begin to outlaw abortion at 15 weeks (thus upholding the MS law) instead of the current 24; however it wanted to uphold Roe's central holding that there was a right to abortion in some form (however limited it may be).
Yeah, ut's easy to miss that the court answered 2 questions in Dobbs.
@@alonkatz4633 yep.
There is no right to murder other human beings, abortion should be criminalized and anyone who gets an abortion should be handed the death penalty
Completely off topic, but I’m curious if the audio is coming through that boomed mic or just ambient? I feel like the depth is missing for some reason?
The settings got all messed up and so the computer mic recorded instead of my nice mic. I'm sorry about that!
Great video! Funny thumbnail!
None of justices said they wouldnt overturn Roe v Wade
When life begins is largely based on your belief system which also, now, brings in the question of freedom of religion. Jews, Muslims, agnostics, even different Christians have different beliefs about that.
Also I can't believe that Mitch McConnell or Trump or many of those in power care about when life begins. We should take Clarence Thomas at his word and realize that they want to roll things back to the emancipation proclamation, when power was in the states hands which meant that it was in very few people's hands and the federal government was very weak. Hence the decisions they made regarding the EPA and the questions people are asking about Moore and Harper. We are indeed living during interesting times.
Not really. When life begins is SCIENCE. During pregnancy the baby gains a heartbeat, brain function, and ability to feel pain... So it's pretty obviously a separate human life at that point...
@@iamtobler Life begins _before_ conception
I think you're right, mostly, that prominent conservatives are very inauthentic, and the quality of candidates within the Republican party is why the partisan approval is usually 5+ percent higher than the approval for any given Republican in a race. Blantant reality denial and so forth is incredibly common and the death of conservatives as a stabilizing force in society is rather tragic. However, what makes something alive isn't subject, it's a pretty well defined proccess of matter, and it started, once, several billion years ago. What makes an individual organism is, noodlier, but from what I've read of embryonic teratology, it's pretty clear that after the gametes pronucleus merge and the diploid number is restored that under ordinary circumstances a genetically distinct human organism is created. And as far life being a system organized out of cells that resists disorder via negative feedback loops it's not really arguable. Whether the value of that life is fully realized, and under what circumstance it might or might not be justifiable to take that partial or complete human life is all manner of subjective. But you can't say life doesn't begin at conception. Not really.
The problem with those statements is that you can't prove or disprove its sentience at that stage. It certainly isn't "seperate". It cannot function (take in nutrients) whatsover on its own.
No it's not. I'm the most anti religion you can get but it's long known as scientific consensus that life starts at conception.
Abortion ends lives, no question about that. But what roe and other cases were saying is that fetus's do not have a right to life since they are not legally classified as people and that abortion is a private matter the state cannot infringe on.
Considering that ~15-20% of pregnancies are aborted for economic reasons, I'm pretty strongly against most abortions since they reduce life expectancy by 14 years, obviously with exceptions for medical abortions regarding health and nonconsensual pregnancies.
Personally, I don't see what the difference is between a first trimester abortion, third trimester abortion, and neglecting a newborn since they all result in loss of life in the end, despite being very different procedures
I agree with your point that Gorsuch is a smart guy, he can be balanced in certain contexts. The issue is that the Fed Soc put him on the court to render certain judgements on conservative issues, and he follows that mandate.
Hi Mr Beat
At 1:25:55 ish you say that some can argue that the constitution says elections are left up entirely to state legislatures but I counter with the very part that mentions that.
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
(Idk why it's chusing I'm just copy pasting)
And I also add in article 3 section 1
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "
I interpret this to mean the state judicial can act as/on the authority of federal Congress and use Congress's ability to alter the ability of the state legislature with regard to elections.
Edit: now if the state judicial courts don't fall under article 3 then I'm gonna have to take another read, because at that point it may also have to take the state constitutions into account. (i.e. if the case being looked at is in a state that explicitly gives that judicial power over legislature then they may not even need to rule on the relationship between state legislature and federal elections)
Supreme Court isn’t there too decide what is good policy. it’s not there to decide what should be legal because it is good. The Supreme Court is to decide what is constitutional regardless if it’s good for the country or not. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. Nor should it. It really is as simple as whether or not you have fidelity to the constitution. If you don’t like that contract because it doesn’t allow you to have the policies that is necessary to run the country then you need to change the constitution.
I look forward to buying and reading your book!
Awesome! Thank you!
Is Mr.Beat talking about ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration'' ?
Griswold should be given back to the states based off substantive due process, but the judges had already said they weren’t going to due that
All rise for the Honorable Judge Beats!
You repeatedly say that referring to the founder's writings and the constitution is an appeal to authority and that we should instead analyze the situation as it currently is, but I don't think this is how the supreme court should function- I agree that such analyses should be made but that is the job of the legislature, NOT the courts. They should judge what exists and if we feel differently, change the law/constitution through the proper channels. Doing otherwise would just lead to the supreme court being another form of rulings from on high without regard to representation (which I am not arguing it already at least partially is...)
this is my problem with Mr. Beat’s analysis. The SCOTUS simply interprets a document
A supreme court justice must rule based on what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say. Changing the Constitution is not within the power of the Supreme Court, nor should it be.
The framers' intent could be viewed different than legislative intent, although I agree with looking at both... But some justices no longer even consider legislative intent... If they did, the debate on the 2nd amendment would not exist... Frankly, I think it is just being lazy or political... Personally, I think Scalia was a little to rigid in his application of words as I felt that certain synonyms were so close to the definitions of the original words, it would be a distinction without a difference (which is why he had several sole dissents with lengthy explanations as to nuances of vernacular). On the other extreme, every word is a social construct subject to such flexibility some words have no meaning close to the original definition that was generally accepted - so why even bother with litigation if the court's ruling can establish law...
"Hidden History of the Supreme Court & the Betrayal of America" by Thom Hartmann is a good read.
I wish you had spent more time on NYSRPA vs. Bruen. You stated that you agreed with the decision but didn't explain why. Also, you stated that it didn't have lasting ramifications which I completely disagree with. By addressing the 2 step approached used in lower courts this will likely impact many decisions including "assault weapon" ban cases, magazine ban cases, and potentially the licensing scheme in general. I hope you do an indepth video on this case and maybe touch on how this case along with WV vs. EPA will effect future actions by the ATF.
Hell Bruens standard probably means the ATF and NFA are both unconstitutional. I agree Bruen will have a mass impact however unlike overturning Roe that impact won't be immediate it's going to take years for these cases to work their way back up through the courts
Even if Congress pass a law to legalized abortion, I really think this supreme court would strike it down as unconstitutional. The only way, I think, is to add a new amendment to the constitution for it, and yeah let's do it. When was the last amendment 30 years ago? Let's get a new one in now.
abortion isn’t a right it’s murder.
Wrong, even if the Supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade, and it was codified anyway in Congress, they can't declare it "unconstitutional", since 1.) They interpret the constitution, not legislation, and 2.) Codifying Roe v Wade would be any other legislation, such as Medicare or Social Security, we don't always need their approval of all things
@@ImperiumMagistrate not like murder isn't already on the constitution. 2nd amendment allows you to own and operate guns and yeah majority of times guns are used it's to take a life, not all the time of course but most of the time. I mean nothing new there still taking a life and I'm pretty sure Republicans is ok with the second amendment though.
@@alphauranium8451
The supreme court had the power to strike down laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.
@@anticorncob6 Yeah ik, if it is too overreaching, codifying Roe v Wade by Congress isn't unconstitutional nor overreaching
Knowing how woman and men can be, either pro life, pro choice or in between they will always find a flaw and disagree and argue with someone like Mr. Beat that is showing no bias whether he agrees or disagrees that is trying to inform the people of both sides, the benefits, flaws and other things
Well, when he did the "I'm sorry if the thumbnail offended you" speech, it really reveals that he _showed_ a bias. None of the justices actually shoot lasers out of their eyes.
Only some left wing nut job like yourself completely unaware of themselves or life itself can make such statements about Mr. Beat playing it down the middle.
People can either be pro-choice or pro-state mandated forced birth actually. Language matters.
@@maxamerimaka
Language does matter. If the only "choice" you support is abortion, and you favor other laws, you are not "pro-choice." You are pro-abortion.
@@maxamerimaka I don't think it's that simple, and even if it is, you won't get anywhere with that kind of attitude towards your opponents
Could you make a 'Supreme Court Briefs' about ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration'' ?
Do you have any videos on the 9th amendment? I thought Roe cited this amendment also when it was decided.
He made one on Griswold v. Connecticut.
I am pretty sure it didn't. Even if Roe did cite the 9th Amendment it is hard to argue that the founders had abortion in mind when the 9th Amendment was ratified.
Hey Mr. Beat, I have an interesting question for you, in your opinion, do you think people have the right to commit crimes when oppressed or commit crimes when they're freedom is being violated? I think a lot of people have this incorrect view that they're rights give them power or leverage over certain situations. I think what people call rights is an indivdual's ability to control his or her life and rights are not the same thing as obligations. I believe they're are only Negative Rights and not Positive Rights that require people to work together in harmony like some kind of social contract. I don't understand it.
The only situation where you can categorically deny violence or unrest is if the system is perfectly reasonable, adjustable, and entirely outside of claims of strict belief by which I mean arguments that depend on preference or ethereal appeals as opposed to given reason. Most issues we look at as obvious now, a la slavery is bad or children miners are explored, were never genuinely and with responsible standards considered good, but the evidence and reason against that profitable and easy path was snuffed and ignored because nothing about the way we function as a society actually has mechanisms for progress. Unless the actual experience of life is to a significant extent a result of substantive deservedness (for whatever aspects of it should depend on input) then there’s a huge danger in people assume that stability and existence imply value. They don’t, they imply continuity of power, that’s it
Thomas appears to have great difficulty with the concept of "amendment".
There is a different between a physical amendment and a "unenumerated right"
He's unfamiliar with the words "social change". He's out of touch and old fashioned. It's just that simple. His ideas are not popular anymore. It's just facts.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty Unpopular with YOU don't mean unpopular with people not directly in your group or city. Many people support states rights.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty The things that you find popular are unpopular in other parts of the country. Your opinions are not facts and your opinion does not make something a fact.
When it was brought up that Thomas was the lone dissenter in _Trump v. Thompson_ and that his wife was implicated in a bunch of stuff related to the case, I thought about how, in _United States v. Virginia_ (1996), Thomas recused himself because his son was attending VMI.
There’s a Ken Burns Documentary about Mark Twain that came out a few years ago
My hope is that the craziness is just showing us places in our government that need reform and as a result we'll be motivated to change things and end up with a more balanced, less corrupt government.
Do you think you will run for House someday. Also, thoughts on the Pauls? (Ron and Rand not Jake and Logan)
The House? I might be tricked into going for that. Never the Senate, though! And I loved Ron Paul, quite a bit actually. Rand Paul has mostly been a disappointment since Trumpism has taken over the GOP.
@@iammrbeat There was a superchat asking if you would run for office. I think you missed it.
@@iammrbeat Rand Paul i’d awesome. You don’t know what trumpism is. Trump objectively did a lot great for the country
@@ImperiumMagistrate Its tricky because I like some of Trump's ideas but I really don't like Trump himself...would still vote for him over Biden though.
Hearing him say Supreme Court briefs made me happy
Mr Beat I hope you can make some shorter clips from these streams (pardon me if you don’t already)
I think it’s worth noting that the majority in Dobbs states that precedent is not infallible, and that the Supreme Court has overturned clearly erroneous precedent in the past (I think they cited Plessy v. Ferguson) but what they failed to recognize is that, in the history of our nation, the Supreme Court has never overturned precedent in order to take away a right that was once regarded a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has only ever overturned “clearly erroneous” precedent in order to expand and enshrine fundamental rights such as the right to interracial marriage, gay marriage, the right to fully equal public accommodations, etc.
Who defines clearly erroneous exactly? Like what about Plessy is “clearly erroneous”? Also gay marriage isn’t any more of a right as incestuous marriage is a right
And abortion is not a right. Roe took away the right to life for the fetus.
@@ImperiumMagistrate 1. “clearly erroneous” is a standard of appellate review that the Supreme Court employs when reviewing previous rulings. 2. Do I really have to explain to you how segregation between white and black people violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? I’m not even going to go there. 3. Gay marriage is a right because the Supreme Court determined it was a right. Incestual marriage has never been to determined to be a right by any court nor legislature. 4. A fetus is not legally a person and cannot have rights. Therefore Roe did not violate any person’s rights when it was decided.
@@JKDC97 1. And can you define it?
2. The Scotus in 1880 believed that separate but equal was justified by the 14th amendment. Did you forget the equal part of the ruling?
3. Yeah they read into the constitution. Would you accept if they decided incest was a right?
4. And same was said about black people before 1865. So yes Roe does violate a child’s right to life
@@ImperiumMagistrate 1. Clearly Erroneous: “The “clearly erroneous” standard is a standard of review in civil appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court stated that “a finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
2. Again I’m not arguing with you about the merits of settled law. The ruling that “separate but equal” de jure segregation violates the 14th Amendment is uncontroversial and uncontested.
3. My opinion on whether something should or should not be a fundamental right is completely irrelevant. What you are inducing me to do is to get into a moral argument, which I decline to do. I’m making factual statements about the state of the law, not normative arguments based on what I think the law should be.
4. I’m not going to entertain your emotional and moral argument comparing the personhood of black people and the personhood of fetuses because it’s based on an emotion-laden and illogical false equivalency. A pretty egregious one at that.
@@JKDC97 1. And part of that includes looking at the traditions of the country
2. It violates the XIV even though they said the XIV allowed segregation as long as it is equal?
3. Okay do you think incest is constitutional?
4. It’s not emotional. In comparing two identical situations. Simply put Harry Blackmun admitted in the case of Roe that if the personhood of a fetus can be determined they’d be protected under the XIV. One part counts as life and according to scientific consensus life begins at conception. I’m saying we should use science to guide our laws
My personal opinion on SCOTUS term limits is to put it at 18 years. The reason for that number being is that it aligns nicely with elections, such that there is a supreme court opening in every off-election year. With any vacancies allowing for an appointment for the remainder of a term, rather than starting from scratch with an 18-year term.
Time for another one of these bro
Hello Mr. Beat
Can you make a video about The Pig War
Thanks
Oversimplified already did that!!
Early on: When you posted the 2020 Election video, I DID think to myself "I thought this was a history channel. Not a news channel."
Edit: Because I'm just mad. In order to even discuss the rights of embryos or fetuses, we must PRESUME that the rights of pregnant people are going to take a backseat in the discussion in a way no other person's rights are EVER questioned. An ambiguity is being treated with greater significance than the genuine article. We're ditching our One in the hand to chase One in the bush, and the other can go hang!
Also, I would love if this court and republicans wasted their time and political capital mandating prayer or flag code or some other bs to send the Dems more votes and demonstrate how broken the system is.
1:22:07 In my "Political Science" class (College level 😉) I asked the instructor why laws, bills and other legislative documents couldn't be written in a more clear and understandable - to the average citizen - manner.
His reply didn't surprise me, but it did disappoint me.
He basically said: I (as an Eastern European) immigrant, had to learn how to understand this language - along with learning English - so why can't native born people do the same ?
At the time, I knew I felt this was "wrong" but could not easily articulate why.
These days, I'd refer to it simply as "gate-keeping."
In my short (BA) college career, It had been hammered into my head in the different disciplines that you should "write for your intended audience".
So, would that indicate that the only people expected to be able to easily understand this language would be lawyers and politicians and not the common citizen?
« None shall ignore the law » and yet it is a bore for the average citizen to understand it. Our constitutional court in France did declared some law to be inconstitutionnal because it was way too hard to understand for non law experts but it still isn’t much.
On the other side, the law is bound to be technical and it will inevitably spur the developement of a legal vocabulary that the average citizen won’t understand.
Good video
None of it matters regarding the Supreme Court. They have no term limits. Period. They can relegate and announce an absolute solution to a “problem”. It’s awful.
Something I think right wing Christians should understand is that inviting the state into your church (by asking them to pass pro church laws) is guaranteed to corrupt your church. Something liberals should understand is that taxing churches is the opposite of separating church and state.. if the government starts making money off churches, we get more pro church laws, not fewer. Separation of church and state is important for all sides imo.
Generally agree. It is important however to define what an Establishment of religion is or isn't.
I don’t see how you can say making an exception for an organization due to it being religious is separation or church and state. It should instead be framed to a church has to prove it engages in not-for-profit activity so it can qualify for tax-exempt status.
Taxing churches can also prohibit the free exercise of religion as it could put financial strain on churches consisting of few people or low-income attendees.
@@JakoWako Engaging in religion is a not for profit activity in itself. So I guess the standard there would be Churches have to prove they are churches.
@@JakoWako the whole point is that you can't have taxation without representation. We don't want churches to have representation because that gives them power over the state. The whackier a church is , the LESS we should want it funding our goverment.
I have to be honest here Matt, The right to a UA-cam channel isn't defined in the constitution we should take a look at that lol.
Canada is interested in that
It can fall under personal privacy as well as the the 10th Amendment. So yes it is.
I have never known censure to denote prohibition of speech; it has always meant only expression of disapproval. To be criticized is not to be silenced.
I have a question for Americans.... How is the judiciary an independent branch if the supreme court justices are appointed by a president?
There was a super chat that mentioned the Texas GOP platform so I wanted to follow up on that. It was in regard to them saying that being gay is considered an abnormal lifestyle choice and shouldn’t be encouraged (paraphrasing). I think it would be a good idea, if you haven’t, to look through it and do a video on it. There is a lot of really anti-democratic and anti-freedom stuff in there and it’s telling of where the GOP is trying to get to. People should be aware
Texas being extra based
@@sargentnoobs9340 The GOP in Texas being extra moronic, yes.
@@sargentnoobs9340 And you’re only doing this to troll. Not all of Texas is like the GOP, all major cities voted for Biden so do not have these backwards views that the GOP here does. The GOP has managed to gerrymander the hell out of what was once a great state to make it a theocratic fascist hellscape, but that will change.
@@sargentnoobs9340 My State being r*tarded as usual.
That platform is high treason. The Texas GOP deserves to be in prison.
I’m personally glad about the conceal carry ruling because from my relatives experience in New York City it is not possible to get a permit to carry even though it is a constitutional right.
Because police agencies had personal discretion to discriminate who did and didn’t get permits they were rarely handed out to those who complied with the law with the exception being some celebrities and wealthy politicians. It didn’t seem like a fair unbiased system to me
I lived in New york for years I and many others I know have tried its almost impossible the only person I know got away with it was because he carries all the money fir his business and is a major target because he carries upward of 30k plus at a time when the week ends
Oh don't worry Queen Hochul has already ensured you won't get access to your second amendment rights, go read the new law she had her minions in the legislature pass in the dead of night it's even worse than May issue permitting. If you want access to your second amendment rights make plans to leave New York ASAP
I am against this ruling because I feel the second amendment is immoral and dangerous. The high amount of weapons only causes more violence. I feel the 2A should be permanently removed.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty but it’s still constitutional, you may not like it, but they technically did their job correctly as far as “interpreting the constitution” I’m not saying their ruling was objectively good or supported by the people of New York, just that it was technically a “accurate” ruling.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty false the second amendment protects more then it commits crime and ask ukraine how tehy feel about the second amendment
“Realistically what do you think would happen if any state just outright ignores whatever law SCOTUS rules on?”
My family in Gwinnett County, GA (former Cherokee land): “Well, you see…”
UA-cam is weird. This video was preceded with an advertisement for a turret weapons system for tanks. I doubt that it’s usual for Mr. Beat’s audience to be in that market.
Privacy isn't in the constitution, but given that the fourth amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure (when I'd personally argue that MUCH of the searches and seizures lately have been unreasonable), I think it safe to assume that there is at least some standard in place that says your personal matters can't be casually looked through. The followup then of course is "If even the federal government cannot do this, why can private entities do so?".
That's pretty much the conclusion the court came to in Griswald. They didn't stop at the fourth amendment but found privacy rights in several locations that together formed this general principle of a right to privacy.
Because private entities are not the government and aren't subject to constitutional restrictions
The Fourth doesn’t even make sense if there’s no underlying expectation of privacy
Even if we buy this how does that cover a medical procedure? We ban lobotomies how is abortion any different?
It IS in the constitution. Protected by the 4th, 9th and 14th.
As an Aussie this shit crazy wait sorry. It’s bloody outrageous mate
What is? Why?
says the guy living in a dictatorship
You realise Australia doesn't have a right to an abortion in the Constitution either lmao.
I feel bad for your country. It's so close to being a police state
@@MrMiniman629 nah not really. No cops in our schools no drills for active shooters. Life’s good mate. Glad I know my little sister is 100% safe at school
Day 1 of asking for Las Vegas vs Phoenix/ San Francisco vs San Jose
How much you curl?
I swear if u really look at it almost every single issue can boil down to people cant mind thierown damn business
Is the Supreme Court really supposed to judge based on public opinion? That’s for elected officials, no? I thought the Supreme Court was there to simply find if things are constitutional or not. I personally am against overturning Roe v Wade but I’m not sure the reason is because it’s popular.
Roe V Wade should've always been a 10th amendment issue. People elect representatives to make laws. The Supreme court is an unelected branch that shouldn't be legislating from the bench.
If the majority of Americans support something, the Court should not be allowed to strike it down. Plain and simple. Going against the majority will of Americans due to textualism sounds ridiculous.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty Then there needs to be a constitutional amendment. We have laws and a government for a reason.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty this is not the way your Republic is set up. This is why it doesnt even matter if a majority vote fkr one candidate for President, it doesn't matters unless they win a majority of the states, which is the only thing that matters.
Your founding fathers despised democracy and legislating according to popular rule.
So no, a majority of Americans supporting something is irrelevant to the SC
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty so you would like mob rule? Playing politics the way you want is exactly what the founders warned against
Good job Aaaron with three As
Isn't there a constitutional amendment that states that just because a right is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution that that shall not be construed as the people not holding those rights
Yes but the 9th Amendment protects rights retained by the people, as in rights that are generally enjoyed by the public at large. Abortion never fell into that category as its use was highly limited and subject to regulation. Furthermore its really hard to use the 9th Amendment as the sole justification for a right as it is very vague. The main purpose of the 9th Amendment was to placate those who worried that the US Constitution gave the Federal government too much power. The 9th Amendment basically says that people have rights that are not listed in the Constitution but it does not say what these rights are. I am also fairly sure that in the case of Roe v. Wade, the 9th Amendment was never cited as the possible location for a constitutional right to get an abortion.
I don’t think Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas, and Loving v Virginia can be totally overturned as you seem to suggest. The primary reason being the Equal Protection Clause basically mandating equal treatment under the law. I think Thomas can definitely strike down the due process aspect of these decisions, but the 14th amendment argument still stands and would de facto preserve these rulings. Maybe not necessarily as rights, but basically still prohibit states from being able to ban gay marriage, sex, or interracial marriage.
Unless they wanted to ban all sex or marriage perhaps! :P
Though if we dive into the 9th amendment, maybe it could be argued that marriage is a right, and therefore could extent to same sex marriage being a right? Likewise with sexual relationships? Who knows, there’s perhaps a different avenue there for an implicit right under the 9th amendment + the Equal Protection Clause included.
except obergefell and lawrence aren’t equal rights. and gay marriage should be banned
That's cute
Also, the reliance interests in Obergefell and Loving are much stronger than the reliance interests in Roe (or Lawrence), so the justices have to defer to precedent more even if said precedent was wrongly decided.
Sadly I think you are correct from a legal standpoint. Nobody ever thought it was necessary to legally define what marriage was until it was too late.
With respect to 'evidence proving a prisoners innocence' DAs and judges are far too invested in 'respecting the system,' they need to be more concerned in actually finding the truth.
Edit: On reflection I can see that could be misinterpreted. The investigation of a person has to respect the system, police can't trample your rights. But a judge should be allowed any shortcut necessary to retry cases with exonerating evidence.
I wish we had germanys model for Supreme Court justices.
Mr Beat will you do a video on single payer health care systems vs ours
He doesn't need to. Everyone knows US healthcare doesn't work and Europe's model is superior. It's kind of a joke actually.
Thanks for the suggestion
@@iammrbeat If you do. Please include projections of insolvency 2028. How much we waste a year to fraud, waste and abuse, $60 billion dollars and why, because the government doesn’t care to be efficient like a business would be with taxpayer money. Also explain that Medicare isn’t free. $170/mo for Part B plus more in taxes called IRMAA. Also, explain that we have Medicaid, so we already have a safety net in our country. Explain the supplement plans afforded in these other countries and recent issues Canada has been having…or just have me help you with your video and bring on someone who actually disagrees with you and have a real debate. Lets see who has a stronger argument? Up for the challenge?