tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post111148052391516271..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: Equal Protection Under the Law...Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1111554853123997122005-03-23T00:14:00.000-05:002005-03-23T00:14:00.000-05:00This seems more then anything like a cookie for th...This seems more then anything like a cookie for the Evangelical base. All the legal experts have said that the Fed. Court will almost certainly tell the parents to get lost. The R's must have known when they were drafting the law that the chances of fed court ruling their way were pretty low.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1111519866268345592005-03-22T14:31:00.000-05:002005-03-22T14:31:00.000-05:00BTW, what Rosen said that the precedent for this s...BTW, what Rosen said that the precedent for this sort of matter (special cases of bills giving benefits to someone, as opposed to "broad policy", whoever that soundbite was from ad naseum yesterday) was decided on during Reconstruction, when the Court decided to back down on a number of cases regarding such bills giving benefits. He cited as an example his con law prof, who talked about how his parents were allowed to stay in the US by such a law. This is why it seems to me that such Congressional action is already considered constitutional.<BR/><BR/>agmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1111519550008520002005-03-22T14:25:00.000-05:002005-03-22T14:25:00.000-05:00I generally agree with Nick, or, at least I did be...I generally agree with Nick, or, at least I did before listening to ATC yesterday. Jeffrey Rosen was discussing the constitutionality of rewards/benefits, and he pointed out that the Supreme Court has fairly regularly decided that benefits are perfectly fine while bills of attainder/punishment are not, making Will's statement an insufficiently stark contrast. Either it's a punishment, which is verbotten, or it's a benefit, making it perfectly constitutional*. I don't really see that there's a third option, at least not considering the way that this is winding it's way through the courts and then counting the overlap with Congress's meddling.<BR/><BR/>*disclaimer: not a law student, just someone applying some logic to what was stated, perhaps in a manner too simplified for this bear of little brain to realize<BR/><BR/>agmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1111514482134172452005-03-22T13:01:00.000-05:002005-03-22T13:01:00.000-05:00hmm, I strongly disagree.Giving special rights to ...hmm, I strongly disagree.<BR/><BR/>Giving special rights to one group is as egregious as denying special rights to one group. They're identical. That's like saying, "discrimination wasn't hurting black people, it was just helping white people" and had the discrimination laws been written more cleverly, they should have succeeded.<BR/><BR/>Whether the line does indeed help or harm, there must be a rational reason for drawing the line in the first place. Find me one here.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14363311128428661742noreply@blogger.com