Talk:Substantive due process

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BillBuck (Talk | contribs) at 01:00, 7 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process." --I am mightily inmpressed! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Loving v Virginia

Why is there a long discussion of this case, when it didn't even involve substantive due process? One line of dicta does not justify it. RSchlafly 19:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-AmesGyo! 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Then describe the SDP cases, whatever that is. The Loving case is irrelevant, and should be deleted. RSchlafly 20:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Agree with Roger here.....unless you can come up with some citation or whatever to show relevancy. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

My block just expired. I had planned to work on this article before I was blocked without cause. But, the last paragraph of Loving actually says "we could reach the same decision on substantive due process grounds." That's very important. You don't toss in lines in SC decisions without cause. Griswold then cites Loving, saying that it's proof that substantive due process didn't die out when Lochner did. Very relevant.-BillBuck 20:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Bill Buck. But they didn't, did they? Your continued lies about being blocked for no reason is more than reason enough for me to block you. Please be productive, if you are indeed here to be so, and stop picking fights. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:58, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, please read Loving, then read Griswold, then read Lawrence, and get back to me when you've seen the actual effect Loving had on all of them. Until you do, you don't know what you're talking about. We learned about this in my discrimination law class. The guy who wrote this page got it right. You don't get to just say, "that sounds wrong" without actually reading the case at issue. Please.-BillBuck 21:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)