3 ms·

Baker: there were a number of reasons I believe SCOTUS punted on the case. (1) it was founded on a bad initial ruling and they would rather have a cleaner cut

by kyrra 8y ago

Baker: there were a number of reasons I believe SCOTUS punted on the case. (1) it was founded on a bad initial ruling and they would rather have a cleaner cut case to actually evaluate. (2) It originated in 2014, before the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case (that allowed gay marriage). So Colorado didn't even allow gay marriage yet. With the above 2 points, it complicated their ruling to be able to set a larger precedent. Travel Ban: Korematsu was about American citizens being detained, and as the majority said was a horrible ruling the day it was set. The travel ban is going after countries that are unable to vet their citizens that were trying to travel to the US (non-US citizens). US Citizens are able to apply to get around the ban. Also, there were a few countries on the list that were not Muslim majority countries (Venezuela, North Korea, and Chad). The law outlined ways for countries to get off the list, which Chad succeeded in doing.

fzeroracer 8y ago
For the first: your facts of the case are wrong. It originated in 2012 and in 2014 Colorado allowed for same-sex marriage. However that's irrelevant to the case because even though same-sex marriage was not allowed, Colorado had the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prior which prevented businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things. Saying it was a bad initial case is outright wrong considering the facts they make up in their ruling. The travel ban is also incredibly racist. North Korea being on the list doesn't matter because North Korea rarely allows people to travel to the United States and the Venezuelan ban only bars a few high-level officials. Those countries added to the list are an excuse for the government to say 'look we're not racist we have non-Muslim countries on the list!' while the rest have little to no actual security rationale behind it.

by kyrra 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

For the first: your facts of the case are wrong. It originated in 2012 and in 2014 Colorado allowed for same-sex marriage. However that's irrelevant to the case because even though same-sex marriage was not allowed, Colorado had the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prior which prevented businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things. Saying it was a bad initial case is outright wrong considering the facts they make up in their ruling. The travel ban is also incredibly racist. North Korea being on the list doesn't matter because North Korea rarely allows people to travel to the United States and the Venezuelan ban only bars a few high-level officials. Those countries added to the list are an excuse for the government to say 'look we're not racist we have non-Muslim countries on the list!' while the rest have little to no actual security rationale behind it.