I promised Poitin and company that I would respond to their posts, so here we go. (Bear with me, this post is rather long, but I think it is worth reading.)
The original thread may be found here: NW Refuses Gay Couple's Award Tickets (by ChiGB1973 Feb 12 2006 in Civil Aviation)#158
Last time on a.net, Poitin said:
OH, what about the case I cited. In fact, it goes far beyond that, it says it's none of the government's GODDAMN business. Whether or not you agree with Lawence is besides the point. It is current US consititutional law. As for Scalia, he is my legal god, but not the law. What matters is FIVE (5).
As for Equal protection, I said it was CONSISTANT WITH equal protection. That was a statement that it would be hard to attack. If you can not read legal statements when you see them, then you will have a hard time at the bar examine. READ THE WORDS!
You're not a lawyer. For one, I didn't expect you to give a "legal statement", and second, I don't normally give credit to those who claim to write a "legal statement" when they consistently get the law wrong. Please accept my apologies.
In any event, what the hell does "consistent with" equal protection mean? Are you making an argument by analogy? If so, you should say so. But even if so, why use Lawrence, a case where they expressly denied the Equal Protection claim? Substantive due process is about fundamental rights. Equal protection is about equal protection. Unfortunate as it is, there is no equal protection based on sexual orientation in the United States under the 14th Amendment.
Getting back to the point, you have not shown that NW has any claim in any court other than California's courts under California law. NW is in deep trouble.
Northwest isn't the party requiring the claim!! Simple first year civil procedure: NW is the defendant, Anders is the plaintiff. It is Anders' responsibility to find a claim, not NW's. This case would be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6), "Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
There is no interstate commerce issue here. ...
The plane was not going. It was parked on the ground. They were refused entry onto the plane while is was still parked on the ground in California, against California law. Where is the interstate commerce issue? Boy, do you need to go back to law school if you ever were there. And no, I do not teach law. I am retired.
Insults aside, first off, it is clear that if you went to law school, which I doubt, you did not go in the US, and you have never practiced here. It is first year law school learning that Congress's control in interstate commerce reaches much futher than the actual flight. (Otherwise, the FAA would have almost no power, for example.)
Sample readings to help you understand constitutional commerce, and what Congress may regulate, and what states may not:
Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978) (Dormant commerce clause)
U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (Defining Interstate Commerce)
U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Defining Interstate Commerce)
When you read these cases, I would suggest reading not just the first and last paragraphs, but the middle as well.
So what federal law was offended? You have never answered that issue.
I've mentioned previously, but I will say it again:
The power of Congress to regulate federal taxes and interstate commerce is plenary (look it up), and as such, if it is controlled and regulated by Congress (which it is via the NLRA, FAA and the DOT), then no state may control it. Do not make the mistake of looking to a single specific law. It is the power of congress that is offended. And since taxes are involved, you can point to the single tax statutes as well. (Namely, the ones concerning employer fringe benefits.)
For those of you wondering about our next legal beagle D L X, I looked up his two US Supreme court cases. I am still laughing. I stopped what I was going to do to share them with you.
These are his GENDER discrimination cases
Craig v. Boren (The Thirsty Boys Case): 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
CRAIG ET AL. v. BOREN, GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Appellant Craig, a male then between 18 and 21 years old, and appellant Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that an Oklahoma statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18 constituted a gender-based discrimination that denied to males 18-20 years of age the equal protection of the laws.
We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in Okla. Stat., Tit. 37, 245 (1976 Supp.) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20 23 and reverse the judgment of the District Court. 24
RIGHT! BOYS CAN GET AS DRUNK AS GIRLS!!!
And this is his second. PLEASE NOTICE THAT IS A JUSTICE GINSBERG DECISON.
United States v. Virginia (The VMI Women Case): 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
Founded in 1839, VMI is today the sole single sex school among Virginia's 15 public institutions of higher learning. VMI's distinctive mission is to produce "citizen soldiers," men prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service. VMI pursues this mission through pervasive training of a kind not available anywhere else in Virginia. Assigning prime place to character development, VMI uses an "adversative method" modeled on English public schools and once characteristic of military instruction. VMI constantly endeavors to instill physical and mental discipline in its cadets and impart to them a strong moral code. The school's graduates leave VMI with heightened comprehension of their capacity to deal with duress and stress, and a large sense of accomplishment for completing the hazardous course.
For the reasons stated, the initial judgment of the Court of Appeals, 976 F. 2d 890 (CA4 1992), is affirmed, the final judgment of the Court of Appeals, 44 F. 3d 1229 (CA4 1995), is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
D L X, you are very lucky that you never showed up in my court. I suggest you read the bloody law. Maybe you can understand it if you do.
What getting drunk and playing soldiers has to do with discrimination of the sort that has happen with NW is beyond me.
And Scalia is my legal god, but he is not the law. Remember that.
I quoted it in its entirety so you and the rest of the readers would see everything in context. But, what we see here is Poitin taking the two seminal cases in Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment, and laughing at them as unimportant. Four things are important here: 1) Poitan has cut and pasted the first and last paragraphs of the cases, both abour 20-some pages long. I have to wonder if he read the middle pages, because, 2) if Poitin were a lawyer, he would have known these were the two seminal cases, as he would have been tested on them in school and perhaps even in the courtroom. 3) If Poitin were a lawyer, he would have at least been able to determine that the cases were supremely important and contained deep reaching doctrine. 4) Poitin is clearly not a lawyer. As such, I am not terribly concerned about showing up in his court.
Poitin's basic problem is that he does not understand what Equal Protection is. That's COMPLETELY understandable, because in my opinion, it's all messed up from a century of litigation in the Anglo-American common law system. Currently, there are three categories for examining Equal Protection, and I'll try to explain real quick what it took almost 3 years to teach:
Top level - Strict Scrutiny. These are cases concerning race mostly, and under that, it's mostly about affirmative action. Voting rights also shows up here. Basically, if the government wants to discriminate based on race, the legal rule is that it has to have a DAMN good reason (called a "compelling state interest"), and the discrimination must be extremely closely tied to the interest. (This is called "narrow tailoring.") These cases are extremely hard to win.
Mid level - Intermediate Scrutiny. These are the cases involving gender, and maybe rights of religious groups. Here, if the government wants to discriminate based on gender, the legal rule is that it has to have a pretty good reason, and the discrimination has to be "substantially" related to the interest. These cases are not so hard to win, but aren't easy either.
Lowest level - Rational Basis. These are basically every other kind of case, and at least currently, includes gay rights. Here, if the government wants to discriminate, the legal rule is that it only has to come of with a rational reason to make that discrimination, and the only limit on what the government can do is based on making sure the government isn't doing it out of hatred. So, the government can deny gay marriage (under Equal Protection!!) if they come up with a reason that is something other than "because we hate gays." The usual reason is "because gays can't make a baby."
Oh and by the way, you can support Scalia if it pleases you, but don't think for a second that an opinion written by Ginsburg carries any less weight than an opinion written by your "legal god" (who happens to be Ginsburg's best friend).
In case anyone was wondering, I am a third year law student at a top 10 law school. I don't say this to brag, but although I am by no means perfect, I do know what I am talking about, and have been published for what I have thought. I hope you found this informative.