HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gorsuch is the most radic... » Reply #34

Response to pbmus (Original post)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 11:23 PM

34. Read the article and you'll see how extreme this is

First, here's the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1432_7j8b.pdf

Minnesota statute 524.2-804 says: if you designated your spouse as the beneficiary of your life insurance policy and the two of you get divorced, that designation is nullified. (It also says you can voluntarily designate your ex as your beneficiary, and the procedure is not difficult.)

Mark Sveen married Kaye Melin in 1997. In 1998, Mr. Sveen bought a life insurance policy. The now-Mrs. Sveen was named as primary beneficiary and his two kids from a previous marriage were contingent beneficiaries. In 2007, the Sveens got divorced and Mr. Sveen died in 2011.

Ms. Melin argues that because the law hadn't been passed yet when the policy was purchased the Contracts Clause of the Constitution nullifies the law. All the justices who weren't nominated by our illegitimate president agreed that's not the way it works.

Gorsuch believes the Contracts Clause is absolute - any law that impairs a contract must be considered unconstitutional.

The problem with Gorsuch's stance is it effectively nullifies every law in existence.

Fun and easy - but extreme - example: I am a shopkeeper in Wall, South Dakota. I wish to sell marijuana to the public. I travel to Colorado and execute a contract with a cannabis farmer for ten tons of bulk cannabis flower per month to be delivered by a date certain. There are a vast number of laws I'd have to violate to enter into this business. Under the Gorsuch Doctrine, I could walk into court waving a copy of the contract and claim the drug laws of Wyoming, South Dakota and the federal government impair my contract with the pot farmer, and all those laws would be instantly erased.

Seriously though, any law on the books impairs someone's contract. Fortunately, the other eight justices didn't see things Gorsuch's way.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
pbmus Jun 11 OP
pandr32 Jun 11 #1
ProudLib72 Jun 11 #8
bucolic_frolic Jun 11 #9
ProudLib72 Jun 11 #11
bucolic_frolic Jun 11 #13
ProudLib72 Jun 11 #14
pandr32 Jun 11 #16
beachbum bob Jun 11 #2
triron Jun 11 #4
malaise Jun 11 #5
oasis Jun 11 #35
grantcart Jun 11 #3
hedda_foil Jun 11 #6
dhol82 Jun 11 #12
stuffmatters Jun 11 #19
dhol82 Jun 11 #20
hedda_foil Jun 11 #26
orangecrush Jun 11 #7
dhol82 Jun 11 #10
orangecrush Jun 11 #29
dhol82 Jun 11 #30
orangecrush Jun 11 #31
Raysawesome34 Jun 11 #15
GulfCoast66 Jun 11 #18
Raysawesome34 Jun 11 #25
GulfCoast66 Jun 11 #33
sinkingfeeling Jun 11 #22
Raysawesome34 Jun 11 #24
tritsofme Jun 11 #32
Snake Plissken Jun 11 #17
dhol82 Jun 11 #21
Snake Plissken Jun 11 #23
dhol82 Jun 11 #27
c-rational Jun 11 #28
LineNew Reply Read the article and you'll see how extreme this is
jmowreader Jun 11 #34
Please login to view edit histories.