With Gore, I suppose, if you are a property owner, a fetus, straight, or religious, you are then equally screwed? I’m not sure I entirely follow your argument here.
Um, no. That is not my argument.
If religion is an important part of your life and you don’t seek to impose it on others by means of public posting of the 10C, prayer in schools, etc, then you will be no more persecuted than you were thirty years ago under a liberal court.
If you are straight, then I really don’t see that you are about to lose your rights under any administration.
Don’t even get me started on a fetus, jmullaney. It is too inflammatory.
Let me put this as simply as possible. If you are in the majority, you aren’t in much danger. States’ rights is code for majoritarianism. The federal government does not make it a practice of shitting on the majority of its electorate when it has its work cut out for it protecting a minimum of minority rights.
Trust me, jmullaney, you will be fine no matter who is president.
MR
Why wouldn’t a strict constructionalist be against state endorsed religion? Am I missing something?
OK, sure. What other minorities conservatives claim to care about don’t count with you either? The richest one percent? Aren’t they a minority? Aren’t the Boy Scouts a minority? Gun owners? You make it sound like we’ll turn into Iran if Bush is elected!
If you are living in a state that doesn’t have a bill of rights in it’s constitution, you should see what you can do about it!
I would say your view of federalism is a code for special rights for “special” people for as long as they can hold a coalition together. If you give special rights to one group, you have to take away rights from another. Sometimes there is no clear distinction which is which, like in abortion, but trying to claim this and others are “minority” rights issues is preposterous.
I have no idea what your point is. Strict constructionists allow states and communities to oppress religious minorities by enforcing prayer in schools, the posting of the ten commandments in public spaces, etc. What don’t you understand?
Perhaps I don’t want to argue with you about fetuses because I think your definition of when life begins is probably preposterous yet I do not wish to offend you?
You would like to believe that I think we would turn into a theocracy if Bush were elected because it would be convenient and easy for you to dismiss me as an alarmist.
But you are wrong. I do not think we will turn into Iran. I think that certain people will suffer at certain times, and that the civil equality many of us have fought for will be in jeopardy in certain areas.
I do. It’s called restricting what the majority can do to me.
And this, dear friends, is why I have such a distaste for most conservatives.
RIGHTS ARE NOT ZERO SUM!
You don’t have to hold on to your little piece of the pie, terrified lest a colored gay should come along and take away your special rights! You don’t lose anything by not being able to oppress those who believe differently than you. How you don’t think these are minority issues defies me utterly.
Well then, pro choicers don’t have much of a problem since they are in the majority.
I thought constructionists went by the letter of the law, although I must admit Webster’s has a lousy definition. The Bill of Rights is still a part of the Constitution, IIRC.
Can you cite an example?
RIGHTS CAN BE ZERO SUM.
If I’m the Boy Scouts, and I don’t want to hire someone whose behavior I find to be morally wrong, that is my right. I would indeed lose something if I’m forced to act otherwise.
If I’m gay, I should have the right to not be discriminated against because of it, and that is my right too. I also would lose something if denied that.
Can’t you see there is no win/win solution?
Believe it or not, there are many less Boy Scouts than there are homosexuals, yet you think, arbitrarily, the rights of one of these minorities outweighs the rights of the other. OK, so maybe the Boy Scouts are wrong – but they are a semi-religious organization and maybe that does give them some rights. I think their policy is stupid, but there is nothing stopping another organization coming along and one upping them.
Some issues are more clear cut, of course.
You should live in a country where there are more parties than will fit on the page, like France. That’s a true democracy.
Nader just picked the wrong third party.
If he’d been a better politician, he could have beaten Buchannan for a big wad of third party ad budget.
Ralph will be speaking at a local college today and I’m goin!
He said, and I agree, he is not taking votes away from Al Gore, Gore is doing that himself!
Look at the record.
He’s been vice president for 8 years with a booming economy et. al. and still is slightly behind GWB?
Gore is hurting Gore, not Ralph.
Gads, man, read my posts.
Maeglin wrote:
jmullaney, I don’t think you understand this. Strict constructionists believe that if it is not explicitly in the Constitution, the federal government can’t touch it. If you have read the Bill of Rights recently, you would notice that there is no mysterious Nth Amendment which prohibits prayer in schools. So to Scalia or Thomas, prayer in schools is just fine, even though it directly conflicts with the spirit of the first amendment, separation of church and state.
The right to privacy is not explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Do you believe that the federal government should be powerless to prohibit local institutions from violating privacy?
I don’t.
Has Bush been elected yet? Come on, man. I’m not precognitory.
Wrong again, jmullaney. The Boy Scouts meets on public property. It receives public funds. It has a charter from the US Congress. It is my belief, and the belief of many others, that the Scouts is thus bound by federal anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, etc.
If you are not entitled to discriminate in the first place, then you aren’t losing anything. Privelege is zero sum, rights are not.
Dunno about that. He did not want to risk Perot stepping in and taking the nomination away from him. I remember we all had our fingers crossed last month, when Perot could have robbed Buchanan at any time.
Nader has also said that there is very little difference between the two candidates, a lie so stupid and cynical that it could only be directed at disgusted, uninformed voters. Even twelve of Nader’s campaign managers begged him to step down and endorse Gore.
I used to respect Nader tremendously. Until he ran for president. Now I can hardly believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I expect that with mainstream politicians, but Nader was supposed to keep clean.
IMHO, he has failed miserably.
Not to mention his millions of dollars invested in CISCO, a company he constantly disparrages and litigates against.
MR
True. This one slipped my mind. Though I find it less than surprising (and refreshing) that the SC would be unanimous in finding that the actions of a sitting president are bound by the same laws as other citizens.
Given a choice, I’d like to see the court move SLIGHTLY more to the right – but still remain centrist. So much of the last 40 years has been under the reign of a leftist court and I have no desire to return to those days.
I don’t know why you think this is the “spirit” of the first amendment and not the letter of it. I think the first ammendment is fairly clear to me.
Unlawful search and seizure is. Maybe peeping-tomism should be left up to the states – it hardly seems like a federal concern.
So you don’t think people who meet on public property should have the freedom to assemble with whom they choose? What’s next – integrating blacks into KKK rallies? The KKK must be forced to admit blacks because they meet on public property? Yeah, right. Not in this country. Having to put up with wackos is the price of freedom, MR.
This from the ruling:
Makes sense to me.
The charter, BTW, is largely symbolic and you know that. That is why I hate debating left winger – you know you are lying through your teeth and don’t care. The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization.
That wasn’t even an issue in this case.
The freedom of assembly is not a privelege, nor is the freedom of speech. But I supose this shows once again we each just value some rights over others as must be done in a free society.
I can’t think of any major issues where Bush and Gore have a serious difference of opinion.
I’m really ambivalent. Both sides have their pros and cons, obviously. I care a great deal about civil rights and separation of church and state, both of which tend to languish under a rightist court. However, I am all for reducing the impact of the federal government in our daily lives, and I would like to strike down nanny government in the US, more typical of a rightist court.
I wasn’t living under the court 40 years ago, so I don’t exactly have a frame of reference. I just know what I care about and I see it divided cleanly between the two sides. Right now civil rights seem more important to me, but who knows how I will feel in six months, or even a year.
MR
I should add, maybe you don’t know you are trying to falsely imply the Boy Scouts are somehow a federal organization, but the people who told you that probably did. I apologize for randomly mauling your character – you might only be gullible. Sorry either way.
Well, apparently it isn’t so clear to communities who wish to impose their religion on others or even to the Supreme Court. If you consider yourself an authority, perhaps you should write a few letters.
Don’t be a dumbass. Look at anti-sodomy laws, still on the books in numerous states. Yes, I know they are usually used to bolster cases against rapists and child abusers, but they can and have been used against consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
Sure, the right to have oral sex may not be in the Constitution, but do you really think states have the prerogative to legislate against this sort of thing?
jmullaney, you have a tendency to use such unanalogous counterexamples to shore up your side without actually using any reasoning.
The KKK does not meet in your school.
The KKK does not receive federal funding.
The president of the United States is not the honorary president of the KKK.
The KKK is not held up to be a righteous, wholesome, nationwide activity for boys which fosters civics, morals, and general decency.
And the real kicker…
Blacks do not want to join the KKK!
Perhaps a closer analogy would have been the Irish on St. Patrick’s Day who won’t let gay groups march in the parade. Gays can march like anyone else, but no gay groups. This, of course, is a much more borderline case.
But the Boy Scouts is not.
Rudyard Kipling justified horrible discrimination in ways that made sense to millions of people. This is the same thing. I am sure the Boy Scouts used the same logic to deny blacks admittance.
What exactly am I lying about? You made my point for me! The charter is symbolic. Symbolic of the US government’s approval of the goals and methods of the organization! Where exactly am I lying through my teeth?
This is precisely the same logic that has justified discrimination in every case, from white-only country clubs to white-only jobs. And people are buying it, again and again.
I rest my case.
jmullaney wrote:
[Resisting urge to engage in ad hominem attack…]
A few areas where Gore and Bush differ:
- Abortion.
- Enforcement of environmental regulations.
- Oil drilling in wilderness areas.
- Logging roads in National Forests.
- Proper utilization of our military forces.
- Payment of the national debt versus pandering tax cut.
- Appointment of “strict constructionist” judges versus judges who value civil liberties and civil rights.
And the list could go on, but I get tired of responding to the Big Lie…
Oh, I think you are right. But I take Bush at his word when he says he will appoint strict contructionists who aren’t going to legistlate from the bench. The state can’t condone a religion in school without stomping on others first ammendment rights.
I really don’t think these laws are enforced. But again, I don’t think this is a federal issue outside of, perhaps, pursuit of happiness. I don’t know how many of these laws have been appealed to the Supremes.
Social mores? I don’t know. Yeah, there are some laws from 25 or more years ago against sodomy. Hey, why can’t I have sex with a fourteen year old? Society frowns upon it, basically. Maybe in another 30 years, we’d be arguing about that. Isn’t the idea that people magically reach the age of consent at 16/17/18 depending on state, and some can consent to marriage before they can consent to sex? OTOH, I think laws, silly or unenforcible as they may be, may occasionally just hold out a public standard.
Is spitting gum on the sidewalk freedom of speech? Maybe, but I hate stepping on gum.
I don’t see why they couldn’t if they wanted to, though. Why should they have less rights than the Scouts?
Hey, you want to stop federal funding to them? Me too. Just because the government donates money to a group, doesn’t mean they automatically get to control what they say. But that wasn’t an issue in the case.
I’m sure the KKK could appoint him such if they wished. Not much he could do about it.
I think they’d definitely disagree with you there.
Well duh! Why in the heck to gays want to join the boy scouts? Does that make any more sense?
Look, if you don’t want the kid from down the street to play in your treehouse, by golly, the federal government doesn’t have a right to make you change your mind. Maybe the kid who has the tree house is racist. Well, that’s too bad since this is a free country. You can’t pass a law that makes people be nice to eachother.
Is it renewed or are you talking about something that happened 80 years ago? Yeah, I guess the US gov. in 1920 approved of the Boy Scouts.
Yep. It is a free country. Try to get used to it.
Huh? So Gore is against the Bill of Rights, right?
There isn’t a chance we are going to agree on anything regarding these issues. Your viewpoint is so utterly alien to mine, and vice versa, that this discussion is not really going anywhere. I would be happy, of course, to continue all the same.
But they are condoning it. Strict constructionists refuse to legislate from the bench, hence they do not interfere when states or communities pass laws which threaten the separation of church and state. If you don’t beleive me, I would be happy to dredge up Scalia and Thomas’ voting records on this issue.
They certainly are enforced. They are a convenient method for homophobic communities to put the squeeze on local gays. I do not recall when they have been tried before the Supreme Court, but I know that they have gone before state supreme courts.
Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape? Here’s some more rope, go find a nice tree.
And tagging private property is freedom of speech, but you can’t do it anyway. Blowing up the Murrah Federal Building was also exercising freedom of speech. More jmullaney analogies that only distract from the real issue.
Your freedom of speech does not extend so far that it inhibits someone else’s rights.
Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution the right to assemble in a school at local expense is located.
If the Boy Scouts accept the money, it tacitly demonstrates that the government condones their activities. When you invest in a company or give money to a political candidate, it is an expression of support.
Just because a snippet of the majority opinion does not consider it important does not mean that I shouldn’t.
Let’s se…try this one on for size. He doesn’t have to accept it, maybe?
They can call him the honorary president all they want, but that would not change the fact that he has refused the signal honor of spearheading the KKK.
<sigh> But the government doesn’t support them. Gee, haven’t we heard this before.
Am I the only one who cannot believe that he just said this?
Another famous analogy.
Guess what? It’s not just a free country for the racist. It is also a free country for the victim of racism. So the Boy Scouts can hide behind their transparent claims of being private all they like, but a lot of people, namely, half the Supreme Court, know better. And it’s bloody not a free country for the gay man who wishes to be a leader in an organization sanctioned by state and federal government.
MR
There isn’t a chance we are going to agree on anything regarding these issues. Your viewpoint is so utterly alien to mine, and vice versa, that this discussion is not really going anywhere. I would be happy, of course, to continue all the same.
But they are condoning it. Strict constructionists refuse to legislate from the bench, hence they do not interfere when states or communities pass laws which threaten the separation of church and state. If you don’t beleive me, I would be happy to dredge up Scalia and Thomas’ voting records on this issue.
They certainly are enforced. They are a convenient method for homophobic communities to put the squeeze on local gays. I do not recall when they have been tried before the Supreme Court, but I know that they have gone before state supreme courts.
Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape? Here’s some more rope, go find a nice tree.
And tagging private property is freedom of speech, but you can’t do it anyway. Blowing up the Murrah Federal Building was also exercising freedom of speech. More jmullaney analogies that only distract from the real issue.
Your freedom of speech does not extend so far that it inhibits someone else’s rights.
Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution the right to assemble in a school at local expense is located.
If the Boy Scouts accept the money, it tacitly demonstrates that the government condones their activities. When you invest in a company or give money to a political candidate, it is an expression of support.
Just because a snippet of the majority opinion does not consider it important does not mean that I shouldn’t.
Let’s se…try this one on for size. He doesn’t have to accept it, maybe?
They can call him the honorary president all they want, but that would not change the fact that he has refused the signal honor of spearheading the KKK.
<sigh> But the government doesn’t support them. Gee, haven’t we heard this before.
Am I the only one who cannot believe that he just said this?
Another famous analogy.
Guess what? It’s not just a free country for the racist. It is also a free country for the victim of racism. So the Boy Scouts can hide behind their transparent claims of being private all they like, but a lot of people, namely, half the Supreme Court, know better. And it’s bloody not a free country for the gay man who wishes to be a leader in an organization sanctioned by state and federal government.
Obviously they still do. The motion to revoke the charter was quashed. I think only 3 members of Congress voted for it.
You’d better get used to the fact that it is not free only for those in priveleged classes or traditionally advantaged groups. It’s free for everyone.
Does anyone think there is a team of trained monkeys typing on the keyboard of jmullaney’s computer?
MR
I’m just insistent that for a lot of 5/4 type descisions, there really are important rights in play for both parties. Painting one side as the embodiment of all that is wrong with America can be always done by the other side no matter which side you are on.
But look at the Dale versus Boy Scouts descision. If the majority opinion is typical of constructionists, then they clearly favored the Bill of Rights over the state’s law regarding public access. If this really meant the states could pass any law that undermined the BoRs because those ammendments might be seen to only apply to congress, I would agree with you whole heartedly. But I don’t think that is the contructionist position.
Never seen this in any community I’ve lived in. Never heard about such things anywhere on the evening news. I would think Dan Rather would be all over this. Or Clinton would be shaking his finger at these people. Something. Maybe my ignorance is my bliss but that somewhere right now gays are being run out of town on a rail because of some ancient sodomy law seems like an urban myth to me.
[quote]
Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape?
Why would gays want to join a homophobic organization?
No one said life was fair. As I said before, if someone wanted to organize a competing group in this same realm as the Scouts, I’m sure they could do so. If someone wanted to sue to keep this group out of the schools I’m sure they could do that too. The victims here have all sorts of options open to them. Mak snell!