I’m predisposed to be against Pelosi so take that with a grain of salt. I did understand what was in the bill and I didn’t like it, and still don’t. So when she made that statement I interpreted that to be her calling detractors stupid, or at best, being incredibly condescending.
But you’re not calling her wrong. 
Wasn’t the *real *condescension from the people *spreading *all the smoke and mirrors and lies? That’s who thought the Republican base wasd dumb enough to believe it, not the side that said they were smart enough to grasp the truth eventually.
I can see why you’d find Pelosi’s comments insulting! That makes sense. But I think you’re in the minority in having grokked her message.
AFAICT, the most popular interpretation of “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” is something like “we won’t even tell you what the bill says until it passes – it’s a secret, nyah nyah. Choke on our secret bill!”
Which is dishonest when pushed by people who know better, but – like the best lies – plausible, given her phrasing.
I get what you’re saying, but “you’ll see the light in the fullness of time,” like some religious evangelist preaching to the heathen, would be pretty darn condescending – and was not really Pelosi’s message either! She laid out benefits of the bill in some detail, and basically said “these things’ll happen if it passes – you’ll see.”
Time has proven her right - as people find out what ACA really does, despite the campaign of lies, it really has become so popular as to be embedded as a right. That’s what she predicted, however clumsily worded.
You’d think people would be angry at the liars, not at those who patiently kept pointing out the lies, but people are highly illogical.
But you weren’t her target audience for that. The point was not “people who oppose this bill are stupid”. Lemme ask you - did you believe Obamacare had death panels? No? Then you’re not really who Pelosi was talking about.
Does a way even exist to tell someone they’re being lied to that can’t be taken as condescending etc.?
Ignorance is hard to fight when it’s embraced so tenaciously as it has been lately.
I partly agree with that and I partly don’t. The problem to me is that the government is involved on the regulatory end - and I would argue that there is at least some degree of regulatory capture by the AMA as well as by the pharmaceutical industry. So, to me, the government, to some extent, is involved in significantly limiting healthcare options by highly regulating who can provide healthcare as well as by suppressing other free market forces that would allow for supply and demand curves to fall at a more natural equilibrium that would make healthcare affordable to a much larger portion of the population.
If you look at much less wealthy countries, they are able to provide service at much lower cost - for many reasons, and there is also the fact that medical tourism is a thing.
Therefore, I see these arguments such as “government should not be providing healthcare” as lopsided and narrow, somewhat Randian in the narrow-mindedness even.
No, sir, I did not. The only specific argument I made was based on the equal justice clause, but I did not say that it was the only basis for my reasoning, and I certainly never (never!) said that all cases of inequality are violations of the EJC. The example you gave – six-year-old children getting married – is so absurd, you can’t possibly imagine that ANYONE here actually believes in it.
By and large, sure. I reserve the right (as noted in this an other threads) to disagree with the outcome. I absolutely reserve (and exercise!) the right to condemn certain individual dumb-as-shit justices (you know, the kind of believe in creationism) as unfitted to their bench and detriments to the system.
But, yeah, I kinda like the existing system of appeals, and, since appeals can’t go on forever, I support the concept of a Supreme Court. I like the check/balance against legislative over-reach.
… the “equal justice” clause?
Correct, but I can imagine that many people here propose a simple formula in response to what they see as an easy question without considering how that simple formula might be applied to other questions.
In other words, I can easily imagine you saying, about same-sex marriage, “It’s easy: equal protection!” without worrying about someone taking those words and applying them to other proposals.
That’s the challenge of the law, though. We agree in advance on what the rules are and then apply them as written, as opposed to simply deciding each new question based on our desired outcomes. That’s why we do NOT analyze same-sex marriage by saying, “Equal protection!” We have built a framework of how Equal Protection analysis must work in practice, and it does not start or end with the observation that all must be equal.
Instead, we observe that the Clause is intended to prevent racial discrimination, and we analyze any laws that treat races differently must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. And that laws that treat genders differently are also disfavored, but less so, because we still acknowledge situations in which the genders should be treated differently, so we analyze those laws under a more forgiving standard: the law must advance an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
Finally, we analyze any classification that doesn’t meet the “fundamental liberty” or “suspect classification” tests like the examples in the prior paragraphs by simply asking if the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
So it’s meaningless to point at the Equal Protection Clause as though the answer to your question is found in the word “equal.”
One problem is that you chose an absurd example.
Can you point to an example that someone might actually believe in? Can you make your point without something as inane as six year old children getting married?
Equal protection is sufficient to justify overturning laws that ban interracial marriage, or laws that ban same sex marriage.
Equal protection is not sufficient to justify marriage of six year old children.
Do you have anything in the grey zone in between? Can you make a point that isn’t built largely of straw?
And – here’s the kicker – even if you do – it does not make what I wrote incorrect in any way! Equal protection is sufficient to justify overturning those specific laws. It doesn’t need a footnote nor an appendix. Various states tried to pass laws prohibiting the exercise of civil rights on the basis of race, and were shot out of the saddle. Various states tried to pass laws prohibiting the exercise of civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation, and were shot out of the saddle.
This is a perfectly good and valid use of the equal justice clause, and that was what I said in the post that you chose to take issue with.
Sorry, sloppy writing. Equal protection. “Equal Justice Under Law” is one of the guiding principles of our legal system, and so it is a phrase that comes easily to the typewriter’s fingers. It’s engraved on the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building.
It’s a little like invoking “Separation of Church and State” as a synonym for the establishment clause.
Thank’ee for catching it.
Respectfully, your characterization of Bricker’s argument as being “made of straw,” coupled with the statements above, suggests that you haven’t understood what he’s getting at.
Your claim quoted above boils down to “equal protection requires this, but it does not require that.” And Bricker’s point, simply speaking, is how can we tell? Invoking “equal protection” doesn’t by itself avail you, because we still need an interpretive framework, a set of guidelines by which we can decide what “equal protection” means in practice.
The guidelines you would have us use tell you that the equal protection clause is sufficient to overturn laws that ban same sex marriage on the one hand but is insufficient to overturn laws that ban marrying children on the other. This is not an unreasonable position, but it doesn’t answer the question Bricker originally asked:
In your case above, the actual principles were (a) equal protection, plus (b) whatever principles you used to decide what equal protection entails.
I’m no legal expert, but I would have thought it relevant that banning child marriage serves a legitimate (and obvious) state interest – protecting children – whereas banning interracial marriage or same-sex marriage serves no such purpose. (Didn’t one of Kennedy’s decisions on same-sex marriage say something about this – that animus towards a group of people isn’t a legitimate justification for such a restriction?)
May a state deny voting rights to a felon while he’s in prison? That treats people-in-prison unequally to people-not-in-prison.
Maya state deny voting rights to a felon after he’s released? That treats people-once-convicted-of-a-felony unequally to people-never-convicted-of-a-felony.
May a state forbid firearm sales to a felon after he’s released? That also treats people-once-convicted-of-a-felony unequally to people-never-convicted-of-a-felony.
May a state refuse a business license to an alcohol seller if he’s within 1000 feet of a school? That treats people-who-sell-alcohol-near-schools unequally to people-who-sell-alcohol-farther-from-schools.
I’m asking for what you believe the decision-making framework is. Each of those examples are areas where reasonable people disagree. It’s the same question as the six-year-old marriage, except for the reasonable people disagreement part. But whether reasonable people disagree has no bearing on the basic question: what is your method of knowing which cases deserve "equal"protection?
But since you cannot understand that kind of hypothetical, I have given you others. So what’s the answer? What are the rules for determining when people must be treated equally?
Ah. I assumed that was what you meant but thought I might have missed something.
Can a state prevent 3 people from marrying?
Isn’t it obvious? People must be treated equally at all times, unless it’s one of the times that **Trinopus **feels that people shouldn’t be treated equally. Pretty sure that’s in one of the Amendments.
You realize, I hope, that there are many cultures in the world where six-year-old children are either allowed to marry or are betrothed to marry? And we are welcoming country. We let people from all different cultures come here. Even some home-grown groups advocate for child marriages. Who are you to tell those people that their idea are “absurd”? Sorry, but “some people” actually do accept child marriages. In fact, you might be surprised at how young some US states still permit people to be when they get married.