McConnell has finally released DonTCare 3.0, but it’s pretty much still just as “mean” as the House bill they had the kegger to celebrate.
What does that have to do with 6-year-olds getting married? 
They’ll still have their Medicaid taken away, just not until after another couple of Senate elections.
According to this tweet: https://twitter.com/NishWeiseth/status/877910142058020865, pregnancy is a bar for certain benefits. That seems like it would be a killer talking point for those opposed to this bill – “This bill discriminates against pregnant women”.
Always a possibility, but his specific example – six year olds getting married – didn’t help make his point clear, because it is so obviously absurd.
I agree. No one here disagrees. No one has ever claimed otherwise. Nothing I ever said implies otherwise. I said that the equal protection (thank you Really Not All That Bright) clause was sufficient to overturn the ban on gay marriage. I never said it was sufficient to overturn all bans on laws that treat people unequally. There was no need to bring up that point in a challenging fashion, because the point in no way contradicts anything I said.
That isn’t something I can possibly answer. No one can! The Supreme Court itself will wrestle with this kind of question from now until the end of the Republic!
Tell me exactly how many hairs a man may still have on his head before he is no longer “bald.” Tell me exactly what “due process” means or what “negligence” means. No one can possibly do that.
Does that mean that due process and negligence may not be invoked in a chat-room debate, because the person using the terms cannot define them rigorously?
My post was in response to someone who repeated the rather tired claim that gays, by being allowed to marry, had somehow acquired a “new right,” and this is not true. They were given equal access to a right others already possessed.
That’s true. It also doesn’t need to be stated. (Otherwise, debates here would devolve into walls-of-text legalese boilerplate!) This is true for everything that anyone here says!
(I notice you opened your post with the word “respectfully.” Please tell me the exact degree of respect you intended, and whether any other person would find themselves agreeing with that exact degree of respect…)
(It’s a very dumb game, and not really worth playing!)
What’s particularly unfortunate here is that an interesting debate could come about where there are actually differences of agreement regarding equal protection. Affirmative Action laws are a particularly telling example.
Good examples. No problem. These are cases where the law gets to treat classes of persons unequally.
Once again, I never said – no one has ever said! – that “equal protection” must apply in every case of differences between classes of persons.
You’re arguing against a point I never made and in which I do not even believe!
Superb question. I’m doggoned if I know. Some day, the Supreme Court may weigh in, and then we’ll have an answer.
Unnecessarily snarky. The Supreme Court said that gays can get married; it wasn’t just my lone opinion, but that of the highest judicial court in the U.S.A.
You need the Supreme Court to tell you if people should be treated equally or not? That’s strange, since I can make that determination on my own. I guess you would have been for segregation until the Supreme Court told you it was wrong.
Deciding how to balance the various factors that go into any judgment is complicated, but if we’re to do a remotely competent job of it, we must be able to point to what those factors are. For example, tim314 correctly identified a second factor: society has an interest in protecting children, and pursuant to this interest we might wish to limit the effect of equal protection. So here we have two principles: on the one hand, equal protection means that people should be treated the same, and on the other, we believe that children should not always be treated the same as adults. How do we balance the tension between these two principles? We come up with a framework for doing so, and we follow, to the best of our ability, where that framework leads. Bricker summarized how this is done for our nation’s equal protection jurisprudence earlier. In this particular discussion, as I understand Bricker’s point, the question is whether you’re following the established framework, or using some other set of rules, or just making it up as you go along.
Now, even if we are following the established framework, it’s not necessarily easy to decide “is this a compelling government interest, or an important government interest, or a legitimate government purpose, or none of the above.” It’s not necessarily easy to decide whether a given law is narrowly tailored or not. But easy or not, once we agree on the principles and the framework for analyzing conflicts between them, at least we have grounds for productive discussion. In my case, I’m not convinced that denying a gay couple the right to marry serves even a legitimate government interest, so I’m inclined to agree with you that equal protection should be enough to overturn laws banning gay marriages. But if Bricker disagrees, at least we can see where the point of disagreement lies and go from there.
Stupid analogy: I say to-MAY-to, you say to-MAH-to. How do we decide who’s right? We might look to phonetic rules for English pronunciation (ha!) and try to deduce how those rules apply to the word “tomato.” We might look to etymology. We might take a survey and see what the consensus view is. We might just decide to flip a coin. But whatever set of rules we use – whatever framework we come up with – we can use that framework to guide the discussion and, ideally, reach a conclusion. If we can’t identify a framework, then about all we can conclude is that we disagree.
So the House has said they will vote for the bill as is.
RIP Medicaid.
In the context of this debate, we need some mechanism to tell us the boundaries of equality. As has been noted here, we do not permit six-year-old children to marry. This is obviously a violation of absolute and universal equal treatment.
No one believes in absolute and universal equality. We put criminals in prison, taking away their right to travel and to own property. We don’t let fourteen-year-old children vote in our elections (although there are a great many who would vote more responsibly than many adults.)
The Supreme Court is a convenience. It can make the decisions binding upon us all, even if we might happen to disagree with their rulings.
I, personally, would have been against segregation even before the Court ruled against it, just as I would have been against slavery even before the 13th amendment, and in spite of the Dred Scott decision, and just as I was in favor of gays’ right to marry before the court ruled on it.
Meanwhile, there are millions who disagree with Obergefell…and Roe…and even Brown vs. Board of Education. We are free, in this country. to think that particular Supreme Court rulings are mistaken.
Please do not attribute to me beliefs and opinions which are not actually my own: that’s a dishonest form of argument.
But can’t that be said about any of my examples? “Felons weren’t given a new right to own firearms after release. They were given equal access to a right others already possessed.”
And even “Six year olds weren’t given a new right to vote, but just equal access to a right others already possessed.”
I’m asking you what principles animate those decisions. So far as I can tell, you’ve just said that when it comes to same-sex marriage, you’re sure whatever principles are used produce the result “yes,” and when it comes to six-year olds’ voting or marriage the answer is unambiguously “no,” and for other questions, the courts will somehow decide. But you reserve the right to call the courts wrong if they disagree with you.
In what way is this any different from you saying, “The Clause means what i want it to mean?”
I hope you agree that courts should not simply be blatant exercisers of power. Congress, sure. But the courts should not be imposing their own ideas of what’s best for society. They should be interpreting the words that Congress, or the Constitution, have already provided.
If this is not true - if courts can simply rule on issues as they find best - then we no longer have a democracy.
And if it is true, then courts must have some neutral framework, some set of theories about when to apply provisions that force equal treatment and when to defer to a majority that has demanded unequal treatment. Without such a set of rules, any court is simply imposing its own choices about what’s best.
So: what are you saying that framework should be?
ETA: From your immediately prior post, I sense you are saying, in effect, “Whatever the framework that’s in use now, is what I support.” Yes?
Well that’s great! Can you inform us of your opinion on brothers and sisters getting married? Or someone marrying two people at the same time? Should convicted felons be allowed to vote after their sentence is complete? Should they be able to legally possess arms?
If you have a set of principles that you follow, you should be able to answer these questions easily.
Quite possibly. And…so what? It only means that it was a foolish argument to have been made.
Again, this is an argument – a good and valid one – against the absolute and universal “right of equality.” But it’s also a kind of vacant argument, since no one is in favor of the absolute and universal right of equality.
(Procrustes isn’t around today, thank goodness, to truncate tall people and stretch short ones!)
You’re wrong. I never said that, and I don’t believe it.
I believe that “equal protection” is correctly applied here, but so did five SCOTUS justices. Four felt otherwise. Do you accuse the five in the majority of “using whatever principles would have produced the result” they desired? Or is there room for belief that they ruled on their best understanding of equal protection, holding that, while it must have some limits, it extends far enough to protect gays in their right to marry?
If I am to be held guilty of “wanting an outcome” – and I certainly do want certain outcomes! – then who among us is innocent of having desires and preferences? Must the high nine recuse themselves, because they, too, have beliefs?
Yep. Just as all Americans do. The courts make mistakes now and then: do you deny this?
(There have been times the Supreme Court has reversed a major decision. That pretty much proves that they are susceptible to error: either the original decision or the reversal must, by definition, have been wrong!)
The existence of consensus goes a long way here. There is a near-unanimous consensus that equal protection does not let six-year-olds marry.
When there is no consensus – as in the abortion issue – we are stuck with the grinding of the great millstones of government against one another. Justices are being appointed, very largely on the basis of their views on abortion. Roe may be overturned in the near future. Why should I not have the right to disagree with that outcome?
Certainly I agree.
Nor they. I think they should hold themselves to a higher standard.
Well, yes. “. . . Nor shall any state . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That’s what I cited in my post, to which you seemed to take objection.
I both agree – with the principle – and, however, disagree with the conclusion. In fact, such an outcome could be very highly democratic, as if the court were directly elected by the people. I believe this would be very bad, but it would not lead to the downfall of democracy.
But I definitely agree, in practice, the way the situation is now. The justices should not simply rule in whatever fashion best favors their political ideology.
Here, I am more dubious. What exactly are those rules? Where are they written? Who safeguards them? Who originated them? Can you point to them in a book?
I have been saying all along, yes, there are places where “equality” breaks down. But I would never have the hubris to tell you exactly where that happens. I don’t have a clue! I could never formulate a meta-rule that covers this kind of thing with any kind of explicit accuracy.
At best, as with pornography, I have a rough idea of it when I see it.
I have never said what it should be, and would not dream of attempting it.
Please do not imagine that to mean that I deny its existence. I will not commit the fallacy either of “drawing the line” nor of “not drawing the line.”
In all of this, you continue to argue against positions I have never stated and do not hold!
Read what I wrote, and try to comprehend it. You’re missing the mark by a couple of parsecs.
Could we talk about this inhumane bill, which will leave millions without insurance and likely kill thousands, and take the preposterous discussion of 6 year olds getting married to another thread?
This popped up after my reply.
No, I would not say that, exactly.
The broad framework – that we have a Supreme Court and that it is empowered to make the rulings it does – I favor.
But I do not know the minor-scale “framework” you allude to, by which we could know when equality is to be ruled for, and when it is to be ruled against. Again, can you write it out for us in clear language? Can you point to it in a book? What, exactly, is the “framework that’s in use now?”
I suspect that I’d like parts of it, and dislike parts of it, just as I like and dislike various SCOTUS rulings. That’s a right I will not give up!
I apologize for my part in this highjack, and would have no objection whatever to the mods either moving it, or (preferably) shutting it down, as it has become drearily circular, is progressing nowhere, and does not seem to be serving any useful purpose at all.
Mods, howzabout a quick kill?
How about you just answer the questions, instead of pointing to yet another post of yours that doesn’t answer the questions?