Pat Robertson claims federal judges are greater threat than al Qaeda/Nazi Germany

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Oh, come off it! You start chewing the scenery about government by the people, etc., then have the nerve to start tossing around “straw men” implications? C’mon, get real. And “Godwin”? By Og’s hairy 'nads, I’d expect better from you if you had OD’d on barbiturates!

Your post was a strawman argument, plain and simple. Anyone reading it will see that. For the record, no I don’t think “activist judges” will inevitably lead us down the path of the gulag or the gas chamber.

Judges cannot thwart the will of the people, it simply can’t be done. The power still resides where it should, even when that power is ill-used. But the power of the majority will is perhaps the only source of power in our system that lacks a reliable check-and-balance. If roughly 51% of the population becomes wholly committed to the persecution of left-handed redheads, my son is toast.

But if judges cannot thwart the will of the people, and the will of the people is the source of dangerous tyrany of the majority, then why are you arguing for the judicial system to be our consciouis? If they were simply advisors, offering sage advice but having no power at all, your argument might make sense. But you want to have it both ways: The judges can’t thwart the will of the people, except when justice demands that they do. Whose justice, though? Yours, Justice Steven’s or Justice Thomas’?

But you are right in one sense-- no branch of government can (longterm) thwart the will of the people. And your 51% argument is incorrect. What protects your red-headed son is the constitution. But it is correct that a super-majority of the population could fry your son if they so chose. That is the ultimate check we have on our government-- the very people from which the government derives its legitimacy.

Our best hope for justice lies with the rulership of the people. But if it is unjust, it makes no difference whether the injustice issues from an elite cadre of effete snobs or from OzzienHarriett. It still unjust, and demands to be resisted. In this instance, that resistance is almost entirely symbolic, no actual violence is done to the people’s will, your Lincolnesque effusions notwithstanding.

Adn what if it worked? What if these activist judges actually provoked a re-thinking? Americans see gay people getting married and go “Hey, they aren’t so scary, that guy looks like my Cousin Frank…hey, wait a minute…”. What if thousands and thousands of gay people get married in Massachussetts and nothing happens? Maybe we can construct some polite compromise around civil unions and “the sanctity of marriage” and move on to some issues that fucking matter!

But the “polite compromise” is EXACTLY what is happening now in places like VT, CT, CA, and other states. And it’s happening thru the legislature-- imagine that!

It’s also a matter of perspective. If, to use your phrasiology, jackbooted brownshirts were rounding up gays and throwing them in gulags, it would be hard to argue against a “damn the system, we need to stop this” approach. But gays are not prevented from forming loving relationships, living together, or annoucing their love for each other from the rooftops. We are, in fact, sorting thru the issue of how we allow gays to have the simply human dignity they desreve and for that to be reflected in our laws.

I submit to you that, under those circumstances, our “activist judges” would have rendered noble service to the Republic. And since they haven’t the power to thwart the will of the people anyway, what’s the harm in trying.?

And Pat Robertson will submit that when and if conservative “activist judges” repeal Roe v Wade, they will have rendered a noble service to the Republic.

I notice that you have simply dodged the question of how you would feel about your system, 3 years hence when the court is stacked with such conservative “activist” judges. Will they be acting as our conscious, or leading us astray?

No, I simply prefer the rule of law over the rule of men, no matter how benign or wise those men might be. This country was founded on that principle, if you remember your history.

[Shodan]

That isn’t “his version” of justice, it’s the Constitution’s.

But you have already admitted that whatever the judges want to see in the Constitution is there by default.

If the judge says the First Amendment means that the United States is a Christian nation, you get to shut up and like it. And don’t give me any whining about the text of the Constitution - it is pretty obvious that there exists a right to have churches subsidized out of public funds by default. So shut up and fork over - the judge thinks it is a good idea, and we have already abandoned the notion that there are any limits on the right of judges to interpret the Constitution any way at all.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

Incidentally, More wishful thinking combined with factual inaccuracy on your part. The proposed amendment would not “ban gay marriage”, it would guarantee it, albeit under the name “civil union”.

There are posters here who have taken the position that calling it a civil union, and not a marriage, even if it provides the full panoply of legal benefits from the state that would be provided to a marriage, is insufficient.

Obviously, your mileage varies. Mine, too. I’m happy to see civil unions in Massachusetts; not as pleased as if same-sex marriage had been permitted by the legislature, but still pleased.

Even so, it just barely passed, after some compromise in which legislators who feared backlash joined with genuinely anti-rights ones who needed some cover. Since then, several anti-rights legislators have lost, more than the margin, and there’s a new Speaker who’s opposed to even bringing the bill up again. Furthermore, the climate has changed. The sky over Massachusetts hasn’t fallen, we haven’t been visited by the wrath of a vengeful God (at least not more so than other states), and voters who had misgivings have been able to get used to the sight of the nice young men down the street wearing rings now. It is not realistic to think this amendment would pass, and even if it did, only the name would change. It’s over. Get used to it.

I believe the amendment will pass. And I’d invite you to discuss with Homebrew, among others, whether this is a “name only” issue or not. I agree with you.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

I don’t follow. Are you saying that it won’t happen, and therefore the comparison shouldn’t be made?..

When I say “… I believe that is precisely what is going to happen…” what I mean is that I believe that is precisely what is going to happen. Is there anything remotely ambiguous about that?

The comparison should not be made (that is the subtlety hidden in the phrase “comparing apples to orangutans”) since one of these has ghastly results and the other has negligible results. Hence, your accusation that I must support the Scalia Court’s (shiver) assault of Roe V Wade has no merit, stark staring decisis notwithstanding.

@John Mace

Your post was a strawman argument, plain and simple. Anyone reading it will see that…

Perhaps. Shall we test that extraordinary proposition? Does anyone here not see it that way, and is willing to disabuse John of this notion?

…But the “polite compromise” is EXACTLY what is happening now in places like VT, CT, CA, and other states. And it’s happening thru the legislature-- imagine that!..We are, in fact, sorting thru the issue of how we allow gays to…(and so on)

And how did this happy fact come about? May I be so bold as to suggest that, at least partly, this was a result of activist judges making a symbolic stand?

…No, I simply prefer the rule of law over the rule of men, no matter how benign or wise those men might be. This country was founded on that principle, if you remember your history.

A noble defense of an ignoble reality. Easily answered, of course, by referring to the same argument we have been making all along: that equal rights under the law is a submission to the rule of law, the judges are interpreting that rule of law, which is their given function. Interpreting it correctly, in my estimation. Performing their mandated function does no violence to the rule of law.

You witness movingly for your faith that an adequate check on the power of the majority is already at hand. How do you square that with the century long struggle to obtain decent civil rights for the racially discriminated? That is, if you remember your history.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

And how did this happy fact come about? May I be so bold as to suggest that, at least partly, this was a result of activist judges making a symbolic stand?

Could be, but it’s very hard to tell. Activist judges can still step in and declare that civil unions are just another seperate but equal dodge and that it has to be marriage. However, I think we can be almost certain that the rash of anti-SSM statutes and amendments were in reaction to activist judges making a pronouncement about SSM. So where does that all get us in the end?

A noble defense of an ignoble reality. Easily answered, of course, by referring to the same argument we have been making all along: that equal rights under the law is a submission to the rule of law, the judges are interpreting that rule of law, which is their given function. Interpreting it correctly, in my estimation. Performing their mandated function does no violence to the rule of law.

Extrapolating is a better term that interpreting, in this case. Extrapolating beyond the intended scope of the lawmakers.

You witness movingly for your faith that an adequate check on the power of the majority is already at hand. How do you square that with the century long struggle to obtain decent civil rights for the racially discriminated? That is, if you remember your history.

The courts played their role in that for sure-- their proper role at times, as they did in Brown. Can there be any doubt that the 14th amendment, enacted right after the civil war, was intended to ensure equal rights across racial boundaries? But the courts had their hands in injustices as well-- from forced bussing of school children in the 70s/80s to upholding racial preferences in Affirmative Action today. Of course, the legislature played no small role in the civil rights stuggle-- let’s not forget the 14th amendment itself, which was a legislative action, as well as the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

The comparison should not be made (that is the subtlety hidden in the phrase “comparing apples to orangutans”) since one of these has ghastly results and the other has negligible results. Hence, your accusation that I must support the Scalia Court’s (shiver) assault of Roe V Wade has no merit, stark staring decisis notwithstanding.

So you wouldn’t call a Scalia Court ruling in a way you disagreed with a legitimate ruling. But you support the current courts, ruling in a way you agree with, completely legitimate.

So ‘legitimate’ means simply that you personally agree with the result. The method is irrelevent: courts, legislature, that part doesn’t matter. What matters is the we reach a result with which YOU agree.

How did you get this important job? Why can’t we use MY standards?

[elucidator]

By which we see that even the legislatures cannot effectively check the deeply held prejudices of an entrenched majority, thus, we can safely say that no truly adequate check can curtail injustice inflicted upon a despised minority. There is, finally, no option but the long and painful course of education and persuasion.

We look forward to your continued support, of which I am entirely assured.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

So you wouldn’t call a Scalia Court ruling in a way you disagreed with a legitimate ruling. But you support the current courts, ruling in a way you agree with, completely legitimate.

So ‘legitimate’ means simply that you personally agree with the result. The method is irrelevent: courts, legislature, that part doesn’t matter. What matters is the we reach a result with which YOU agree.

How did you get this important job? Why can’t we use MY standards?

When you are prepared to address my actual arguments, rather than your distorted and obnoxious paraphrase, please advise. I stand ready.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

By which we see that even the legislatures cannot effectively check the deeply held prejudices of an entrenched majority, thus, we can safely say that no truly adequate check can curtail injustice inflicted upon a despised minority. There is, finally, no option but the long and painful course of education and persuasion.

No, there is only the collective conscience of the people. Education, yes, and political action. There is plenty of room for citizens to petition the legislature. And that’s one of the main reasons I reject your “justice by any method” idea. If there were no other recourse than the courts, I’d agree.

We look forward to your continued support, of which I am entirely assured.

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hope you have a camp chair and a good book with you, 'luc. You’ll be standing for a long time.

FTR, I do know that the name “civil union” falls short of completion of this effort, for the reasons clearly stated by the MA SJC advisory ruling in response to the House’s request. However, establishing that institution is still a step forward in places where even it does not exist, and the name change too should be expected to naturally follow as the “What was all the fuss about?” sentiment takes hold. You take what you can get, when you can get it. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

@Bricker

I believe the amendment will pass.

If you had good reason to believe it, you’d have offered to bet on it. That is, as you’ve expounded to us before, the only measure of sincerity you recognize. Dream on anyway.

Shodan, naturally, using your philosophy of constitutional law, you’d agree that there is no right to bear arms except to the extent the Constitution begrudgingly grants. But that isn’t what you really mean now, is it?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

When you are prepared to address my actual arguments, rather than your distorted and obnoxious paraphrase, please advise. I stand ready.

Pick a poster of the SDMB that has not already participated in this thread, and that you believe is fairly characterized as moderate. Invite him or her to read your argument and my summary. Will they say my summary is completely without merit?

I don’t think so. But I’m willing to learn.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

You take what you can get, when you can get it. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

I agree. But others expressing that same sentiment have been met with accusations of bigotry.

If you had good reason to believe it, you’d have offered to bet on it. That is, as you’ve expounded to us before, the only measure of sincerity you recognize. Dream on anyway.

I would have offered a bet, except I got tired of being yelled at for doing. But – if that’s an invitation… sure, I’ll wager on that proposition. What do you – $50, even odds, on the second vote passing the amendment in 2005?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Pick a poster of the SDMB that has not already participated in this thread, and that you believe is fairly characterized as moderate. Invite him or her to read your argument and my summary. Will they say my summary is completely without merit?

I don’t think so. But I’m willing to learn.

But of course! Doggy Knees? You on board? Elvis is close at hand. Stoidella? Reeder? Oh, wait, you did say “moderate”, didn’t you? Whom do you suggest we empanel to determine who is “moderate” and who, like myself, is on the conservative wing of the extreme left?

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Pick a poster of the SDMB that has not already participated in this thread, and that you believe is fairly characterized as moderate. Invite him or her to read your argument and my summary. Will they say my summary is completely without merit?

I don’t think so. But I’m willing to learn.

I’d be willing for that same person to tell us if my “strawman” accusation was accurate or not.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

But of course! Doggy Knees? You on board? Elvis is close at hand. Stoidella? Reeder? Oh, wait, you did say “moderate”, didn’t you? Whom do you suggest we empanel to determine who is “moderate” and who, like myself, is on the conservative wing of the extreme left?

I’ll accept your determination of “moderate.”

[elucidator]

The “strawman” accusaton is such a debased currency on these boards, I hardly think it worth the effort. It is, however, your accusation so you are of course free to substantiate it by any means you think appropriate. After all, its your rubber ducky…

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I’ll wager on that proposition. What do you – $50, even odds, on the second vote passing the amendment in 2005?

I have no interest in enabling anyone else’s addictive behaviors. But you might want to reconsider if your position is based on fact or hope. Consider (as I said):

A key legislative backer of the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and establish civil unions yesterday all but declared defeat, saying that Finneran’s exit from Beacon Hill was the final straw in an effort that already was in trouble because the state has legalized same-sex marriage with little of the uproar predicted by opponents.

“It is pretty much over,” said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini.
…

“In fact, there will be a question as to whether the issue will come up at all,” Lees said. He said the issue has faded to the “back burners of Massachusetts politics,” because few problems have surfaced with the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage.

More recently:

But several things have changed in the past year.

For one, the opinions of legislators may have changed now that more than 6,000 gay couples have married, Ms. Dufresne and other legislative aides say. Some of those who supported the amendment may now oppose it, the aides say, out of reluctance to undo marriages that have taken place or out of a sense that gay marriage has not caused negative repercussions.

“We’ve had gay marriage now for a year,” Ms. Dufresne said. “You can’t dispute the fact that it’s now become part of the dialogue.”

Another sponsor of the amendment, Senator Brian P. Lees, the Republican minority leader, told The Republican, a newspaper in Springfield, Mass., that he would probably support the amendment, but that “everyone should review” it since it would deprive gay couples of the marriage rights they now have.
…
Another difference is the composition of the Legislature. Last year, the House speaker, Thomas M. Finneran, a Democrat who opposed gay marriage, led a large group of the legislators who voted 105 to 92 to support the amendment. But Mr. Finneran has left the House, and the new speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat, supports gay marriage.

In addition, in special elections this year, at least three legislators in favor of gay marriage replaced legislators who opposed it, and several more won election to the House last November.

So where do you get this belief of yours?
Upon preview: Apparently you now recognize me to be a moderate? Good. Then the ruling is “Yes, strawmen are replete in Bricker’s so-called arguments, and that’s hardly the only type of fallacy to which he often resorts”.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

The “strawman” accusaton is such a debased currency on these boards, I hardly think it worth the effort. It is, however, your accusation so you are of course free to substantiate it by any means you think appropriate. After all, its your rubber ducky…

That’s a nice one, too. If someone points out a weakness in your argument, then that is “debased currency”. Whatever. You’re the one who first suggested an impartial observer, btw.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

I have no interest in enabling anyone else’s addictive behaviors. But you might want to reconsider if your position is based on fact or hope. Consider (as I said):More recently:So where do you get this belief of yours?
Upon preview: Apparently you now recognize me to be a moderate? Good. Then the ruling is “Yes, strawmen are replete in Bricker’s so-called arguments, and that’s hardly the only type of fallacy to which he often resorts”.

Excuse me, but I asked you pick a poster that has not yet participated in this thread. While I find it rather disturbing that you’ll take my good-faith gesture in permitting you to define “moderate” and define yourself thusly - even when a moment ago you called yourself a member of the conservative wing of the extreme left - I will point out that you HAVE participated in this thread and are thus inelgible.

Pick someone else. Invite them in. And here’s a chance to play fair, and pick someone fairly described as a moderate.

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

Shodan, naturally, using your philosophy of constitutional law, you’d agree that there is no right to bear arms except to the extent the Constitution begrudgingly grants. But that isn’t what you really mean now, is it?

I’m not quite sure what you are on about now.

The right to keep and bear arms, whether it existed before the Constitution was ratified or not, is guaranteed, obviously, since the text of the Second Amendment clearly makes it so. If you are arguing that gay marriage is a similar case, again, please show us the equivalent amendment that says something like:

The right of persons to marry as they please being fundamental, anyone may marry anyone else, regardless of gender.

Unless you can show such a piece of text in the Constitution, my theory of the Constitution doesn’t help you.

The Second Amendment is addressed to government, not people. The government “shall not infringe” on the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe you are making the same mistake you did earlier. The Constitution exists as a limit on the rights of government. That is to say, government possesses no rights, apart from those begrudgingly granted to it by the Constitution. All other rights belong to the people.

These other rights include the right to establish other rights as the purview of government. If the people (or the states) wanted to establish gay marriage, they could, and government could not stop them. But government has no right whatever to impose gay marriage on the populace. The Constitution does not grant government that right.

See how it works? Read the Constitution. Again and again, it states the limits on government. Congress may not establish an official state religion. The goverment may not impose limits on freedom of speech or of the press.

The Ninth Amendment states that there can be other rights than those delineated in the Constitution. But the Tenth states clearly that the creation of new rights belongs, only and specifically, to the states and the people. Not the courts. Not the government. The states, and the people.

Regards,
Shodan