And frankly, the reluctance to clearly identify the rationale is one of the hallmarks of, “We know this is what we want to have happen, but we don’t want to paint ourselves into any corners.”
I’m talking about the norms of equal protection jurisprudence, for what it’s worth, but certainly social norms may be invoked. But yes – why is the GOP’s violation of Senate norms such an outrage and the court’s violation of equal protection norms so welcome?
Is it not simply because the real issue isn’t “violation of norms” at all, but whether the violation advances or frustrates your preferred outcome?
Throughout most of our nation’s history, we believed there was a good reason that women should not vote.
Throughout most of our nation’s history, we believed there was a good reason that black people should be treated as a separate and inferior category of person.
In fact, for a good chunk of of our nation’s history, we believed that married women did not have a separate legal existence from their husbands, and that it was acceptable to own black people as chattel.
Throughout our history, we have hit points where the “norms” of prior generations were recognized as bigoted bullshit, and laws based on that bigoted bullshit got changed. A couple of those “norms” were baked into the Constitution, and required an amendment to fix. Many were fixed through “judicial activism”, as I’m sure you would put it. Personally, I am glad that our Supreme Court generally agrees that prohibiting a class of people from enjoying the rights granted to the rest of the population based solely on longstanding (religiously motivated) prejudice is unconstitutional.
I am sure you are fully aware why your “but why can’t 9 year olds marry” shtick is garbage, but just FYI, it also makes you look ridiculous.
I think its egotistical for ANY judge to think they are better than pretty much any other judge out there. RBG is rare talent but not a unique one. RBG did great things but it was time for her to step aside for the greatness of others.
They can claim the white house, the senate, the house, total control of 25 state governments. Democrats OTOH have control of 5 state governments.
In a country where 40% of the population doesn’t vote, a 2 or 3% popular vote advantage is pretty meaningless. The fact that only 2/3rds of the states have senatorial elections makes senate vote counts even more meaningless.
I don’t think Republicans have a mandate to go hog wild but this election was clearly a rejection of Democrats generally and one Democrat in particular.
If a million people had different reasons to be there but the one thing they all have in common is that they were mostly pissed that hillary lost then it was not a collection of people with a million different causes, it is a collection of people who are pissed that Hillary lost. What other common cause was there? What attack on women’s rights were they there to protest? Was it an abortion rights march? Is that why they prohibited the pro-life feminist group from participating?
Gorsuch is well qualified to be on SCOTUS but the poor treatment of Garland justifies poor treatment of every Republican nominee until Gorsuch gets a vote. Its not fair to Gorsuch but he’ll live.
He didn’t do anything that any other Republican POTUS wouldn’t have done. Literally everyone in the Republican primary would have nominated a similar justice.
Oh you’re talking about Ted Cruz. Meh. I don’t equate Ted Cruz’s desires with what the Republican party intends to do. Now if it was Mitch McConnell saying this…
Yup. And then we came to realize that was a poor policy, so we used our LEGISLATURE to enact the 19th Amendment.
Yup. And then we came to realize that was a poor policy, so we used our LEGISLATURE to enact the 14th Amendment.
Yup. And then we came to realize that was a poor policy, so we used our LEGISLATURE to enact the 13th Amendment and repeal coverture laws.
Yes. I have no objection in the slightest to such changes – that’s why we claim to be a nation of self-governance.
I’m sure you are.
But isn’t that because you like the result? If the Supreme Court agreed with me that abortion kills a human being, and ruled that abortion is the deprivation of life without due process of law and forbid it, would you be equally glad?
You’re happy to get your way, is what you’re saying.
Obviously I don’t agree, because it’s a question that exposes the lack of any real textual basis for saying that the decisions you like are Constitutional and the ones you don’t like aren’t.
A little from A, a little from B. Norms are good to establish what should be proper behavior under normal circumstances (norm, normal–get it?) They should not be straitjackets that prevent unusual behavior under unusual circumstances, such as having a judge in the mid-eighties who supports the legality of poll taxes. Nor should they be fripperies discarded at whim or for mere naked partisan advantage.
The opinion was shit, but I see it as a equal protection argument.
And two 9 year olds can’t marry because marriage is a contract and they have not yet reached the age of majority. Those who have not reached the age of majority may not enter into contracts, generally.