Well, I know it’s not quite relevant. It’s more of a cross question. Maybe it would be tipping your hand but I’m asking you what you think the legal basis for permitting ageism is. Because as I believe you are alluding, the actual text of the 14th is at least as against ageism as it is for equal marriage rights.
I didn’t say “dots”. How can I answer your question if you misquote me, repeatedly?
The political world is full of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. But there’s no sense trying to blame one side more than the other; that just leads to Tu quoque — didn’t George Washington make up a story about a cherry tree? :smack:
One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Anita Hill did not lie. There was no motive for her to lie. The right-wing hack David Brock wrote a nasty book about that woman trying to convince America she was a lying liar, but it turned out Brock himself was the liar: he got so disgusted with himself and the right-wing liars and their approach to politics (tell lies; if that doesn’t work, tell bigger lies) that he confessed: The Real Anita Hill was just lies from beginning to end, commissioned by Brock’s right-wing masters.
I don’t know. Probably she did — when the Koch Brothers drag a paper bag full of cash through a suburb, a lot of trash will turn up.
But what’s with the rhetorical questions, Socrates? Did she lie or not? Post a cite please, and not just a cite to someone else’s opinion. 
If instead all you got is an irrelevant attempt at Tu quoque, don’t make us Google Juanita, just write Tu quoque. In fact, you can abbreviate it T.Q. — we’ll know what you mean.
Y’know, I expected something better than the tired old “Dogs and cats living together” slippery-slope meme. How disappointing.
Which time? She recanted her story, then recanted her recantation, etc etc. ad nauseum, so many times even Ken Starr had issue with her.
But those were* ten year old *memories, uncorroborated.
And there were witnesses that claimed otherwise:
So, even if not lying, perhaps little or nothing she claimed actually happened. Memories, especially ten year old memories, are a odd thing.
Yes, it is.
I have an answer, but I’m not the one claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly mandates same-sex marriage recognition.
You said “dot,” singular. I don’t know what it means to “connect the dot.”
Sorry, you can’t rewrite history when it’s there in black and white. You claimed that there were no House votes within 16 in order to minimize the importance of gerrymandering, and I stuffed that line by citing 17 such votes just since Jan. 1 of last year.
You mean like Shodan claiming that I know nothing about the Republican base and implying that he does? Yeah, somebody wake me when he actually supports that claim. (He won’t, of course, he’s still making excuses not to.)
No, but you are fairly obviously in favour of ageism and ageism is quite clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. So you are in favor of having text reinterpreted in an unobvious way in certain circumstances. I’m curious how you circle your squares.
So, in other words, no analysis of someone’s actions carries any weight but that person’s actual words explaining them. We should expect Obama to explain everything he did during his Presidency, and we can’t trust the political analysis of the NYT.
Uh…yehrite.
Well, I’m glad we cleared that up, at last, by you doing your homework and finding your error.
In any case, this round of hilarity now effectively played out, the gist was always pretty straightforward:
-
Shodan is essentially arguing that what the Senate Republican leadership did in 2016 was okay, since Democrats are manipulating the judiciary to get changes in national policy that they can’t get through legislation.
-
One of these changes (indeed, the first he mentioned) was SSM.
It’s fair to ask (though the topic has been hashed out in multiple threads and is probably beyond the scope of this one) why he feels SCOTUS overreached in Obergefell v. Hodges (which he didn’t name but I gather he was implying). Barring some argument that gender restrictions were necessary and serve a public interest (an argument I’m not sure actually exists, or at least I’ve never seen one that was based on anything more than religion and/or homophobia), I’m not sure why a same-sex couple should be barred from forming a legal marriage, any more than they should be barred from forming a corporation or other legal structure.
Anyway, arguments along the lines of “show me where it specifically says in the Constitution that…” are inherently weak. The U.S. Constitution is a broad-stroke document, rarely delving into fine detail. The prevailing court rulings were leaning in the direction of striking down the gender restrictions in marriage, no negative outcome has become apparent, so where in the process is the liberal artificiality Shodan laments and I gather is being forced down his throat?
Because analyzing the motivation behind an action is the same thing as measuring a length. Ohhhkaaaay…
Also, the constitution works on the principle of maximizing rights, not maximizing restrictions. For a ban on SSM to be meaningful, it needs to serve some real purpose; otherwise it’s just bigotry.
The courts should strike down arbitrary regulations that serve no actual purpose.
Because analogy is used to draw attention to similarities in things, even though ithers aspects of those things are different.
Who gets to decide what’s arbitrary?
The courts, again?
Is this a principle you agree to always, or only when it delivers preferred results?
Why don’t we trust the political analysts of Fox News, instead?
No, the principle I’m advancing is that we are entitled to ask for evidence in support of a claim.
Sorry, Johnny. The proponent of the original claim is the one with the burden ro provide the support. The guy who comes along and says, “You’re wrong,” doesn’t have to prove his claim. He’s allowed to gratuitously deny an assertion that is gratuitously made.
I gather there are two common mindsets regarding government and law:
- Every human activity is forbidden, unless the government specifically permits it.
- Every human activity is allowed, unless the government specifically forbids it.
If you favour the second (and not everyone on this board does), I suppose as an ideal it would be best if government had a minimalist approach to legislation, only banning activities that were provably harmful and doing so in a way that would never trip up someone who was doing a similar activity that was harmless, or had performed the activity in a way that wasn’t harmful, or had performed the activity in an effort to prevent a greater harm, i.e. the law wasn’t going to end up punishing people who didn’t deserve it.
In practice, though, legislators can’t craft perfect laws. They don’t have infinite time and resources to investigate all angles before legislating. They can’t possibly add infinitely minute clarifications to the laws to cover all circumstances. They feel public pressure ranging from sober economists testifying to the causes of the most recent bank failure to Fox News pundilouts clamoring that “there oughtta be a law” against… whatever.
Fortunately, there is forward progress in getting rid of useless prejudices. Within living memory were laws that restricted women from doing certain things a man could do casually, based on nothing but assumptions that women were incapable of handling the consequences. There were similar laws restricting blacks, on the assumption they were inferior, and laws restricting homosexuals on the assumption they were evil/perverse/sinful. Western civilization isn’t just about discovering what is new, but discarding what has become useless. Sure, it’s not always smooth process, and the system should have inertia by design. Shodan seems to be maintaining that same-sex marriage is a shortcut taken by SCOTUS, imposing its (liberal?) will over the choices of the legislatures. I personally don’t get the impression he particularly cares about the sanctity of legislative process - he just doesn’t like the result. And if we ask him *why *he doesn’t, we’re not likely to get a good answer any time soon.
With you so far.
That’s certainly interesting, but since the text of the Fourteenth Amendment hasn’t changed since 1868, when did it forbid states from requiring that marriage be between a man and a woman only?
I hope you agree that in 1869, no significant percentage of the populace or the legislators believed that the language they adopted mandated same-sex marriage recognition.
My position is that the correct authority to make that change is not the judiciary.
You may argue that there’s just no good reason to forbid such marriages. But if self-governance means anything, surely it means that people should assent to the laws they pass. In our case, we give our elected legislators power to pass laws. This means that we should not later decide that the law we passed means something completely different unless the legislators ratify that view.
The very fact it was prevailing court rulings is the issue. It should not be unelected judges prevailing their way to a new substantive law.
And what was the significance of the singular dot?
And painted with the most extreme brush possible, as if they’re both ridiculous positions.
I swear, I’ve never seen so many people do everything they can to avoid supporting cases in my life.