Seriously? Because Fox News is recognized to have a bias that strays far from facts quite often, and NYT doesn’t. I know I shouldn’t have to explain this, it’s just about as obvious as possible.
And the principle I’m advancing is that a) making unwarranted personal attacks on me in contravention of the board’s rules and b) providing neither any kind of a counterclaim nor any evidence contradicting it is not debate. In formal debate you’d be laughed out of the room by the judges for pulling that.
Well, maybe to Trump supporters; it seems to be a very common set of tactics among them, from what I’ve read on this board and elsewhere.
I made an assertion, and I supported it with evidence. You can attack the veracity of that evidence all you want, but it doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to support what you say.
So you can say all you want that someone doesn’t have to support their words, but let’s call it what it is. Bullshit.
Uh, he didn’t say “You’re wrong,” he said “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” and then proceeded not to provide any contradicting evidence, as he still hasn’t.
Nor was the assertion gratuitous, as I showed with an actual cite from a respected source.
Anyway, this whole thing is a waste of time. I will no longer expect any kind of actual, supported argumentation from either you or Shodan. Congratulations.
It didn’t. I’m sure if one looks over any number of 14th-Amendment arguments presented before SCOTUS after 1868, the issue being discussed isn’t specifically mentioned in the amendment, either:
[ul]
[li]The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), presented despite a lack of specific references to slaughterhouses in the 14th.[/li][li]Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), presented despite a lack of specific references to race or trains in the 14th.[/li][li]Lochner v. New York (1905), presented despite a lack of specific references to bakeries in the 14th.[/li][li]Gitlow v. New York (1925), presented despite a lack of specific references to socialism in the 14th.[/li][/ul]
I could go on, but I figure every time you pull this “It’s not specifically in the text” line, I could reasonably conclude it betrays your lack of knowledge of or lack of interest in how constitutional arguments are handled in the U.S.
The only way to conclude that SSM is completely different is to start with the assumption that homosexuals are completely different or that men and women are completely different. And the people of the United States and their elected legislators have always had a mechanism - indeed the ultimate mechanism - to make their will known; they can amend the Constitution.
To claim SSM is new is to suggest you believe homosexual pair-bonding is new, and it isn’t. To claim SSM is substantial is to suggest you believe it’s having a significant effect on American society, and it isn’t. You premise is flawed and your conclusion rejected on that basis. If anything, your attempt at arguing along these lines demonstrate the need for the checks provided by the judiciary.
It is a subject of bipartisan agreement that both sides were willing to call the extended and repeated use of deferments and every other device available to avoid service as draft dodging and I agree with both sides on this.
Both Trump and Clinton connived and schemed to stay out of Vietnam and in the end both got lucky:
So within weeks of being classified 1A, he gets a student deferment for graduate school. About 3 months after being classified 1A after is graduate school deferment expires, he gets another physical only this time, he gets a medical deferment.
“It was just a fluke,” Clinton would say decades later, when first asked how he had made it through this period without serving in the military. But of course it was not a fluke. A fluke is a wholly accidental stroke of good luck. What happened to Clinton during that fateful year did not happen by accident. He fretted and planned every move, he got help from others when needed, he resorted to some deception or manipulation when necessary, and he was ultimately lucky.”
You’re right – there are mechanisms. One is to vote in a GOP-controlled Senate and count on them to refuse to consent on any other judges that might be similarly inclined. Another is to vote in a GOP President who will reliably appoint judges that will avoid such reasoning, and potentially even reverse it.
Isn’t that also using the mechanisms available to them?
I feel like a quote from Gorsuch during the hearings regarding textualism or originalism is appropriate here. We do not actually try to read the minds of the founding fathers and ask ourselves “WWFFD?” We read their words and use the meaning of those words at the time and apply the words to the situation at hand.
Your marriage argument boils down to the notion that a man only has the right to marry a woman and a woman only has the right to marry a man. If we leave out all considerations of religion and other social conventions, what words do you see that would allow us from being able to ignore this disparity.
Sure. It’s my personal hope they get over their homophobia and don’t pursue such an action despite it being a perfectly legal application of the political system (indeed, it pretty much is the political system). I figure there’s a relatively short window for American homophobes to get their ducks in a row - in less than a decade, SSM will be so normalized in America that to roll it back will seem ridiculous. It will have become a permanent step forward in American social evolution, like banning slavery or approving full suffrage. There might be some kind of Handmaid’s Tale dystopian theocratic regression, but no big deal.
Perhaps it would be more reasonable to frame the SSM argument in the context of “we discovered something we didn’t previously know”. When the 14th amendment was drafted, its text called for equal treatment under the law. We did not understand that homosexuals deserved equal treatment under the law until recently. It’s like a constitutional amendment that demands we pay attention to scientists, and people then complaining when the court rules that we should listen to them on climate change because that’s a new thing not in the bill - it’s in the bill; the reason it’s new is because we didn’t know about it beforehand.
Here’s how I see the procession from the 14th amendment to legal SSM. The 14th was clearly about recognizing the rights of freed slaves and the black population. Bingham’s intent was to make the bill of rights incorporated against the states. The privileges or immunities meant ALL the bill of rights – even though this was later gutted in Slaughterhouse.
So Loving v. Virginia applied the equal protection argument towards marriage. If anyone had a right to marry, then a person had a right to interracial marriage. SSM is merely a continuation of that, that flows logically and is consistent with that ruling. So while the 14th may have been grounded in recognizing rights of blacks, the text actually says “any person”. If there be a right to marry, it surely applies to any person.
But even if the equal protection argument isn’t persuasive, there is another argument in the 9th amendment.
*“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ … and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.” *- Hannah Arendt
Are we truly free if the government can tell us whom we can marry? I say no.
Someone elsewhere on the Board pointed out that Bricker is using the Socratic Method here. I said more in that thread, but I wish to add one part here.
When have you ever seen the Socratic Method work in a political argument?
Note, that’s just a rhetorical question. The answer is “never.” Your opponent does not accept you as a teacher. And they will be irritated by your lack of response and/or non sequiturs. They have a tendency to leave the conversation, and never learn what point you were trying to make.
Say what you mean. If it’s valid, you don’t need the trickery of making me think I came up with it myself.
I gather the Socratic method can work as an educational tool, but if the person you’re talking to isn’t your student or your child, it tends to backfire since they’ll quickly figure out that you’re being patronizing. It takes a light touch.
It must be late because I didn’t at first notice that this was a slight variant on your oft-used “I suppose you want to abolish the legislature entirely and rule as king with absolute power, then” tactic. This particular version is like asking “would you mind terribly not ruling as king with absolute power and pretty-please let the people vote for the legislature and executive? Could you… please?”
On its face, your question is basically asking if I have even slight familiarity with the structure of the U.S. government and how it is formed. I think I can fairly assume you know I do.
Tricky, though. Wasn’t it generally accepted though the middle of the 20th century among scientists that homosexuality was a mental illness? This may have been a slight improvement over assuming it was the result of demonic temptation, I admit, but if there was such an amendment, could it at least be limited to the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and definitely not the softer ones like psychology and economics?
Your wisdom and persuasiveness is well known here, BigT, and it’s difficult for me to imagine another guide from whom I’d treasure such advice more than from you.
OK. So it seems to me that’s what’s happening now. American homophobes have elected a President and a sympathetic Senate majority, and are now seeking to install sympathetic judges.
At least we agree on what happened - the liberals on the Supreme Court didn’t like the legal definition of marriage, so they made up a new one, because they thought their definition of what was cowardly and unfair should supercede everything else. That’s what we are talking about when we mention 'judicial activism" - making up laws when you feel like it. Making laws is what legislatures do, and is thus a violation of the separation of powers.
The problem for liberals, as I mentioned, is legitimizing judicial activism means that they object when my goose is replaced by your gander. Once you have established that it doesn’t matter what the law or the Constitution says, and whatever the Supreme Court decides is unfair or cowardly or just is the law of the land, then your gander may squawk, but I need pay no more attention than you did when I squawked. It’s the same sauce.
