Sexual orientation, Virginia universities, and the new AG

[Miller]

@Bricker

My gripe with liberals is their immediate reach to change the effect of the law without changing its text.

I’m going to take another stab at this particular prong of your OP, since the other part seems to be covered pretty adequately.

I’ll start by stating up front that I don’t think you’re wrong that this is a common reaction among liberals. I’m just interested in your (in my opinion) badly misguided impression that it is particular prominent among liberals. Rather, it is my position that this is a common reaction of most non-lawyers, regardless of their political persuasion.

Let’s start with something suitably judicial. How about Judge Roy Moore? Judge Moore, despite being well aware of the supreme court’s interpretation of the first amendment, thought he should be allowed to display the 10 Commandments in front of his courthouse. When ordered to remove the monument, he refused. His actions won him widespread support among conservatives, who felt he should have been allowed to retain his monument, regardless of the court’s interpretation of the law.

Abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right in this country. Abortion protesters frequently chain themselves to clinic doors, preventing patients from entering. While the protest itself can be seen as part of the political process of this country, isn’t physically preventing people from exercising their legal rights every bit an “end run” around the law as criticizing someone for enforcing it?

Going back to SOCAS issues, it’s pretty firmly establish case law at this point that it is illegal to teach creationism in publicly funded science classes. Despite this well-established law, conservative groups constantly push for it’s inclusion in school curriculums, going to some pretty extreme contortions to circumvent the first amendment.

The point, again, is not to argue that Republicans are worse. This isn’t a political trait. It’s just a people trait. Most people don’t really care *how *stuff works, they only care *if *it works. And that goes just as much for their government as it does for their television sets. When they perceive that their government is failing them (be it in allowing abortions or failing to protect gays) they don’t care why it’s broken, they just want to work the way they think it should work, and they don’t really care about how it’s done.

[Steve_MB]

@Hamlet

@Bricker

No. There are plenty of issues on which I agree the onus is on my side to get new law made.

Except this one, right?

The onus in on his side every other day, with a nice serving of jam.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Miller

I’m going to take another stab at this particular prong of your OP, since the other part seems to be covered pretty adequately.

I’ll start by stating up front that I don’t think you’re wrong that this is a common reaction among liberals. I’m just interested in your (in my opinion) badly misguided impression that it is particular prominent among liberals. Rather, it is my position that this is a common reaction of most non-lawyers, regardless of their political persuasion.

Let’s start with something suitably judicial. How about Judge Roy Moore? Judge Moore, despite being well aware of the supreme court’s interpretation of the first amendment, thought he should be allowed to display the 10 Commandments in front of his courthouse. When ordered to remove the monument, he refused. His actions won him widespread support among conservatives, who felt he should have been allowed to retain his monument, regardless of the court’s interpretation of the law.

Abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right in this country. Abortion protesters frequently chain themselves to clinic doors, preventing patients from entering. While the protest itself can be seen as part of the political process of this country, isn’t physically preventing people from exercising their legal rights every bit an “end run” around the law as criticizing someone for enforcing it?

Going back to SOCAS issues, it’s pretty firmly establish case law at this point that it is illegal to teach creationism in publicly funded science classes. Despite this well-established law, conservative groups constantly push for it’s inclusion in school curriculums, going to some pretty extreme contortions to circumvent the first amendment.

The point, again, is not to argue that Republicans are worse. This isn’t a political trait. It’s just a people trait. Most people don’t really care *how *stuff works, they only care *if *it works. And that goes just as much for their government as it does for their television sets. When they perceive that their government is failing them (be it in allowing abortions or failing to protect gays) they don’t care why it’s broken, they just want to work the way they think it should work, and they don’t really care about how it’s done.

Or how about the Schiavo case, where conservatives overwhelmingly wanted the courts to ignore written law and make up new law from the bench (then called them “acitivist” for NOT being activist).

[Bricker]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

OK, you raise some good points.

@Miller

How about Judge Roy Moore? Judge Moore, despite being well aware of the supreme court’s interpretation of the first amendment, thought he should be allowed to display the 10 Commandments in front of his courthouse. When ordered to remove the monument, he refused. His actions won him widespread support among conservatives, who felt he should have been allowed to retain his monument, regardless of the court’s interpretation of the law.

Yes, this is spot on. I suspect the difference in their minds is, “But activist courts originally created the artificial restrictions that kept religion out of a courtroom!”

But of course, that’s simply another way of saying, “I’ll listen to the law when I want to, and ignore it when I won’t.” We have a system for changing even the Constitution, and if you don’t like the courts’ final disposition of the final appeal of a point, that’s where you go.

Except… to the extent we consider their actions as civil disobedience, not as attempts to ignore the law. There is a place for civil disobedience; it’s part of our political process. Note that civil disobedience is NOT, “Waaah! This law shouldn’t apply to me!” but rather, “This law exists, is validly enacted, and does apply to me, but to demonstrate the need for it to change, I shall publicly disobey it and welcome the consequences of doing so.”

@Miller

Abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right in this country. Abortion protesters frequently chain themselves to clinic doors, preventing patients from entering. While the protest itself can be seen as part of the political process of this country, isn’t physically preventing people from exercising their legal rights every bit an “end run” around the law as criticizing someone for enforcing it?

No. Abortion protesters are either exercising their own legal rights to protest, or engaging in civil disobedience. They aren’t asking the courts to change legislature-enacted law by chaining themselves to clinic doors.

Going back to SOCAS issues, it’s pretty firmly establish case law at this point that it is illegal to teach creationism in publicly funded science classes. Despite this well-established law, conservative groups constantly push for it’s inclusion in school curriculums, going to some pretty extreme contortions to circumvent the first amendment.

Agreed. Again, I suspect they would cavil about how those laws came into being, but as noted above I don’t share the belief that this is a valid point upon which to distinguish the cases.

When they perceive that their government is failing them (be it in allowing abortions or failing to protect gays) they don’t care why it’s broken, they just want to work the way they think it should work, and they don’t really care about how it’s done.

You’re right.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Or how about the Schiavo case, where conservatives overwhelmingly wanted the courts to ignore written law and make up new law from the bench (then called them “acitivist” for NOT being activist).

Sure. And now that I’m thinking more rationally about it, I’ll add two cases that don’t even have the saving grace I mentioned above. Neither of these arise from “judge made law,” which I posited would be the distinction defenders of the above practices would use.

Well, one-and-a-half cases. From the specifics of the Schiavo case, I’d add the general area of assisted suicide. This is an area where legislatures have made rules that conservatives dislike, and they’ve sought to use the courts to stop the process.

And medical marijuana. Despite legislatures (at least at the state level) approving this, conservatives have pushed for federal regulation (despite their love at other times for federalism and states’ rights) and court nullification of these laws.

So, OK. Looks like there’s a beam in my side’s eye here.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, while we’re on the subject of federal regulation of state matters, how 'bout some DOMA/marriage amendment action?

[Miller]

@Bricker

So, OK. Looks like there’s a beam in my side’s eye here.

Ha ha! I win! I win! I…

uh… ahem.

I mean, I’m glad that we could come to a mutual understanding on the subject.