Gays in general have had the religious right enflamed for decades. But for decades and even up until recently the religious right had little power.
The big reason was an issue just was not made of it. Gay marriage comes out, and it upsets people. I’m talking people that may even have gay friends and relatives. I personally have several gay relatives yet my entire family is mostly against gay marriage (I’m indifferent, FYI I have a gay cousin and a gay brother and both are against gay marriage.)
So anyways people get upset about gay marriage so suddenly they listen somewhat more to the foamin of the religious right. But the fact is there are far too many people that are simply uncomfortable with gay marriage but at the same time never going to live the “religious right” life so ultimately I don’t see that movement having perpetual strength.
No one is arguing that. But for a long time the religious right have bitched about a lot and have mostly just been laughed at.
Starting in 2000 and growing up until 2004 that has changed.
I blame the gay marriage issue. The nation is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, Dems and Republicans just don’t support the matter. I think that represents a good chunk of the people that came out and said “morals” were their number one issue. People don’t realize how uncomfortable homosexuality is to people, even people who are otherwise and may even be completely otherwise socially moderate or even socially liberal.
Abortion and school prayer are issues where mostly the huge weight of america is for and against (respectively.) Gay marriage on the other hand is an issue on which the weight of America is against.
The anti-gay marriage issue is the only “mainstream” religious right argument. I’m going to come out and say that IMO the religious right represents roughly 30m people of whom at the most 10-15m vote. And I think only about 1-4m would classify as fundamentalists.
If they were laughed at, it’s because pro-choice people wrongly assumed those people would never have a chance to change the law- not because there weren’t enough anti-abortion people out there. I haven’t seen recent polls, but Americans are not overwhelmingly for abortion. It’s been a contentious issue for a long time and people have been working hard to reverse it for a long time.
In this respect, the thing that struck me about the Specter scandal was that it seemed to be more about the religious right demonstrating its power than anything else. You can call Specter a RINO if you want, but he’s hardly left-wing, and has voted to confirm Scalia and Thomas, two of the Court’s most fervent anti-abortion judges. Ordinarily, I should think the religious right would be happy to have him as head of the Senate judicial committee. But now voting right isn’t enough – you have to talk the right talk, too. It seems that there IS a litmus test for member of the judicial committee, if not for Supreme Court nominees.
This seems like a new development, a new attempt by the religious right to dictate who weilds power in the Senate.
I don’t recall specifically if I have ever made this point directly to you, rjung, but I’d be surprised if I hadn’t made it in a thread that you were reading. Still, on the possibility that you had simply missed it when I said it before, let me set the record straight:
WRONG.
Here is an example which proves you wrong: Kyllo v. US. I disagree with that ruling. I don’t believe a thermal imaging view of a home should be considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
However, I do not consider the Court in Kyllo to be “activist.” They interpreted the plain text of the Constitution. They interpreted it in a way I wish they hadn’t, but they based their decisions on the TEXT, not on penumbras or emanations. So while they handed down a ruling I disagreed with, it did not make them activist.
Here is an example which proves you wrong: Lochner v. New York. I agree with the result, but I still say the ruling was the result of “activism.” The Lochner court found a “right to contract” in the Constitution, and used it to overturn maximum-work-hours in New York law. While I think that it’s wise public polict to permit people to negotiate their own working hours, I don’t believe that a law preventing that offends the federal Constitution, and I do not agree that there is a federal “right to contract” to be found in the Constitution. So this is an example of a ruling where I agree with the result reached, but would still do things differently, because the result is being reached by judicial activism.
Now that you are informed that it’s possible to be against rulings without calling them activist, and in favor of a result but still disfavor the activist ruling that arrived at the result, perhaps the way is clear for you to understand what, precisely, judicial activism is.
Even the most conservative Supreme Court justice (Scalia) has NEVER argued that abortion is banned by the Constitution. If he did, he’d be an “activist,” replacing the text of the Constitution with his own opinions. Instead, he’s argued repeatedly that the Constitution neither says nor implies anything about abortion, and that its legality should be a matter of debate and legislation.
NO conservative justice, even one who believes in a flat tax, will ever claim the Constitution requires a flat tax.
NO conservative justice, even one who believes in teaching Creationism in schools, will ever claim the Constitution requires that. The Constitution says NOTHING about either issue, so even the most conservative Supreme Court justice would say, “Let COngress and/or state legislatures decide.”
Harry Blackmun and William Bennan, on the other hand, were “activists” because had no qualms about saying, “Wow, whaddya know? Everything I want is already mandated by the Constitution! Abortion? I like it, so the Constitution says it’s a basic right. Death penalty? I don’t like it, so it’s unconstitutional.”
Was it activist to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick? Was it activist to overturn Wolf v. Colorado?
I am mindful that there is plenty of caselaw with underpinnings in substantive due process, and it’s true that at this point, I don’t relish the chaos that would ensue if it were all wiped off the books.
But Roe and its progeny confine itself to a single issue, and that issue is continuing to permit the murder of the unborn. Moreover, it does so under an obviously flawed legal reasoning. Even defenders of the Roe result agree that its legal strength is shaky.
Besides, overturning Roe would not immediately remove from “an entire generation of women” any “reproductive freedom.” It would simply mean that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion. Since this is clear from a plain reading of the text, I have no problem wanting the contrary case overturned. At that point, it would be up to the states. If the will of the people prevails – and, after all, you’ve got an entire generation of women voting on your side, right? - then each state will undoubtedly fail to enact anti-abortion laws. But it will up to the states, as it should have been all along.
At heart, abortion is a complex medical decision, most especially when it comes down to an issue of health and life of the mother vs. health and life of the fetus, with many gray areas of morality that is best decided by the mother, her doctor, and (where applicable) family and religious counselor.
The state, with its stupid, ironclad, inflexible, donkey-logic approach to morality, has no business butting its nose into this business.
I should think most conservatives would feel that way I am disappointed but not surprised that they don’t.
Probably suitable to a new thread, but briefly: the fact that the home is radiating the thermal image in exactly the same way it’s radiating along the visible spectra: in other words, the thermal image is in the “plain view” of anyone who cares to look. Admittedly, you need special equipment to look, but the equipment is not intrusive. You are radiating the thermal image to the world, and should have no expectation of privacy.
Hmm. So you’d approve of the use of laser-microphones on the same basis? (My understanding of the technology is that it projects a beam onto a window of a room and thusly measures the vibrations of the beam, which it translates into sound.)
Bricker: is it inconceivable that, with no Roe v. Wade on the books, that the Congress and Administration would pass a federal anti-abortion bill? Would it be grossly unconstitutional or merely improbable for tactical reasons? I realize that a filibuster would be likely, though I don’t know if there are 5 pro life democrats or enough pro-choice republicans willing to break ranks. I think a federal anti-abortion bill would be unlikely to pass, but I don’t know that I would assume it would fall to the states. States rights seems to be politicians’ choice only when federal action is unavailable.
Manhattan: Filibusters are only an issue because that is the sole recourse left to the dems with the demise of blue slips and especially rule 4 (at least one minority judiciary ommittee member must approve a candidate before he can be voted on)