Scalia's objectivity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
On an unrelated, but required, "stoner complaint" note:

Does anyone find it strange that the same people who spent all of today bitching up a teardrop-thunderstorm about "state's rights" and "how dare the federal government" blah blah blah are the same people who think that the feds need to stop the states which have decriminalized recreational and medical marijuana?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-06-2015, 07:39 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 07:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I find Roberts' opinion rather shocking. He seems to think that states have the right to regulate marriage. I want to corner him, and ask him if HIS right to marry his wife came from his state.

To be fair, if you accept that the State has a right to regulate marriage at all, then there's an argument to be made that federalism leaves that right entirely to the states. The states issue the licenses, not the feds, and therefore (in his mind) they could decide to whom to issue them, and to whom they should not. That's part of why the age at which one may get married varies, state to state. For instance, you can still get married at 15 in my home state of Louisiana, with parental signature and permission. Not so in other states.

That's why this case was so important, in recognizing that the 90s-00s trend of ignoring federal oversight of the tendency of states to restrict the rights of unfavored minorities that are freely disbursed to the favored majority, despite the (ever-weaker) 14th amendment originally passed to stop exactly that sort of thing, needed to be soundly reversed. It's why I compared it to the Lawrence case, another that went against the tide of allowing states to do to their citizens as they please while the feds sat idly by.

Atheists, even those who have no interest in the politics of gay rights ordinarily, should be heavily aligned with their Civil Rights battle, because there is much crossover into the religious rights of minority groups against the Christian majority. The principles are the same between sexual and religious/secular privacy, in the end, even though they are different parts of the First amendment.

I think Loving v Virginia if far more applicable.
"Loving v. Virginia established the legal basis for a cultural redefinition of marriage. On August 13, 1967, the Associated Press reported on the marriage of Leona Eve Boyd, a white woman, and Romans Howard Johnson, a black man, in Kingdom Hall Church in Norfolk, "the first known interracial marriage in Virginia since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state miscegenation law in June." Over time, marriages between whites and African Americans became both more numerous and more accepted. Same-sex marriages, meanwhile, became more disputed, with gay rights activists attempting to use Loving v. Virginia as a precedent in their favor."
from : http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lovi...tart_entry

There has never been any legitimate state interest demonstrated in denying the right to marry to gay people.

The stupid idea that marriage has been "defined as thus and so" for eons is rubbish.
1. It has had countless definitons, including in the bible,
2. The fact that important NEW INFORMATION came to light in the study of human sexuality from the late 19th Century to the present, provides very legitmate reasons to re-look at it.

There is no valid reason EVER yet put forward to deny this fundamental right to gays.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 07:36 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  On an unrelated, but required, "stoner complaint" note:

Does anyone find it strange that the same people who spent all of today bitching up a teardrop-thunderstorm about "state's rights" and "how dare the federal government" blah blah blah are the same people who think that the feds need to stop the states which have decriminalized recreational and medical marijuana?

I think all these people suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-06-2015, 08:09 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 08:19 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 07:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I think Loving v Virginia if far more applicable.
"Loving v. Virginia established the legal basis for a cultural redefinition of marriage. On August 13, 1967, the Associated Press reported on the marriage of Leona Eve Boyd, a white woman, and Romans Howard Johnson, a black man, in Kingdom Hall Church in Norfolk, "the first known interracial marriage in Virginia since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state miscegenation law in June." Over time, marriages between whites and African Americans became both more numerous and more accepted. Same-sex marriages, meanwhile, became more disputed, with gay rights activists attempting to use Loving v. Virginia as a precedent in their favor."
from : http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lovi...tart_entry

There has never been any legitimate state interest demonstrated in denying the right to marry to gay people.

States' Rights advocates don't seem to feel they need to justify their reasons for what a state can and can't restrict, and the tenuous thread upon which they can hang a "State's Interest" is so flimsy you would scoff if I could tell you what I know about it from personal experience. That said, the question was not whether they could come up with a State's Interest, but whether it rose to the standard of requiring a "Strict Scrutiny" analysis, or could be allowed under the much, much broader "Rational Basis" (only requires that the law be "rationally related to a legitimate state interest", and that can be damned near anything... until Lawrence, sodomy laws were upheld as "rationally related to the state's interest in Public Morality"...whateverthefuck that is!) analysis... and both of those assume that there is a "Constitutional Right" being abridged in the first place, which Scalia seemed to feel there was not... though I'm fuzzy on his exact reasoning for that conclusion.

I argued that exact point in early 2005, when Ann Coulter came to speak at the university in the town where I was living at the time. When I asked her how her opinions on the issue of gay rights (she was talking indirectly about the recent decision in Lawrence, and complaining about the extension of rights to Duh Gayz) squared with the Court's obvious decision to do exactly that sort of expansion in the Loving case. Coulter had been a clerk for a Supreme Court judge, I had read, so it seemed like a relevant thing to ask her. She instead acted like she didn't know anything about it, and mocked me for being "a law student" trying to be "smart." I started to retort that I was a biologist, and NOT a student, let alone a law student, but my mic had already been cut off. Sad

(26-06-2015 07:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The stupid idea that marriage has been "defined as thus and so" for eons is rubbish.
1. It has had countless definitons, including in the bible,
2. The fact that important NEW INFORMATION came to light in the study of human sexuality from the late 19th Century to the present, provides very legitmate reasons to re-look at it.

There is no valid reason EVER yet put forward to deny this fundamental right to gays.

If you'll pardon the expression, AMEN! It drives me crazy that the people who so like to emphasize the Judaic basis for their religion and morality-concepts, in order to establish that their God has been "forever and always" and thus implying that their moral system is, too, just glaaaaaaaaaaze right over the fact that their Patriarchs all had dozens of wives! Young rising star David, even while he was running from Saul, already had two wives. Don't even try to figure out exactly how many Solomon had, the "greatest" of God's favorited, then, according to their mythology. I can't even figure out how they got the "one man one woman" thing until Jesus said some obscure passage about "the two shall become one flesh", etc., while instructing them that divorice was (suddenly) no longer okay, or how it got from "marry 1000 women like Solomon did" to "one man one woman and no divorce". The whole thing is so confusing!

And good grief, Bucky, don't get me started on what would happen if the Courts in this country started paying attention to science and reason! I'm not just being sarcastic... that concept has a very, very loose application in American courts. They use what's called the "adversarial system", where you can make any assertion, and if the other side does not have the acumen or the resources to counter it, it's true for the sake of that hearing. And even when you do counter it, if the judges prefer one set of pseudoscience over actual science, they can say "well, this one 'expert' said this, so we're gonna go with him, even though the top scientist in the field testified that the State's Expert is speaking rubbish". I've observed it occurring, firsthand, through three levels of court. You can attest that the moon is made of green cheese, and under the right circumstances, that can be held as "true" for the purposes of a given hearing, even a ruling that will stand until challenged by a following case. Courts rely mainly on "precedent", meaning tradition and argument from momentum. You'd be hard-pressed to find a case where they said, "Well even though we thought this for the past 250 years, new science has shown..." That's what makes this new ruling so spectacular!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: