EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 345
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States44275 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:04 aksfjh wrote: Isn't Scalia one of the judges that overturned parts of the VRA last month? >_> What's funny is that the decision rests on the notion of Equal Protection for states which really isn't in the Constitution. While I disagree with it, it isn't totally out of line with the sorts of inferences justices have made before...but it is precisely the sort of inference Scalia has repeatedly argued loudly and categorically that no justice should make. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:05 KwarK wrote: There's generally a certain etiquette where you don't use the Holocaust as an example to argue against a group of people who were victims of the Holocaust. He believes that it's expressly not his place to argue for or against any group of people. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:07 HunterX11 wrote: What's funny is that the decision rests on the notion of Equal Protection for states which really isn't in the Constitution. While I disagree with it, it isn't totally out of line with the sorts of inferences justices have made before...but it is precisely the sort of inference Scalia has repeatedly argued loudly and categorically that no justice should make. I think the moral of the story here is that, given the information available, Scalia is trying to tell us that he harbors Nazi sympathy. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote: He believes that it's expressly not his place to argue for or against any group of people. "He expressly believes" I think would be a more accurate wording  | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:10 HunterX11 wrote: "He expressly believes" I think would be a more accurate wording Says you On July 22 2013 06:20 Shiori wrote: Idk why Scalia keeps insisting that values or, you know, the moral imperative for a society to not be discriminatory without cause, are something like opinions... His line of thought is that if they weren't just opinions they'd be written down in the constitution. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:20 Shiori wrote: Idk why Scalia keeps insisting that values or, you know, the moral imperative for a society to not be discriminatory without cause, are something like opinions... Because they are opinions? Isn't that the argument against anti-gay people, that their values and moral imperatives regarding gays are just opinions, and bad opinions at that? If Scalia is a hypocrite for presenting values and moral imperatives as something more than opinions in Texas v. Lawrence and then saying they're just opinions for the VRA case, then it's just as hypocritical to say that "not being discriminatory" with or without cause is more than a good opinion. And really now the kind of snarking that goes on here against Scalia is just as stupid as it would be if I started using the same snark against David Souter or one of the other liberal justices. None of the justices are stupid and none of them make arguments that can be rejected with a snarky dismissive one-liner. Any one of them would embarrass the hell out of us if we tried this crap against them in person. Also if penumbras and emanations from the Constitution can be found to contain a right to abortion, then really Scalia saying that there is an implied equal protection of the states against the federal congress and executive is not that much of a stretch. The data used to determine what areas fall under VRA scrutiny hadn't been fully updated in a long time and Congress showed no interest in updating them, just rubber-stamping the continuation of the act infinitely. If Congress abdicates its duty and reflexively extends legislation that has fallen out of resemblance with reality, the courts have a right and a duty to prevent unfair treatment under the law that makes no sense anymore. It made sense to place restrictions on most of the South and some of the North 50 years ago, today? Not so much. There are still areas that need to be under the scrutiny and restrictions of the VRA, but they are not all the same as the areas that did in the 60s and 70s. It's a disgrace to an area to be under the VRA, should areas that don't need to be anymore still have that stigma placed on them? | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote: Because they are opinions? Isn't that the argument against anti-gay people, that their values and moral imperatives regarding gays are just opinions, and bad opinions at that? If Scalia is a hypocrite for presenting values and moral imperatives as something more than opinions in Texas v. Lawrence and then saying they're just opinions for the VRA case, then it's just as hypocritical to say that "not being discriminatory" with or without cause is more than a good opinion. And really now the kind of snarking that goes on here against Scalia is just as stupid as it would be if I started using the same snark against David Souter or one of the other liberal justices. None of the justices are stupid and none of them make arguments that can be rejected with a snarky dismissive one-liner. Any one of them would embarrass the hell out of us if we tried this crap against them in person. Also if penumbras and emanations from the Constitution can be found to contain a right to abortion, then really Scalia saying that there is an implied equal protection of the states against the federal congress and executive is not that much of a stretch. If Scalia really did just stick to his guns and have an awful but consistent judicial philosophy, that would be a different issue altogether (cf. Thomas). But he talks a big game about being an originalist, then abandons it when it conflicts with his personal beliefs. He is against penumbras and such, but then finds his own. Whether or not you agree with him or his opinions, it's pretty much undeniable that he's a hypocrite if you simply juxtapose what he says with his actual written opinions. | ||
|
FreedomMurder
Canada200 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:33 HunterX11 wrote: If Scalia really did just stick to his guns and have an awful but consistent judicial philosophy, that would be a different issue altogether (cf. Thomas). But he talks a big game about being an originalist, then abandons it when it conflicts with his personal beliefs. He is against penumbras and such, but then finds his own. Whether or not you agree with him or his opinions, it's pretty much undeniable that he's a hypocrite if you simply juxtapose what he says with his actual written opinions. In the case of the VRA vis-a-vis Lawrence v. Texas or the DOMA decision, I find accusations of Scalia being a hypocrite to ring hollow. The argument of the majority in the VRA case was not that the courts had the power to override Congress because judges do not like particular legislation, but rather that the legislation in question, regardless of what majorities it was extended with, was so faulty in its foundation and impact that it was unconstitutional. I do not doubt that Scalia's belief that the framers of the Constitution were supportive of equal protection of states is correct, they bent over backwards in the constitution to equalize the power of the states in the federal government as much as possible. I mean look at the criticisms, "Scalia said DOMA is okay because it was overwhelmingly democratically passed, but in VRA he goes back on that!" First, that is only half of Scalia's argument in DOMA, and second: How? Democratic passage is only one concern of the courts for the constitutionality of a law. The courts are there precisely because "it was overwhelmingly passed by Congress" is not an ironclad covers-all-questions constitutional argument. A law could pass 435-0 and 100-0 and still be unconstitutional as hell. Scalia didn't and no doubt doesn't believe that DOMA violates the constitution and that that coupled with its strong support when passed means that the Court overstepped its bounds. He doesn't believe that the sections of the VRA struck down reflected the facts of the situation and so the government's "compelling interest" was no longer justified. Where is the hypocrisy in that? Seems to me this bitching over hypocrisy with DOMA and VRA is based on a faulty characterization of Scalia's opinions. Other examples I am not as familiar with so I'd have to see them to make up my mind about them. But most criticisms of Scalia I see are of the 'I disagree with him so he must be dishonest / a hypocrite / whatever' type. The man is a happy warrior and that pisses people off. He enjoys the rhetorical combat. That's why he's become the number one bogeyman of the Left and there is not a similar bogeyman for the Right among the justices, he is more confrontational and combative than any of the other justices. That's why Thomas doesn't get as much or more criticism from the Left (as he should, as his philosophy is more hard-line and further to the Right than Scalia's), he keeps his mouth shut both on the bench and in public - with very rare exceptions - and doesn't draw as much attention to himself. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:33 HunterX11 wrote: If Scalia really did just stick to his guns and have an awful but consistent judicial philosophy, that would be a different issue altogether (cf. Thomas). But he talks a big game about being an originalist, then abandons it when it conflicts with his personal beliefs. He is against penumbras and such, but then finds his own. Whether or not you agree with him or his opinions, it's pretty much undeniable that he's a hypocrite if you simply juxtapose what he says with his actual written opinions. I honestly don't follow the SC close enough to dispute anything you are saying here. If true, that's unfortunate. I think Scalia's point in his speech was correct. Judges have a specific function and they should focus on doing just that. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: In the case of the VRA vis-a-vis Lawrence v. Texas or the DOMA decision, I find accusations of Scalia being a hypocrite to ring hollow. The argument of the majority in the VRA case was not that the courts had the power to override Congress because judges do not like particular legislation, but rather that the legislation in question, regardless of what majorities it was extended with, was so faulty in its foundation and impact that it was unconstitutional. I do not doubt that Scalia's belief that the framers of the Constitution were supportive of equal protection of states is correct, they bent over backwards in the constitution to equalize the power of the states in the federal government as much as possible. Other examples I am not as familiar with so I'd have to see them to make up my mind about them. But most criticisms of Scalia I see are of the 'I disagree with him so he must be dishonest / a hypocrite / whatever' type. The man is a happy warrior and that pisses people off. He enjoys the rhetorical combat. That's why he's become the number one bogeyman of the Left and there is not a similar bogeyman for the Right among the justices, he is more confrontational and combative than any of the other justices. That's why Thomas doesn't get as much or more criticism from the Left (as he should, as his philosophy is more hard-line and further to the Right than Scalia's), he keeps his mouth shut both on the bench and in public - with very rare exceptions - and doesn't draw as much attention to himself. Scalia disagrees with your defense of him. Scalia says that we can't make broad inferences as to the intent of the Framers without textual evidence. It's also worth noting that unequal treatment of the states actually is in the Constitution, viz. the 3/5 clause. As I already noted, I agree that Thomas is much more hardline, but he is also probably the most consistent Justice. But when Antonin Scalia, himself, in his own words, says one thing about judicial opinions, and then the the selfsame Antonin Scalia, himself, in his own words, writes a contradictory judicial opinion, that's hypocrisy. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Because they are opinions? Isn't that the argument against anti-gay people, that their values and moral imperatives regarding gays are just opinions, and bad opinions at that? First off, this. Taking your question as two separate ones: yes, the argument against anti-gay people is that their values in that regard are just opinions, and that we shouldn't legislate based on arbitrarily assigned values, because values, in this sense, do not refer to any particularly concrete thing (nor do they refer to any particular philosophical system). As to moral imperatives: no, my argument has never been that the anti-gay crowd's moral stance on gay people is a bad opinion; my argument is that their moral stance is objectively false, because I (and most of the world, in practice) hold morality (at least the parts applicable to the law) to be a matter for the rational faculty. In that respect, when any anti-gay moral philosopher in the known universe presents an ethical argument against the permitting of same-sex marriages that is valid and sound, I will immediately change my position on the issue of same-sex marriage. As it happens, though, no argument I have ever read on the subject has done so, and therefore, being that we have no good reason to forbid homosexuals from marrying, we should allow them to do whatever they want. The problem here isn't really that we're trying to legislate anti-discriminatory philosophy, per se, but that we're saying that people should only be excluded from using a legal construct (in this case marriage) if there is an actual reason for excluding them. As an example, we don't let children get married because of a general legal understanding regarding a child's ability to consent i.e.the lack thereof. The problem I have with the current situation is that we literally have no reason (aside from some people getting angry about it) whatsoever to tell gays "yo, you can't get married." If it's a matter of not wanting to take a "moral stance," then the most neutral stance would be to rewrite the marriage law from scratch and say: marriage is a legal contract between individuals, which provides [these benefits]; here is the process for getting married:... And then they'd just list all the exclusions there, each one of them requiring justification to make it into the bill. I just don't get it. When someone explains what marriage is in a legal sense, the gender of the spouses has zero relevance to what privileges and responsibilities the spouses are accorded. The constitution opens with: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now, maybe I'm being fairly liberal with my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that having good reasons for discrimination is implied by the promotion of the "general Welfare" and by the "Blessings of Liberty." All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. If Scalia is a hypocrite for presenting values and moral imperatives as something more than opinions in Texas v. Lawrence and then saying they're just opinions for the VRA case, then it's just as hypocritical to say that "not being discriminatory" with or without cause is more than a good opinion. Umm, I'm pretty sure the US's devotion to "liberty" implies not arbitrarily deciding to fuck over minorities just because they're icky. NOTE: I am not trying to say that forbidding ssm is necessarily unconstitutional. I'm just saying that it obviously should be. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 22 2013 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I honestly don't follow the SC close enough to dispute anything you are saying here. If true, that's unfortunate. I think Scalia's point in his speech was correct. Judges have a specific function and they should focus on doing just that. Scalia (along with many politicians) have the ability to say a vague and correct statement. Something along the lines of "secure a better future for our kids." Nobody is going to disagree with what Scalia said in terms of what a judge's responsibility is. However, he applies the narrative when he wants and disregards it when he wants. He doesn't (seem to) judge in accordance to some document or long-standing tradition, but instead judges based on some political ideology. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On July 22 2013 07:10 aksfjh wrote: Scalia (along with many politicians) have the ability to say a vague and correct statement. Something along the lines of "secure a better future for our kids." Nobody is going to disagree with what Scalia said in terms of what a judge's responsibility is. However, he applies the narrative when he wants and disregards it when he wants. He doesn't (seem to) judge in accordance to some document or long-standing tradition, but instead judges based on some political ideology. The weird part is that this is how much of the judge operate: that is, they have complex judicial philosophies (which really do not mirror partisan political positions nearly as much as people think) which they generally attempt to apply consistently, but how to apply them to any given set of circumstances is not obvious. That's the complicated part of the law. There are a few people who really do have an almost dogmatic notion of how the law works, however, like Clarence Thomas. Probably why he (almost) never asks questions during oral arguments is not because he's lazy, but because the minutiae of the case are irrelevant, and he can determine a priori how to rule in a given case (likewise, it's not to hard to predict with near 100% accuracy how he will rule in a given case). Then there's the third category of judge, namely Scalia when it comes to the Supreme Court, who claims to be like Thomas, but is not, and he applies his (avowedly non-existent) complex judicial philosophy in a manner that is at times more consistent with a personal ideology than with a literal interpretation of the law. And again, this latter part isn't out of the ordinary for most of the justices (but again it is more complex than it seems: if you look at a case about citizens vs, police you might be surprised to find Scalia on the "liberal" side and the "liberal" justices on the "conservative" side), but Scalia claims that that's not how he writes opinions at all. But he does. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote: All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. That's more like it! See, if opponents to SSM said things like this, we'd avoid of lot of the trouble, because this line of reasoning has already been debunked on tonnes and tonnes of occasions in the past. It would just be a matter of pointing to any historical scenario in which is would have made the majority happy for some minority to lose rights (or unhappy if they gained them e.g. segregation, interracial marriage, etc, birth control being accessible). The real problem with the rhetoric on SSM is that it's...just impossible to argue with. Like if someone says (say) "homosexuality is wrong because it destroys the family and is against religion" you can't even reply because there are so many assumptions and presumptions built into the assertion that it's hard to argue against anything in particular. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 22 2013 07:48 Shiori wrote: That's more like it! See, if opponents to SSM said things like this, we'd avoid of lot of the trouble, because this line of reasoning has already been debunked on tonnes and tonnes of occasions in the past. It would just be a matter of pointing to any historical scenario in which is would have made the majority happy for some minority to lose rights (or unhappy if they gained them e.g. segregation, interracial marriage, etc, birth control being accessible). The real problem with the rhetoric on SSM is that it's...just impossible to argue with. Like if someone says (say) "homosexuality is wrong because it destroys the family and is against religion" you can't even reply because there are so many assumptions and presumptions built into the assertion that it's hard to argue against anything in particular. Well, how much leeway can I have in finding an example? Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? Or something along the lines of the scenario laid out in Dogville? What about gun control? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
For a slightly federalist angle, maybe if states cannot establish laws on traditional moral or sexual norms (see laws on no-fault divorce, polygamy, alcohol consumption), how can they have laws on incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, obscenity (eg. child porn) and the rest. Majority depriving the minority of their rights to all these and more. I find a lot of hand waving with the homosexual rights crowd ... this is a right and that's not because uhh equality ... this can be a law and that can't because this prevailing sentiment "everyone knows" morality ... That's my thinking on the lawfully written laws, and the horrible supreme court decision. I'm not going to talk all day on the evidence that same-sex raised children are fine, what about gay adoption and child custody/child support. I'd just like a little circumspection on what is lawful, should there be some states recognizing incestuous marriages and somebody in Congress proposing DOGMA (New Doma) to say which federal benefits apply or how you file taxes if you got married polygamously/incestuously/common law in one state and moved to another where that is not recognized. The minority rights of what is free speech and what's obscenity in Miller vs. California and New York vs. Ferber are examples of times a minority unhappily lost rights for the majority to feel better about themselves. | ||
| ||
