The take away would be that your party has different levels of ineffectuality. I called it milquetoast because seriously, you guys should be hitting gay marriage from a dozen angles, not just screaming the same message repeatedly.
I'm not a democrat. I'm a former republican whose goal is the overall happiness and well-being of the living based on observable results.
Democrats and other factions have advocated equal rights for people regardless of preference for decades. Hell, in California the loudest argument outside of simple equality is that gay marriages would be great for the economy because homosexuals, despite being a fucked-over minority, average to be wealthier than the average heterosexual, and the sheer awesomeness of being able to be given fair treatment would result in freaking awesome parties with no expense spared so that the sweet sweet money would flow into a broad range of pockets.
So, bluntly, been there, done that, almost nobody listened.
I've convinced people to support gay marriage - conservative people, becuase my message is fundamentally different that what you're peddling. No half-naked men on dick floats as Irondwill called it, and no attempts at parity with minority civil rights.
The sexual freedom angle and the reminder of why it's a dick move to remove the rights of a minority of civilians are two of those dozen angles you're speaking of.
This happens to be one area we both fundamentally agree upon, but your (read: party's) message is inadequate. The Dems could kill in this area, not just gain ground inch by inch like they have. And they could do it without resorting to a court imposition.
There are many many people who believe that right and wrong are defined by what's legal. This is yet another angle.
Are you for or against taking this issue on from many angles?
I've convinced people to support gay marriage - conservative people, becuase my message is fundamentally different that what you're peddling. No half-naked men on dick floats as Irondwill called it, and no attempts at parity with minority civil rights.
Couple of things:
FIRST: You're mischaracterizing Irondwill's quote; he was pointing out that it's the anti Gay Marriage ads that show you half-naked men on dick floats in order to scare middle-class suburban moderates into thinking that maybe if they don't vote Yes on Proposition 8, gay men in ass-less chaps are going to be driving all over town in their dick-floats, so not only will the homos be all up in your grill with their gay butt sex, traffic will also get even worse than it already was in California.
Which is a red herring and a conservative bogeyman. Nearly all gay rights movements are heteronormative, meaning that they focus on showing the undecided public that gays are more or less just like you. Also: traffic can't actually get any worse in most parts of California.
Sometimes there is behavior that one might consider unusual at gay pride parades, but pride movements are actually separate from activist movements -- they're rooted in the shared psychological conditioning that nearly all homosexuals grow up with by virtue of having been, at some point and for some period of time, closeted. Similar to black pride movements in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which were also the result of shared psychological conditioning because of how white society tended to treat African Americans. it is true that almost all participants agreed with the aims of the civil rights movement -- but it is not the case that every black civil rights activist was casting off his slave name, adopting Islam and donning a dashiki. Indeed, that was only a very small minority within the civil rights movement.
THE SECOND THING: As I stated before, the notion that we have to convince all conservatives to allow gay marriage in the first place carries with it the acknowledgement that members of society have a right to weigh in on the private decisions of an individual. You don't want to compare it to civil rights? Okay -- you're wrong, but okay. How about we compare it to any persons basic ability to make his own choices in his private life without having to seek the consent of a disinterested but fickle public? What if you were required to seek the public's consent to buy a new car, and we had veto power if we didn't like your choice? What if you had to solicit our permission to major in the subject of your choice at college? What if we thought it was unAmerican to name your kid something like Mohammed and told you that you had to pick a different name?
The very notion that you would have to ask our permission in any of these cases is ludicrous; likewise it's not any less ridiculous to presuppose that we need to ask for conservatives' permission before two consenting adults are allowed to wed. So stop suggesting that we should have to do it.
On the broader topic, we also don't have to kowtow to conservatives to beg for their political support. We're happy to identify middle ground and common goals -- at the end of the day, we all love this country and its people -- but if we have to settle for winning a debate or election with only 51% of the vote, we will somehow find a way to accept that.
Take Gore v Bush for example. Many on the left decried that the election was stolen, despite the decision being made a "coequal branch of the government". The victory is more absolute and infinitely more meaningful when it's made by the people, not made for the people.
Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of people were very critical of the Bush v Gore (this is the correct order btw, and yes it does actually matter which order they go in for court cases) decision because it was made in a shitty way.
They stopped "illegal" recounts based on the idea that the continued fight was hurting the nation as a whole, then basically said "oh by the way, since we are making this decision so fast we don't want this case being used as case law in the future"
People who actually know what happened in that case are angry about how and why the decision came about, not just because their chosen candidate lost
Take Gore v Bush for example. Many on the left decried that the election was stolen, despite the decision being made a "coequal branch of the government". The victory is more absolute and infinitely more meaningful when it's made by the people, not made for the people.
Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of people were very critical of the Bush v Gore (this is the correct order btw, and yes it does actually matter which order they go in for court cases) decision because it was made in a shitty way.
They stopped "illegal" recounts based on the idea that the continued fight was hurting the nation as a whole, then basically said "oh by the way, since we are making this decision so fast we don't want this case being used as case law in the future"
People who actually know what happened in that case are angry about how and why the decision came about, not just because their chosen candidate lost
Let's also not forget about why recounts were going so slow - the GOP was busing in rent-a-mobs.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
Late as hell on this one, but regarding Reid as Senate Majority Leader, whose fucking bright idea was it to make a senator from a red state the fucking Majority Leader? There should be a rule in the party to never, ever put someone in the Speaker/Majority Leader's role that is in any way actually vulnerable to challenges from the right.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
No, it's the absolute most unpopular way (with a certain group of people) to get stuff done in the US.
Mostly BECAUSE of the progress made in the 60s and 70s which the GOP has managed to convince people is the terrible evil of "Judicial Activism" (ie - judges making rulings you don't like)
Saying Courts are the worst way to get stuff done is ridiculous, since courts are often where the most progressive stuff is getting done. Hell, they are often the ONLY way it will get done at all. They are usually miles ahead of the elected branch.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
That's not why there's a continuing backlash on civil rights or abortion or why it's salient.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
If you believed that segregation was actually unconstitutional, why wouldn't you use the courts? That is what they are for.
You know, the last I heard, the judiciary was a coequal branch of the government, and its actions were just as legitimate as those of the executive and legislative. 'Resorting' to the courts is like 'resorting' to the Congress or state assembly.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
If you believed that segregation was actually unconstitutional, why wouldn't you use the courts? That is what they are for.
I see what he is saying. The courts will get things done and give people the rights they deserve but that doesn't automatically change the populations mind. Thus you have many trailing years of dissent from large groups of the population.
It would be nice if the majority of people who voted supported the minority's rights, but that isn't the case. So I would rather have the courts stand up for people's rights before the general population is ready for such changes. It is better than just waiting around for the old and the bigoted to die off.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2010
yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said
you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said
you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
Of course there's always the competing theory that 1) if we waited for the majority to come around it would never happen and 2) some things get easier to accept once they're institutionalized.
I don't doubt that there's some degree of truth on either side of this. But it really comes down to individual issues rather than blanket truths about judicial intervention.
yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said
you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.
That was the case in Worcester v. Georgia, where nobody was willing to support the court's decision despite it being, you know, their fucking job to do so. In Brown v. Board, that was not true.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
Judges are part of the democratic process. Through them, we may petition for redress of wrongs we have suffered. Their demonization is a threat to the fabric of our government and its legitimacy.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
If you do the right thing, and its unpopular and has political consequences, thats commendable. I didnt vote for a guy so that he could get re-elected. I vote for a guy so he can do things.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
Judges are part of the democratic process. Through them, we may petition for redress of wrongs we have suffered. Their demonization is a threat to the fabric of our government and its legitimacy.
judicial decisions are anti-democratic
that they are a necessary fixture of our government in terms of ruling on constitutionality is true, but it's not the same as reaching democratic decisions.
i'm not arguing against the results of brown v board or roe v wade (though if we're honest, the court's rationale in roe was a stretch). but they were anti-democratic decisions and have cost us politically in terms of enacting an actual democratic progressive agenda.
if nothing else, judicial overrides infantalize the body politic. politicians and voters start to assume that the courts will sort out the dumb self-interested and frivolous stuff we're tempted to do.
Um, define actual Democratic progressive agenda, because two things:
1) I think fairness and equality of friggin' education is a bit part of the progressive education.
2) The Great Society was passed after Brown v. Board.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Do other countries not have judicial systems that do similar things? If you want to argue for having judges being elected or against lifetime terms or whathaveyou, there really needs to be some evidence that this works in practice and not just in theory.
yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said
you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
What. No. A coequal judiciary is what makes us a democracy and not a tyranny of the majority.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think that blaming progressive court decision for impeding a progressive legislative agenda kind of misses the point.
Conservatives will be angry about societal change regardless of its source. That Roe v Wade was a court decision and not an Amendment is a technicality as far as the anti-choice base is concerned.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
If Citizens United ends up destroying the country, then I'll go in with him and say that having the particular judiciary we do is fucked. Given that corporate money has increased 5x from the last midterm to this one, nearly all of it going to Republicans, it might just be.
If Citizens United ends up destroying the country, then I'll go in with him and say that having the particular judiciary we do is fucked. Given that corporate money has increased 5x from the last midterm to this one, nearly all of it going to Republicans, it might just be.
The thing is that is more a flaw of the Roberts Court than of the system itself.
It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.
Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.
BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.
sterling3763 on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
He's being practical. They wont retire because of the consequences for their side. They'd have to kick it, unfortunately.
It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.
Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.
BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.
Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.
It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.
Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.
BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.
Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.
Ah yes, there's that trademarked liberal tolerance, wishing death upon those you disagree with so you can get your way.
He's being practical. They wont retire because of the consequences for their side. They'd have to kick it, unfortunately.
Sandra did it. So did Stevens and Souter. Ginsburg has all but promised to step down any term now. Yes, justices typically like to retire under presidents of the same party as those who nominated them, but stuff happens (see e.g. Stevens and Souter).
Posts
I'm not a democrat. I'm a former republican whose goal is the overall happiness and well-being of the living based on observable results.
Democrats and other factions have advocated equal rights for people regardless of preference for decades. Hell, in California the loudest argument outside of simple equality is that gay marriages would be great for the economy because homosexuals, despite being a fucked-over minority, average to be wealthier than the average heterosexual, and the sheer awesomeness of being able to be given fair treatment would result in freaking awesome parties with no expense spared so that the sweet sweet money would flow into a broad range of pockets.
So, bluntly, been there, done that, almost nobody listened.
The sexual freedom angle and the reminder of why it's a dick move to remove the rights of a minority of civilians are two of those dozen angles you're speaking of.
There are many many people who believe that right and wrong are defined by what's legal. This is yet another angle.
Are you for or against taking this issue on from many angles?
Couple of things:
FIRST: You're mischaracterizing Irondwill's quote; he was pointing out that it's the anti Gay Marriage ads that show you half-naked men on dick floats in order to scare middle-class suburban moderates into thinking that maybe if they don't vote Yes on Proposition 8, gay men in ass-less chaps are going to be driving all over town in their dick-floats, so not only will the homos be all up in your grill with their gay butt sex, traffic will also get even worse than it already was in California.
Which is a red herring and a conservative bogeyman. Nearly all gay rights movements are heteronormative, meaning that they focus on showing the undecided public that gays are more or less just like you. Also: traffic can't actually get any worse in most parts of California.
Sometimes there is behavior that one might consider unusual at gay pride parades, but pride movements are actually separate from activist movements -- they're rooted in the shared psychological conditioning that nearly all homosexuals grow up with by virtue of having been, at some point and for some period of time, closeted. Similar to black pride movements in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which were also the result of shared psychological conditioning because of how white society tended to treat African Americans. it is true that almost all participants agreed with the aims of the civil rights movement -- but it is not the case that every black civil rights activist was casting off his slave name, adopting Islam and donning a dashiki. Indeed, that was only a very small minority within the civil rights movement.
THE SECOND THING: As I stated before, the notion that we have to convince all conservatives to allow gay marriage in the first place carries with it the acknowledgement that members of society have a right to weigh in on the private decisions of an individual. You don't want to compare it to civil rights? Okay -- you're wrong, but okay. How about we compare it to any persons basic ability to make his own choices in his private life without having to seek the consent of a disinterested but fickle public? What if you were required to seek the public's consent to buy a new car, and we had veto power if we didn't like your choice? What if you had to solicit our permission to major in the subject of your choice at college? What if we thought it was unAmerican to name your kid something like Mohammed and told you that you had to pick a different name?
The very notion that you would have to ask our permission in any of these cases is ludicrous; likewise it's not any less ridiculous to presuppose that we need to ask for conservatives' permission before two consenting adults are allowed to wed. So stop suggesting that we should have to do it.
On the broader topic, we also don't have to kowtow to conservatives to beg for their political support. We're happy to identify middle ground and common goals -- at the end of the day, we all love this country and its people -- but if we have to settle for winning a debate or election with only 51% of the vote, we will somehow find a way to accept that.
Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of people were very critical of the Bush v Gore (this is the correct order btw, and yes it does actually matter which order they go in for court cases) decision because it was made in a shitty way.
They stopped "illegal" recounts based on the idea that the continued fight was hurting the nation as a whole, then basically said "oh by the way, since we are making this decision so fast we don't want this case being used as case law in the future"
People who actually know what happened in that case are angry about how and why the decision came about, not just because their chosen candidate lost
Let's also not forget about why recounts were going so slow - the GOP was busing in rent-a-mobs.
counting on the courts is terrible
terrible
it's the absolute worst way to get stuff done in a democracy. People will go to their graves trying to roll back what they see as a judge-imposed injustice 60 years hence.
Democratic reliance on the judiciary in the 60s and 70s is why the continuing backlash to civil rights and abortion is still politically salient.
No, it's the absolute most unpopular way (with a certain group of people) to get stuff done in the US.
Mostly BECAUSE of the progress made in the 60s and 70s which the GOP has managed to convince people is the terrible evil of "Judicial Activism" (ie - judges making rulings you don't like)
Saying Courts are the worst way to get stuff done is ridiculous, since courts are often where the most progressive stuff is getting done. Hell, they are often the ONLY way it will get done at all. They are usually miles ahead of the elected branch.
That's not why there's a continuing backlash on civil rights or abortion or why it's salient.
not really
if he'd been more liberal, he'd have an even more galvanized opposition in nevada
and if he'd been more conservative, even less would have gotten done and his supporters would hate him.
he's in a tough spot, which is why he shouldn't be majority leader
If you believed that segregation was actually unconstitutional, why wouldn't you use the courts? That is what they are for.
I see what he is saying. The courts will get things done and give people the rights they deserve but that doesn't automatically change the populations mind. Thus you have many trailing years of dissent from large groups of the population.
It would be nice if the majority of people who voted supported the minority's rights, but that isn't the case. So I would rather have the courts stand up for people's rights before the general population is ready for such changes. It is better than just waiting around for the old and the bigoted to die off.
you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.
maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.
I don't doubt that there's some degree of truth on either side of this. But it really comes down to individual issues rather than blanket truths about judicial intervention.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Judges are part of the democratic process. Through them, we may petition for redress of wrongs we have suffered. Their demonization is a threat to the fabric of our government and its legitimacy.
that they are a necessary fixture of our government in terms of ruling on constitutionality is true, but it's not the same as reaching democratic decisions.
i'm not arguing against the results of brown v board or roe v wade (though if we're honest, the court's rationale in roe was a stretch). but they were anti-democratic decisions and have cost us politically in terms of enacting an actual democratic progressive agenda.
if nothing else, judicial overrides infantalize the body politic. politicians and voters start to assume that the courts will sort out the dumb self-interested and frivolous stuff we're tempted to do.
1) I think fairness and equality of friggin' education is a bit part of the progressive education.
2) The Great Society was passed after Brown v. Board.
What. No. A coequal judiciary is what makes us a democracy and not a tyranny of the majority.
Conservatives will be angry about societal change regardless of its source. That Roe v Wade was a court decision and not an Amendment is a technicality as far as the anti-choice base is concerned.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The thing is that is more a flaw of the Roberts Court than of the system itself.
It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.
Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.
BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.
Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.
Ah yes, there's that trademarked liberal tolerance, wishing death upon those you disagree with so you can get your way.
Sandra did it. So did Stevens and Souter. Ginsburg has all but promised to step down any term now. Yes, justices typically like to retire under presidents of the same party as those who nominated them, but stuff happens (see e.g. Stevens and Souter).
Like many conservatives, you seem to be having a problem detecting sarcasm and tongue in cheek humor.
sotomayor seemed like a pretty good pick, most due to the fact that she is female and a minority
it's really sad that those two things make you a liberal
all of that seemed pretty serious to me
of course, i totally agree with it
gonna get a warm, patriotic feeling when one of those old men is six feet under