March 26, 2013

Who was first to say that it's good if a judge "keeps easy cases easy"?

We're very familiar with the old expression "Hard cases make bad law," from which one can infer that easy cases make good law and, perhaps, an idea that judges should make an effort to keep easy cases easy.

In today's case about drug-sniffing dogs, Justice Scalia said that using a property-rights analysis (rather than discussing the expectation of privacy) "keeps easy cases easy." Justice Kagan picked up the phrase in her concurring opinion to say that using both forms of analysis "would make an 'easy cas[e] easy' twice over."

Should we credit Justice Scalia with the new aphorism "kee[p] easy cases easy"? (Note that I'm using the Kagan approach to brackets as I drop the s on "keeps.")

The only near example I found in the state and federal courts database was Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001), in which Judge Alex Kozinski said that something "illustrates that easy cases are easy, however one analyzes them." But that's not the same as proclaiming it a virtue to keep easy cases easy, so I give the aphorism to Justice Scalia.

By the way, Scalia loves to talk about easy cases. For example, last fall:
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.
Sometimes when one lawyer says a case is easy, you want to say — as I once heard Professor Henry Monaghan say — "Yes, but which way is it easy?"

111 comments:

Jay said...

Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said

I can only imagine the shock and horror you and your close friends react to this bigotry with Ann!

Why does this man get any air at all!??

Mitchell the Bat said...

How much praise does Scalia deserve for rewording KISS?

The Drill SGT said...

Does that apply on Prop 8 as well.
Sems like that has:
- judge shopping,
- hair splitting at the appellate level
- political games played by the State AG
- avoidance by the SCOTUS

how about a simple ruling that either validates the initiative process or finds another hidden right in the penumbra.

Jay said...

Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion.

Latest headline:
FARGO, N.D. — A Republican governor signed legislation Tuesday that would make North Dakota the most restrictive U.S. state on abortion rights, banning the procedure if a fetal heartbeat can be detected — something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple also signed into law a measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

The measures are fueled in part by an attempt to close the state's sole abortion clinic, in Fargo. Supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure said it is a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

Abortion rights advocates have promised a legal fight that they say will be long, costly and unwinnable for the state.

Alex said...

Fortunatley bigots like Scalia are being repudiated by society, especially the younger generation.

Robert Cook said...

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,"

Scalia here demonstrates (again) that he is either:

a)a moron
b)intellectually dishonest
c)a thug in a jurist's gown

I doubt he's a moron, so it's likely options "b" and "c" are applicable.

Fritz said...

If by thug, you mean some one who won't give you what you want.

Nichevo said...

Cook, you may not realize this, but you don't have the credibility on this forum to make such assertions without not only proof but even an explanation of what you mean.

Titus said...

Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.

Geoff Matthews said...

Robert,

Can something be constitutional, but a bad idea?

Judges aren't supposed to decide if something is a bad idea, only if it is constitutional.

Jay said...

Titus said...
Scalia today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.


You posted the same thing in the other thread as "Andy R"

oops!

Chuck said...

Alex said...
Fortunatley bigots like Scalia are being repudiated by society, especially the younger generation.

Justice Scalia is getting his usual drubbing from a press that is so ignorant, it can only be a kind of determined ignorance.

Exhibit A is this story now appearing in Mother Jones online. The author, Adam Serwer, is presumably not a lawyer. He'd be an embarassment if he were a lawyer. This article is such a nonsenscal out-of-contxt mashup of things that Adam Serwer doesn't understand, one doesn't even know where to begin.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

To Alex: Exactly why do you think that anyone from the right would engage you in discussion, when your opening is that Justice Scalia is a "bigot"? I'd no more tolerate you on a blog of my own, than I would tolerate a real, live, actual bigot.

I am absolutely through with the left's blandly monotonous accusations of "bigotry."

Nonapod said...

Well the full unedited exchange is actually this:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when -­ when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became
unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -­as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle

Jim S. said...

Hilary Putnam, the philosopher, once said "It's not self-evident what's self-evident."

Paul Zrimsek said...

Scalia probably likes to lunge for the Easy button as a way of twitting a certain sort of liberal: the kind who's theatrical about his Thoughtfulness, and makes a great show of wrestling with his conscience before going on to do exactly what he wants.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

If hard cases make bad laws, then good laws are the result of easy cases. But you can't infer that easy cases result in good laws.

Just sayin'...

Chuck said...

Thank you Nonapod.

I was just reading the full transcript. And wondering where that earlier supposed quotation from the argument had come from!

That's now an interesting question. How did the Scalia/Olson exchange get so butchered and then passed around on the internet?

AndyR? Titus? Where do you find that butchered partial quote? To cut and paste and foist upon this blog?

Mike said...

Every quote from Scalia that Cook uses is something that is absolutely undeniably true. The death penalty was a non-issue when Constitution was written. Abortion? What he said was 100% true. Sodomy? Also 100% true.

So what we are left with is the confrontation between "things that are in the Constitution" and "things liberals wish were in the Constitution" which must be "found" in a penumbra or dusty corner of the document. Cook, do me a favor and demonstrate that even ONE of Scalia's assertions that you quote are untrue.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Cooktard much prefers that legal intellect of Stalin over that of Scalia.

Lyssa said...

That's now an interesting question. How did the Scalia/Olson exchange get so butchered and then passed around on the internet?

I think that's the sort of thing that could also be described as an easy question.

People unwilling to engage in critical thinking have no interest in accuracy.

chickelit said...

AndyR? Titus? Where do you find that butchered partial quote? To cut and paste and foist upon this blog?

From their puppetmaster, Andrew Sullivan, who headlined it.

Nomennovum said...

Tits

rastajenk said...

"sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control"

Really? If I can't control my heterosexuality, doesn't that make me some kind of potential rapist or something? People that can't control their sexuality are a real threat to civil society, aren't they?

Lyssa said...

Really? If I can't control my heterosexuality, doesn't that make me some kind of potential rapist or something? People that can't control their sexuality are a real threat to civil society, aren't they?

Orientation is different from actions. But come on, you know that, don't you?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Here's the deal.

How is seeking to redefine the word "marriage", in order to, by proxy, get the societal benefits (public declaration of love, legal and tax items) of marriage status --- any different than some trying to redefine the word "veteran", in order to get the societal benefits ("thank you for your service", discounted college tuition, home loans) of THAT status?

Many WANT to join the military, but are stopped by the rules of membership (IQ test, physical and mental health, age, height, non-felon). But if those stopped folks could just get the word "veteran" to mean "someone who was in the military, or wanted to be but didn't meet the requirements", then they would be good to go.

Words mean things, for good reasons.

rastajenk said...

It's the actions that define the "orientation."

Alex said...

Really? If I can't control my heterosexuality, doesn't that make me some kind of potential rapist or something?

This is the kind of hateful bigotry that explains why the GOP is losing everywhere outside the deep south.

Alex said...

Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot.

garage mahal said...

Just glad the meaning of my marriage will be grandfathered in before the inevitable cheapening and coarsening of gay marriage arrives.

Jay said...

How did the Scalia/Olson exchange get so butchered and then passed around on the internet?

That's the community based reality in action.

They don't do facts, they do memes.

Facts harm the narrative.

Memes enhance it.

rastajenk said...

I'm not a bigot. I just don't see what's love got to do with it.

chickelit said...

Alex said...
Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot.

If I'm not mistaken, Alex may qualify as a trigot or even a triggot.

Inga said...

"Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot."

3/26/13, 3:17 PM

Alex! Quit making me agree with you.

CEO-MMP said...

Alex said...

Fortunatley bigots like Scalia are being repudiated by society, especially the younger generation.

You not agreeing with him hardly makes him a bigot.

However, you branding him a bigot simply because you don't agree with him? That certainly makes you something.

Alex said...

Inga, stop it. People will think we're in love.

Inga said...

I doubt it Alex, relax.

CEO-MMP said...

Alex said...

Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot.


Yeah...however did you find your way here, by the way?

CEO-MMP said...

Inga said...

"Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot."

3/26/13, 3:17 PM

Alex! Quit making me agree with you.

Don't look now, Inga...but you're here.

You know?

Pogo said...

At the time of the Peloppenesian War, Thucydides described the chaos brought upon the cities of Greece by their own civil wars.

At that time, he discovered, words lost their meaning.

An alteration in language "is not merely a lexical event, and it is not reversible by insistence upon a set of proper definitions. It is a change in the world and the self, in manners and conduct and sentiment."

Literally -literally- changing the world.

And here given no more thought than one side winning or not, that oxen may be gored with delight, damn the consequences.

Inga said...

Hey CEO, you're here too. Hail! hail! The gang's all here, guess who is a bigot, guess who is a bigot!

garage mahal said...

It's like when Hitler invaded _______.

hombre said...

Cook wrote: "Scalia here demonstrates (again) that he is either:
a)a moron
b)intellectually dishonest
c)a thug in a jurist's gown."

Assuming he was talking about historical legal interpretations in light of the clear language of the Constitution, where do you say he went wrong, Cook? Other than to disagree with you and other progressive moral relativists, that is.

Pogo said...

In the future Althouse, only garage, Inga, Titus, and Andy R are thoughtful commenters.
All else are bigoted losers.

Don't you want to be on the winning side?

It's like Obama, right?
Everyone wanted to be on his side in 2008.
Don't be a loser again!

Alex said...

Pogo - continue being on the wrong side of history.

Inga said...

Pogo, I was half heartedly attempting humor. The other half of my heart says yeah, damn right there are an inordinate amount of bigots here. Even Althouse's friends may agree, at the very least they think she's too easy on you.

Alex said...

The thing is everyone here knows I'm libertarian, so what's the huge shocker that I'm pro gay marriage? Honestly I'd have the state get out of the entire business. But as long as it is in, you can't discriminate on the basis of body part configuration.

Dante said...

Jay sez:

Why does this man get any air at all!??

Because the man is intelligent. Look, I'm pro choice (to a point, what I don't know), but I don't think the constitution disallows states from banning abortion.

There is a way to change the constitution: amend it. If the impetus isn't high enough, it won't be amended. Simple as that.

To you, it's bigotry. Let's say RvR were overturned. While I'm very conservative on fiscal matters, I wouldn't vote for people who would seek to ban abortion at the state level. Same for gay sodomy.

Now explain why that makes me a bigot?

And if you grant my assumption, that the constitution is silent on states' control over abortion law, would you still support RvR?

Dante said...

Pogo - continue being on the wrong side of history.

Yes, Pogo. Jump over to the side that destroys the institutions that made this, and many other countries, great. Let's go for some of that European meltdown: dying out because of low fertility rates, confiscating people's earned money, and not supporting themselves militarily.

Honestly, I think there is something to this. Rather than agonizing over the destruction of the country, it's culture, etc., rejoice at the two tier society the Democrats are putting together, with all their corporate welfare, theft from the middle class and the unborn.

All in the name of "Fairness."

Inga said...

Dante if you think SSM will diminish traditional marriage, you don't give traditional marriage much credit.

Alex said...

Inga - traditional marriage is already dead. These days heterosexuals increasingly have kids out of wedlock or marry for the love. It's not about forming an economic unit for the purpose of raising children.

Revenant said...

"For 200 years, it was illegal in every state" strikes me as a pretty dumb argument.

Racial discrimination by state governments, in one form or another, has been around for centuries despite the 14th amendment having been passed almost a century and a half ago. Are we to conclude that the Constitution does NOT require that people of different races be equally protected by the law?

Or shall we just conclude that the SCOTUS has been failing to do its job properly?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Alex, I realize it's not ALL about children, or else oldsters wouldn't be allowed to marry. It is partially about children though, remember gay couples want their children raised in a marriage also.

Traditionally people marry for love, children may or may not follow.

garage mahal said...

Yes, Pogo. Jump over to the side that destroys the institutions that made this, and many other countries, great

Ted Olson, who is representing the two plaintiffs, is a Republican.

Alex said...

Look Scalia is like one of those ancient inquisitors who just happens to be a SCOTUS judge. Very unfortunate for this republic.

Alex said...

Inga - honestly what is the point in 2 60-something getting married? Why not just live together?

Inga said...

Alex, ask Althouse and Meade. As for me, I like being single. I suppose it's a commitment to be monogamous as any younger couple's.

Revenant said...

continue being on the wrong side of history

History doesn't have "sides". The idea that there is an overall progressive direction to human society is a bunch of foolishness.

If history shows us anything, it is that social beliefs are cyclical in nature.

CEO-MMP said...

Inga said...

Hey CEO, you're here too. Hail! hail! The gang's all here, guess who is a bigot, guess who is a bigot!

Yeah Inga. Difference is I'm not saying people that hold different opinions than I do are bigots.

You know?

And I don't think you're a bigot. Alex is a bigot though.

CEO-MMP said...

Inga said...

Alex, I realize it's not ALL about children, or else oldsters wouldn't be allowed to marry. It is partially about children though, remember gay couples want their children raised in a marriage also.

Some do. Some don't give a fuck. Ask me how I know.

Inga said...

CEO, it's not the fact that they hold a different opinion, than one's own that makes a person a bigot.

CEO-MMP said...

Inga said...

CEO, it's not the fact that they hold a different opinion, than one's own that makes a person a bigot.

Have you read some of the things Alex has written?

Be honest now... :)

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

CEO, Alex blows hot and cold, liberal and conservative at any given moment. I wish he'd stop doing that because there are times he makes sense. As far as his opinions on those who are religious, he leans toward bigotry. So does Andy R.

Live and let live, want to embrace religious beliefs, fine. Don't shove it down the throats of the rest of the country. Gay marriage won't affect religious marriage, to say it will diminish it is foolish.

Jay said...

Pogo said...

In the future Althouse, only garage, Inga, Titus, and Andy R are thoughtful commenters.


Titus/Andy R revealed itself to be one and the same today.

Jay said...

Inga said...


Traditionally people marry for love,


Um, no, no they do not.

"Marrying for love" is a Western concept that is less than 400 years old.

Your comments on this topic couldn't be any more vapid and silly.

Inga said...

Jay, you silly twit. For someone who says they aren't married and have never been married, you make yourself appear to be a uninformed blowhard.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Jay, you silly twit. For someone who says they aren't married and have never been married, you make yourself appear to be a uninformed blowhard.


I've said no such thing.

You are nothing more than a silly troll.

Inga said...

Also Jay, marriage has been redefined in the last 400 years, per your own statement, hasn't it?

Jay said...

Traditionally people marry for love

What kind of person takes to the Internet to say something so stupid?

Inga said...

Jay, people marry for love.

Obviously no one would love someone such as yourself. So sorry.

jr565 said...

Titus provided the following quote:

JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

Interracial marriage is not the same as gay marriage. So talking about the constitutionality of one in comparison to the the other shows that Olson is not arguing legitimately.

Interracial marriage doesn't redefine marriage. It's still between men and women. Interracial marriage is closer to say making incestual marriages illegal. Namely, there are two people who would otherwise be able to marry but are restricted because of some other aspect of their relationship society deems important to restrict.

Since black men are in fact men on what basis would you restrict a marriage between a black man and a non black woman. Note, however that even after legalizing interracial marriage a black man could not marry a white man.
Because legalizing interracial marriage does not redefine marriage.

Jay said...

Alex said...

Fascinating how Althouse blog seems to attract a special kind of bigot.


Yes, let's take a look at that, shall we?

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

Note:
Ann Althouse said...

I have close friends who are telling me that I am being too nice, giving you any air at all with what they call bigotry.

I am attempting to mediate, to bring you over to the right side on this social issue. You're getting stranded on the wrong side of a bridge, making bad, stale jokes at the people who've already crossed.

3/26/13, 8:51 AM


Surely not a coincidence...

Jay said...

nga said...

Also Jay, marriage has been redefined in the last 400 years, per your own statement, hasn't it?


You can't fucking read.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Jay, people marry for love.


Uh, nobody ever said they didn't.

chickelit said...

Jay said...
Titus/Andy R revealed itself to be one and the same today.

Maybe so, but Sullivan was simulcasting their talking points and they both seem to be close followers of that guru, so they may have just been knee jerking.

BTW, the all time best self-outing was by Maxine. Palladian caught "her" out: link.

Inga said...

And Jay, perhaps you would like to ask every conservative commenter here, just WHY they married their spouses. Love will be one of the first and foremost reasons. You are a very foolish young man.

Jay said...

Inga said...

And Jay, perhaps you would like to ask every conservative commenter here, just WHY they married their spouses. Love will be one of the first and foremost reasons.


Hey stupid shit: you are too dumb to realize you're confirming my point.

Learn to read and then get back to us.

Inga said...



"Uh, nobody ever said they didn't."

3/26/13, 5:00 PM

YOU did, you idiot Jay. LMAO.

Jay said...

BTW, the all time best self-outing was by Maxine. Palladian caught "her" out: link.

That's funny.

I find it beyond coincidental that "Andy R" posted the butchered Scalia exchange two posts down a mere 3 minutes before "Titus" posted it in this one...

Jay said...

nga said...



"Uh, nobody ever said they didn't."

3/26/13, 5:00 PM

YOU did, you idiot Jay. LMAO.


You can't read.

Of course you're laughing.

You're dumb.

Keep cackling.

Jay said...

Inga said...


YOU did, you idiot Jay. LMAO.


Actually, I said this:


"Marrying for love" is a Western concept that is less than 400 years old.


So you can like stop now, dummy.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Jay, you got caught saying something very stupid, now you're trying to back out of it, quit digging. At any rate I won't respond to you any further, as most commenters here don't for similar reasons.

Calypso Facto said...

So what we are left with is the confrontation between "things that are in the Constitution" and "things liberals wish were in the Constitution" which must be "found" in a penumbra or dusty corner of the document.

I see Dante beat me to addressing this very frustrating laziness we (as a society) have fallen into. The Constitution has a finite, mostly very clear, set of instructions intended to specify what the government may not do. Every word and passage therein was written at a certain time with a certain meaning. It has a built-in method for adopting new protections, but rather than go through the hassle of actually convincing enough of the population to vote for these measures in a democratic fashion it is now perceived as much easier to wage a media war and convince 5 sympathetic Supreme Court Justices that they were appointed to be philosopher-kings who warp the the plain words of the Constitution into previously un-devined hidden meanings.

And I say all of that as someone who is in favor same-sex unions.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:

The thing is everyone here knows I'm libertarian, so what's the huge shocker that I'm pro gay marriage? Honestly I'd have the state get out of the entire business. But as long as it is in, you can't discriminate on the basis of body part configuration.

what body parts do gays have configured differently. And if you are arguing that society can't discriminate on the basis of body part configuration, then why is polygamy banned the on
Y difference is there is one or more penises or vaginas in the mix. In other words, body part configuration.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Jay, you got caught saying something very stupid, now you're trying to back out of it, quit digging


Pointing out that you have no reading comprehension isn't "backing out" of anything.

Also repeating what I said isn't "backing out" of anything.

Note your silly post is all projection.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Traditionally people marry for love,


Actually, traditionally marriages are arranged.

You're a blathering idiot.

Jay said...

you can't discriminate on the basis of body part configuration.

Except gays don't have any body parts "configured" differently.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

And Jay, perhaps you would like to ask every conservative commenter here, just WHY they married their spouses. Love will be one of the first and foremost reasons. You are a very foolish young man.

OF COURSE people marry each other who love one another, but that's not the reason why society would promote marriage over say polygamy.
Do you honestly believe that polygamists don't or can't love one another. So then if they do, and that is you criterion why would you be for restricting it.
I notice you will never answer this question.

You like to call other people bigots, yet don't answer for you own bigotry. Or at the very least, you inconsistency.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Arranged marriages, tradional in the good old US of A! Who knew!?

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:

Inga, stop it. People will think we're in love.



Inga thinks its ok to deprive polygamists the right to marry. Why then are you not holding her to the same standard you hold ant gay marriage advocates. Especially as a libertarian who wants govt out of the marriage business?

EMD said...

Don't change, Alex.

Well, I mean, keep changing, like back and forth, from day to day, hour to hour.

I guess, don't change the change.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Arranged marriages, tradional in the good old US of A!


The fact that you think it some sort of positive to take to the Internet to reveal your ignorance speaks volumes about your intelligence.

For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged.

For example, it was normal for slave masters to arrange the marriages of his slaves.

Note: During the 1700 and 1800 hundreds arranged marriages were practiced predominantly in the Southern States.

Note: In Present day America, arranged marriages are still practiced by the Amish, devout Orthodox Jews, and members of Unification churches.

You're dumb.

You can like stop now.

Inga said...

Hmmmm, what year is it again? 2013?

Poor Jay.

Jay said...

I wonder if Inga has ever had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity outside of what she sees on MSNBC?

I mean, it would be totally horrifying to her world view to understand that for most of history it was usually the family patriarch who selected a bride for his son and who paid a "bride price" to her father.

Inga said...

Jay longs for the good old days of arranged marriages and bride prices, sorry to break it to you honey, time marches on.

Jay said...

Inga said...

Hmmmm, what year is it again? 2013?


I love the fact that you think this is responsive to something.

Note: In Present day America, arranged marriages are still practiced by the Amish, devout Orthodox Jews, and members of Unification churches.

Also note, the overwhelming majority of marriages in recorded human history have been arranged.

You not understanding the word "traditionally" is comical to watch.

Revealing too.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

CEO, it's not the fact that they hold a different opinion, than one's own that makes a person a bigot.

it sure sounds like it. Why aren't you a bigot for agreeing that polygamy be restricted?
You love calling repubs intolerant for not redefining marriage the way you want it, yet have no problem denying others who love each other from marrying, or redefining marriage that would normalize their loving relationship.

You do the same with abortion, and foreign policy questios as well.
You're pro choice, and repubs are eve for denying women the right to choose, but you think abortions should be banned in the second trimester. For a pro choices who thinks govt should get out og women's uteruses, how is you position not the same? You also said you had problems with abortions along sex grounds. If you were really pro choice you wouldn't let such distinctions bother you, since you would have the choice to do it regardless of the motivation.

And yet you're so quick to demonize others for their bigotry. Ever heard about judging not lest ye be judged?

Jay said...

Inga said...

Jay longs for the good old days of arranged marriages and bride prices,


Note that when facts prove you wrong, you attempt to argue against strawmen.

Want to guess why that is?

Jay said...

Inky has graduated from asserting that "Traditionally people marry for love" (no, no they didn't) to asserting I want arranged marriages.

Instead of simply saying she made a mistake, she triples down on imbecility.

Which is always fun.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

And Jay, perhaps you would like to ask every conservative commenter here, just WHY they married their spouses. Love will be one of the first and foremost reasons.

if you asked a brother and sister or a polygamous trio whether they loved each other, they'd probably say yes too. In fact that's why they would want to have society codify their relationships. You're all about the love. Why then should society deny them?

Revenant said...

The Constitution has a finite, mostly very clear, set of instructions intended to specify what the government may not do.

Not exactly. It had a finite, mostly very clear set of instructions to specify the few things the federal government *may* do. What the government may NOT do is easy: "anything not on that list".

So, for example, the federal government may NOT, per the constitution, extend special benefits to married couples. Of course most of the adult population is married, Supreme Court justices included, so that particular limitation was cheerfully ignored for centuries. Under the Constitution as originally written the issue doesn't even come up -- DOMA is utterly unconstitutional and California's Prop 8 is none of the federal government's business. The federal government may not act to regulate marriages because nothing in the Constitution gives it the power to do so.

That is, until the 14th amendment was passed. Now all the unenumerated rights that had been *passively* protected by virtue of them not falling under the enumerated powers of the federal government became enforceable BY the federal government. Now it actually matters what those unenumerated rights are, because ANY right, whether mentioned in the Bill of Rights or not, falls under the federal government's authority.

In short: you can thank the assholes of the Confederacy for this mess. Their vehement white supremacy led directly to the federal government seizing stewardship of Americans' rights from the states.

Bob said...

"Live and let live" and "don't shove it down country's throat"

So Inga you are now fine with me owning an AR15 and having/buying 30-round magazines?

Revenant said...

arranged marriages are still practiced by the Amish, devout Orthodox Jews, and members of Unification churches.

It is common among Indian-Americans, too, as well as among various Muslim subcultures.

Overall the percentage of Americans in arranged marriages is probably climbing, if only due to immigration.

Inga said...

What percentage of marriages in the US are arranged? I'll bet it's below 5%.

Alex said...

Inga - and among that 5% 100% are from Eastern cultures.

Revenant said...

What percentage of marriages in the US are arranged? I'll bet it's below 5%.

No idea, but what would it matter?

Revenant said...

AndyR? Titus? Where do you find that butchered partial quote? To cut and paste and foist upon this blog?

WSJ Live Blog -> Balkinization -> Andrew Sullivan -> here, apparently.

Although Sullivan did add an update explaining that Balkinization misrepresented the WSJ's post.

Calypso Facto said...

Not exactly. It had a finite, mostly very clear set of instructions to specify the few things the federal government *may* do. What the government may NOT do is easy: "anything not on that list".

You are, of course, correct and thank you for the further clarification.