[J]ust 28% believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. At the same time, 30% rate its performance as poor. That’s the highest-ever poor rating. It’s also the first time ever that the poor ratings have topped the positive assessments. Thirty-nine percent (39%) give the court middling reviews and rate its performance as fair....
१ जुलै, २०१३
"Public Approval of Supreme Court Falls to All-Time Low."
A new Rasmussen Poll.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११९ टिप्पण्या:
Thank god for the lifetime appointments. We don't need the court catering to the public's whims. Gay rights is not up for a vote.
And yet, there are no riots or popular uprisings challenging the Court in modern America.
In other words, it's popularity is meaningless outside of the TMZ/People magazine worlds. Americans of every political stripe accept the Court as the last word and we live accordingly, whether we hate or love it's decisions.
This would matter more if we had terms limits for Federal judges.
Which we should.
But interesting Ras finds this.
I thought everybody loved the idea of same sex marriage.
Wish we could have a vote of no confidence for the Supremes.
Watching a team punt the football out of bounds is boring. When it happens repeatedly, it's annoying.
They are snooped, are blackmailed, are forced to make convoluted decisions: Obamacare taxes...
So give them a break.
Maybe respondents believe the court is not supposed to make decisions based on whats popular at the moment and when it appears to them that the supremes are making desisions that way they respond accordingly.... sorry im on the phone with no spell check
Alex: "We don't need the court catering to the public's whims."
I agree completely with this. I assume the other two sentences you wrote are satire, or part of your strange schtick.
It's not as though new research into the meaning of words allowed these justices to see something in the constitution that other groups of nine couldn't make out.
After the infamous Kelo decision, anyone who believes the Supreme Court gives a rat-ass about individual liberties is a fool. The Constitution only means whatever 5 or more SC justices say it means. At best, the Constitution is a guideline rather than a hard standard. They could save a lot of time and money by just asking what Kennedy thinks on any given matter.
Surprise, surprise, surprise: pulling penumbras out of your ass year after year erodes public trust. Who'da thunk it?
Surprised it is this high. Interfering in the proper authority of the elected branches equals judicial tyranny. And to do so only for one political party means the Court is no longer a court at all. The NY Times no longer does journalism and the Supreme Court no longer does law. The idea that either the founders or the Reconstruction Congress were creating Constitutional rights for homosexuals is so laughable that it should end all deference to the Court by thinking persons. Amending the Constitution by judicial fiat is an unconstitutional act.
If I didn't know that certain justices are rumored to be denizens of the D.C. cocktail circuit I would be sympathetic to their latest polls. I am cynical believing that too many things are not what they appear to be. Too many appointees of both parties that are chose based on their bias which is why we are perpetually listening to the tired admonitions that the court rulings are 5-4 based on one swing vote.
As I've grown into a cynical old white fart, I've come to believe in a conservative version of Critical Law Theory.
The Law may love to tell itself the fairy tale that it's all about precedence & just the letter, but really it's all about whose ideological ox is getting gored.
Think I'm being cynical? Then ask yourself why, in the majority opinion striking down DOMA, it was necessary to paint the defendants as on the side of intolerance, when the ruling could have been fashioned as merely a defense of federalism. Why the need to step outside of the letter of the law for a school-marm lecture?
Has it always been like this in American history? I honestly haven't studied the historical record enough to make a decision. Off the top of my head, shit like Dred Scott & Roe v Wade, however, makes me worry that it was in the original recipe.
when they make up the law as they go along to fit their personal whims, there's no reason to approve of the job their doing. In fact, they've destroyed the rule of law and replaced it with the rule of insulated and elitist judges. Perhaps if the Supreme Court was moved to Topeka, Kansas that wouldn't be a problem.
The idea that either the founders or the Reconstruction Congress were creating Constitutional rights for homosexuals is so laughable that it should end all deference to the Court by thinking persons.
They clearly were creating rights for homosexuals. The exact same rights as for heterosexuals, no more, no less.
They have always had the same right to marry as everyone else. Find someone of the opposite sex, and convince them to marry you.
A series of free concerts on the courthouse steps ought to turn things around.
There was a time when I was in high school, that I had an argument with my father about the Supreme Court. His position was that Abortion was not a right under our constitution, and my position was that it must be, as the Supreme Court said so (sorta) under Roe V. Wade.
More than 2 decades later I understand my fathers position. Where once I believed the Supreme Court was made up of 9 judges who tried to determine the meaning of our constitution, I'm no longer so naive.
It's clear the Supreme Court is just 9 political appointees who favor certain laws over others and then find justification for their philosophical belief's.
More Time, More Time!
Thank goodness for lifetime appointments is right.
I like the current court myself, for what its worth.
Term limits for judges is a horrible idea.
Chase said...
And yet, there are no riots or popular uprisings challenging the Court in modern America.
In other words, it's popularity is meaningless outside of the TMZ/People magazine worlds. Americans of every political stripe accept the Court as the last word and we live accordingly, whether we hate or love it's decisions.
No, if the public gets sufficiently exercised about something, they notice.
Remember the death penalty?
YoungHegelian said...
The Law may love to tell itself the fairy tale that it's all about precedence & just the letter, but really it's all about whose ideological ox is getting gored.
It's this Court. If 5 or 8 of them caught the flu and croaked within a fortnight, whoever picked their replacements could have a clean sweep of things.
But I agree it's all ideological.
Comes from being in DC too long.
The poll's results were skewed to the negative because SCOTUS' fans were all out dancing in the street when the poll was taken.
This is a long term result. The court has tried to involve itself and the federal government on nearly every issue. How long has it been since the court used the tenth amendment in a decision? They can find abortion in the fourth amendment and same sex marriage in the 5th and 14th, but there is only one amendment that expressly and specifically mentions these two issues:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[2]"
The federal government would be a lot more popular if it got out of the fascist rut it is stuck in.
Do the moral laws make the people, or do the people make the moral laws?
And yes, I find it humorous that in DOMA they made the right decision and it still made people angry.
Legitimacy is falling. It's time to go to secrecy instead.
They will look at this data and seek to up their approval ratings by making more populist decisions. It's coming.
I guess that leaves David Brooks and myself to put up with the Court. Basically I liked all the controversial decisions though I could disagree with maybe a nuance in DOMA. The feds have never before told Kentucky how it's marriage laws should be structured. As Rand Paul said, NY will have laws for homosexual marriage and Southern states won't; that's federalism.
The ObamaCare disaster of half medical services for tripled costs paid up front is hard to hide.
Is it the Right winger homophobes and not John Roberts we American serfs should be blaming for that? Nope, and we know that the SCOTUS is impotent to protect us.
Perhaps if the Supreme Court was moved to Topeka, Kansas that wouldn't be a problem.
This actually isn't a bad idea. Why does every branch have to reside in the same place?
I like the current court myself, for what its worth.
If you like your current court, you can keep it.
Until you can't.
The court is "evolving."
A couple more liberal appointments and it will be deemed "Officially Evolved."
All of our beloved "Institutions" barely poll in double digits. The Flyover Folks are starting to catch on.
While we're talking popularity, Choom is hit a new high in low, too.
Is this where we blame Citizens United?
I wonder why that is. Not really.
I think part of the reason for the decline is that the Left (including most of the news media industry) over-reacts to decisions that don't go their way, like Citizen's United and Bush v. Gore in 2000, regardless of how it was decided.
Then they actively lobby the Supreme Court to respect the legislature for Obamacare, then to ignore the legislature for DOMA.
They decry 5-4 decisions against the Progressive Cause to be unDemocratic and nigh-to-tyranny, and questions the legitimacy and sometimes even the need for the SCOTUS...but then turn around and hail 5-4 decisions that advance the Progressive Cause as the triumph of Democracy and Reason, to which Stare Decisis must be immediately applied so can never be overturned.
So to the LIV, based on the media reaction it seems as if the Supreme Court just screws everything up, and only gets the no-brainers right, and their opinion of the SCOTUS drops.
Just another example of the short-sighted, immature actions of the Progressive Left.
I blame Saint Barry for inciting the mob at the SOTU in 2010.
The Supreme Court has once again normalized dysfunction. First, they normalized premeditated murder for money, welfare, and convenience, thereby causing a general devaluation of human life. Now, they have normalized a behavior antithetical to evolutionary fitness, continuing their legacy of sabotaging human development, presumably for the benefit of a select minority.
The conclusion people should form from these decisions, is that unprincipled liberals and unqualified progressives do not support equal protection or rights in equal measure. Their interest in both concepts is selective and has ulterior motives.
The real winners are people who have preserved their integrity, whether religious or objective, and are capable of offering a principled defense of their opposition to both premeditated murder without cause and due process, and evolutionary dysfunction.
Seems to me the problem started with Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury--Marshall asserted a right of judicial review, when the constitution was silent on that point. Unfortunately Marshall's usurpation of power was not challenged (although Andrew Jackson pointed out its problem when he refused to enforce its decision. Judicial review is a farce and usurpation of power.
I blame roberts for beclowning himself and the court in his efforts with obama care. Did he actually think liberals would like him?
traditionalguy:
Obamacare is a revenue generation scheme. If its purpose was to increase or improve medical care provision, then it would address supply and demand, but it doesn't.
Although, there was an accompanying executive order which sanctions behavior modification schemes; and while it was delivered "under the table", perhaps that it is the real goal of his policies. It is not clear, however, to what end.
Anyway, Obama was rejected by Americans. He is suspected by Europeans. He is unpopular with Africans. He is barely tolerated by Asians. He is really having a difficult time persuading anyone outside of his clique.
In good conscience I can't give the Court 100% of the blame here. The other branches have undertaken a deliberate strategy of making the Supreme Court the governmental "bad cop." If the other branches would actually try to respect the Constitution more on their own initiative, then every single hard case would not have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I care what polls think of "how the Supreme Court is doing".
Because I don't trust the average Joe to apply a metric I care about.
Most people - judging by their reactions ala Facebook, etc. - judge the Court by how well what they are told about its decisions matches their outcome preferences.
Until they start judging by "how well the decision comports with the Constitution" as the primary factor, I don't give a damn what they think, and neither should the Court.
The activists do not support equal protection or rights in equal measure. Their selective interests are quite obvious to anyone who pays even cursory attention to their campaigns. They cannot offer a principled defense of their inconsistent and highly variable positions.
What institutions do the public approve of? Maybe we're just demanding and difficult to impress. Maybe that's not always a bad thing.
The utterly cynical bullshit of saying Prop. 8's defenders didn't have standing while DOMA's did completely justifies the lack of confidence.
Wish we could have a vote of no confidence for the Supremes.
Looks like we just did. However, it is a non-binding resolution.
@Nathan,
What institutions do the public approve of?
The military ranks right up there, a finding that might shock many of us here who lived through the post-Viet Nam nadir of the military.
The incredible job the American military did in rebuilding itself in both performance & public opinion after Viet Nam will no doubt keep hordes of future military historians gainfully employed.
I'd like to see a score for each one.
You can't get much from these polls because two people can dislike a subject for exactly opposite reasons. The best way to get a higher score is to be as invisible as possible.
It seems like the court pretty closely represents public opinion in general, and we don't like each other much either.
In fact, I hate you all. At this very minute, I'm using my smartphone to comment while letting the air out of your tires. You don't which one of you is my target today, but one of you is getting what you deserve. I'll eventually get you all. Did you notice the broken sprinkler head last week? That was me. How about that missing sock? I got it right here, and your feet smell like dead maggots in liver sauce.
The only reason to blame this court is it's undue reasoning that presumes anything Congress passes is constitutional on it's face as a starting point. That simply leads to encouraging badly thought out legislation. If the assumption that everything Congress passes were dropped Congress would have to take more time and devout more thought on what it passes and provide a coherent framework for what it does pass. Obamacare being a prime example. Robert's could only find a way it make it pass muster by calling it a tax, something Congress refused to do. He should have said it might permissible if it is a tax and if Congress were to re-pass the bill that way it fly if Congress also specified what kind of a tax it is. If the court routinely did this a lot of crap would come to a quick end. One would think a law making body comprised mostly of lawyers with the ability to fund legal research to infinity make actually be able to craft constitutionally permissible laws.
Resistance to Kennedy's will is not only futile it's worse than futile, it's bigotry!
No institution consisting of lawyers will ever have the public's trust.
You might as well put you trust in a convention of used car salesman.
Then you have a chance of getting one in a thousand who is honest.
Steven said...
The utterly cynical bullshit of saying Prop. 8's defenders didn't have standing while DOMA's did completely justifies the lack of confidence.
7/1/13, 12:16 PM
You may not like the outcome but this time they actually got it right. In the Prop 8 the state was the one with standing. It chose not to appeal although it is supposed to defend it's laws. I suppose someone in CA will eventually sue in state court to block the issuance of SSM marriages since under the CA constitution CA's laws are valid until an appellate court, federal or state, rule otherwise. And the supreme court vacated the 9th circuit appellate decision leaving only the district court ruling. So as of now this Prop 8 issue in CA appears to be in limbo.
As for DOMA what did the court actually rule? That marriage laws are a state issue and that the feds can't impose a national marriage law and that insofar as federal benefits with respects to marriage they can only apply to whom a state considers to be legally married. Nothing radical about that.
Chase said...
And yet, there are no riots or popular uprisings challenging the Court in modern America.
In other words, it's popularity is meaningless outside of the TMZ/People magazine worlds. Americans of every political stripe accept the Court as the last word and we live accordingly, whether we hate or love it's decisions.
=======================
You sound like a robed lawyer worshipper.
What is the difference between you and a devout Iranian who says all Iranians must accept the Islamic Council and its Supreme Leader as the last word in all matters?
And all Iranians have no vote on matters the Holy Clerics intervene in - and no good Iranian challenges the authority of the robed Mullahs and Ayatollahs. Swallow the Islamic Councils vote as trumping the democratic vote of the people of Iran.
As for our "Supremes", our berobed Holy Lawyers worshipped by fools?
As Larry J said, it's whatever a 5 to 4 vote says it is.
(And sometimes, it doesn't even have to be in the Constitution...Roe or the Right to Marry Buggerers)
And as Larry J said, Anthony Kennedy is now the Supreme Decider.
The Iranians have Supreme Leader Kameini as their Decider when the Islamic Council of robed great men splits on matters. He is their Anthony Kennedy.
They clearly were creating rights for homosexuals. The exact same rights as for heterosexuals, no more, no less.
I want to park in the handicapped zone.
I want free medical care.
I want food stamps.
Baron Zemo said...
No institution consisting of lawyers will ever have the public's trust.
You might as well put you trust in a convention of used car salesman.
You raise a valid point about the distrust of lawyers but the comparison to used car salemen isn't sound. The worst a used car salesman can do to you is sell you a crappy car. Compare that to the worst a lawyer can do to you. There are reportedly over a million lawyers in the US, about one out of every 300 people. I doubt there are nearly that many used car salesmen out there, so not only do they represent a lessor threat to us than lawyers, there are fewer of them. Also, if you don't want to come into contact with used car salesmen, you can simply stay away from their car lots. Lawyers have wormed their way into every aspect of society and most of it isn't for anyone's benefit but their own. You may not have any interest in lawyers but they may have an interest in you, especially if you have money they can steal.
Bestiality brothels are 'spreading through Germany' warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as 'lifestyle choice'
Those "enlightened" Europeans are doing it again.
With what principled defense can you deny the love of a man and his sheep or goat?
We have already established that evolutionary fitness is not sufficient grounds for restricting behavior. Now that all behaviors are potentially normal, can any behaviors be rejected and with what criteria?
@cubanbob,
You may not like the outcome but this time they actually got it right. In the Prop 8 the state was the one with standing...
I actually have to agree with you that from a strict legal viewpoint, that's correct. But from the viewpoint of governance in a democracy, it's utter nonsense.
What the court is saying is that, if the executive branch of a state disagrees with a referendum, for any reason & no matter how large the popular support for that referendum, it can make the results of that election null & void by ginning up a legal challenge & then refusing to defend the referendum. No one else has the standing to defend the results of the election after all. So much for democracy.
I'm sorry, if this had been an environmental referendum that the voters in Texas had passed that the state refused to enforce, saying that the voters of Texas had no standing to come before the courts to defend their referendum would be seen by the progressive talking heads as the start of Texas' descent into the dark night of fascism.
cubanbob:
Now they care about state's rights; but, when it came to preserving the republican form of government, the federal government acted to violate the rights of a state and her citizens. They actively intervened to compromise the integrity of the state and government.
YoungHegelian wrote:
What the court is saying is that, if the executive branch of a state disagrees with a referendum, for any reason & no matter how large the popular support for that referendum, it can make the results of that election null & void by ginning up a legal challenge & then refusing to defend the referendum. No one else has the standing to defend the results of the election after all. So much for democracy.
Exactly right. currently propopents of gay marriage are overjoyed because it thinks it gets them gay marriage. But have this used against then the same way in one of their pet causes,and prepare to hear the howls of fascism.
Only, republicans would be stupid at this point not to do it too.
Young Hegelian wrote:
I'm sorry, if this had been an environmental referendum that the voters in Texas had passed that the state refused to enforce, saying that the voters of Texas had no standing to come before the courts to defend their referendum would be seen by the progressive talking heads as the start of Texas' descent into the dark night of fascism.
And if it happens to them, they are LOSERS, if they complain about it.
Thank god for the lifetime appointments. We don't need the court catering to the public's whims. Gay rights is not up for a vote.
There isn't any reason to think gay people have a constitutional right to marry. The reason people don't think much of the court is the court isn't behaving like a court; it's behaving like a super-legislature.
Like abortion, this issue should be decided at the state level.
Bestiality brothels spreading in Germany
It's so hilarious. We get pegged as crazies for mentioning bestiality in the same sentence as gay marriage and then of course the world proves us right with a news article. Now this doesn't mean that we are going to have marriage with animals yet, but sex with animals is now being touted as a "lifestyle choice". ANd as per usual, if you oppose it you are a bigot! Hateful bigot trying to force your morality on other people. Etc etc.
You know, I think christians somewhere once suggested that bestiality was an abomination, and we all know that christians are bigots. They HATE these people. It's nothing but animus towards them, and not based on the fact that having sex with animals is wrong (I know, judegemental of me).
Basically, the entire Federal government sux.
From the article:
"German 'zoophile' group ZETA has announced it will mount a legal challenge should a ban on bestiality become law.
'Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.
When the 1969 law banning sex with animals was banned the Animal Protection Law was introduced, but it failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia.
The terms bestiality and zoophilia are the formal names for having sex with animals for pleasure."
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!
"Mere concepts of morality have business being law."
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!
Stupid, stupid morality.
Now people will be able to rent dogs for sex.
Hey ......wait a minute?
Now when you see someone walking back from Whole Foods with a rented Saint Bernard and a jar of peanut butter you have to raise an eyebrow.
It was Roberts' ObamaCare that sank the Court for me.
I don't see how the court justified such a mammoth federal intrusion into everyone's lives based on the Constitution and it is bad enough that four justices routinely vote in anything that fits the liberal agenda like ObamaCare; however, Roberts came up with an argument that it didn't occur to anyone on either side before the decision.
Roberts said ObamaCare was a tax, while Obama and the Democrats swore up and down for three years that it wasn't a tax. After the decision there was no pile-up of people exclaiming what brilliant constitutional law that was.
I could only conclude that Roberts reasoned backwards to justify the bill.
At this point I no longer believe the Court is constrained much by reason or the Constitution. They will find a way to do whatever they want, which is mostly moving towards greater power for the government and the Court.
Interesting how approval of the president, approval of Congress, approval of the Supreme Court are all low (= below 50%).
(Alex' point is well taken. There's a sense in which approval of SCOTUS shouldn't matter. But disapproval should give us pause because perhaps most Americans feel/recognize the Court is not ruling correctly.)
So if public approval of all three branches of government is so low then how/why are they still in power? This is what I find most troubling. Have we reached a point where those in power can keep and even increase power and it doesn't matter whether the majority of Americans approve or not? That they can do whatever they want, no matter how foolish, unwise, destructive, treacherous, un-Constitutional, and no one can stop them?
Okay Bagoh, so that's why the dog is pregnant.
'Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.
Where have I heard that one before?
it sounds an awful lot like "You can't legislate morality".
So, if you want to fuck a dog, you can fuck a dog.
Which I'm sure that the libertarians are ok with. Get the govt out of the bedroom (Even if you are fucking dogs in it)
FWIW, supporter request emergency stay for Prop 8.
Don't they know it's so over?
So I suppose all laws should be arbitrary when it comes to morality? Assuming a moral basis for a law is silly? How then are we supposed to have a JUSTICE system?
One odd thing in the gay marriage/polygamy editorial Althouse linked last night ("High-strung rightwingers...") was that the author, McCarthy, talked about how the court decisions were tracking public opinion:
In sum, the Supreme Court has advanced same-sex marriage in a gradualist manner that basically tracks public opinion, which is also moving in that direction, the relative popularity of DOMA itself notwithstanding.
Is this what the Court does, all argle-bargle aside? Yet McCarthy goes on to say:
Gay marriage isn't a change that's coming in the future, depending on how battles in the courts and at the ballot box turn out. It's a fait accompli.
What is going on here? It doesn't sound like constitutional law or representative democracy.
Cubanbob:
You didn't understand my point. Just like the California executive (governor and AG) refused to appeal to defend Proposition 8 in court, the US executive (President and AG) refused to appeal to defend DOMA in court. If the defenders of Prop. 8 lacked standing to appeal, then why did the defenders of DOMA have standing to appeal? In both cases, the group that was claiming standing had never before been recognized as having standing.
The Supreme Court engaged in utterly cynical bullshit to invent a reason to not deal with Proposition 8 while dealing with DOMA.
That's a good question, Steven. Any of the legal experts care to weigh in?
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit responds to the poll:
John Roberts seems to have operated with one eye on the media and it doesn't seem to have made the Court more popular.
I'm not a lawyer, much less a law professor, but that sure the heck is how it looked to me.
Is this how the Court has been working all these years? Is there any reason citizens should respect the Court if they're just extremely powerful politicians in black robes whom voters can never remove from office?
Defense of Marriage decision bigger than you think
Maybe Hollingsworth was an honest commitment to the niceties of federal standing. But denying the Prop 8 advocates standing while extending it to the Congressional Republicans in Windsor is a little awkward. The policy argument the Court articulated to grant standing in Windsor—that the Court did not want the president to usurp their role of deciding constitutional cases by refusing to defend a law and destroying standing—applies with equal force to the California government in Hollingsworth. The Court’s role in deciding the constitutionality of state laws is as great, and almost as old, as its role in federal cases. Yet the Court just turned over to the governor of California the ability to destroy its jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of Prop 8.
The incoherence of the two standing opinions, taken together, makes it more likely Hollingsworth was simply a decision to duck for a little while longer: There are a bunch of other direct challenges in the pipeline that don’t involve a standing problem
The inconsistency of it is suggestive of the fact that the Supremes are playing politics and trying to push their agenda, using contradictory arguments (so too with the assertion the only reason to pass DOMA was due to animums. I'm sure that's adding to the unpopularity of the Supremes.
And if they aren't doing this intentionally, then it just seems like they're winging it.
Gay rights is not up for a vote.
Actually, the Supreme Court's current position is that they are. Just not at the federal level.
Which I'm sure that the libertarians are ok with. Get the govt out of the bedroom (Even if you are fucking dogs in it)
Pretty much, yeah. Although some feel dogs have enough rights that bestiality is akin to rape.
Me, I figure that if the dog isn't consenting then the human is basically kneeling with his dick out next to an angry dog. That seems like a situation that can resolve itself without government involvement.
Pretty much, yeah. Although some feel dogs have enough rights that bestiality is akin to rape.
Me, I figure that if the dog isn't consenting then the human is basically kneeling with his dick out next to an angry dog. That seems like a situation that can resolve itself without government involvement.
One of the ironies of modern politics, isn't it?
The things progressives want to do to other humans would have them up in arms and shrieking if done to an animal.
creeley23 said...
Gay marriage isn't a change that's coming in the future, depending on how battles in the courts and at the ballot box turn out. It's a fait accompli.
What is going on here? It doesn't sound like constitutional law or representative democracy.
You broke the code.
This is all one big psyop:
The science is settled.
It's a fait accompli.
Demographics are against the Conservatives.
This is what Dr Goebbels did for a living.
All this, "It's over, you lost", is met with such screeching outrage when we say, "Nothing is over until we say it's over", because we were supposed to give up and go home and wait for Big Sis' MRAPs to take up to whichever camp Sibelius' death panels said.
But we are not going gently into that good night and they know that, just like global warming and abortion and NSA surveillance and IRS intimidation, eventually the truth's going to come out on all this.
And they're freaking out because we're still Americans and we know our rights.
Cubanbob,
I've heard that elsewhere, about the California Constitutuion and District Court, but not very many places.
If this is true, then why do all the news reports say that Prop 8 is now destroyed and marriage is no longer defined by it in California?
If marriage is still defined by Prop 8 in California, then how are all these people getting married?
edutcher,
Exactly right. Approximately half the argument from the Democrats and the Left tends to be, "Shut up!"
re: bestiality
It's an intellectual exercise. They have no principled or objective defense to limit equal protection in equal measure. However, an emotions-based argument may be purely selective (e.g. individual) without implying hypocrisy.
Perhaps that describes the evolution of an intellectual society. From emotional to rational to emotional reasoning. Not unlike the evolution of a human life, from conception to death.
PS OK hitchhiker or kichiker or whatever he calls himself said I was "the best argument against Republicans" because I mentioned all this was coming down the pike just as Scalia said.
Well, Ann's done posts on how some professors say incest is no longer icky and here's a "right" to bestiality.
NAMBLA already on record for pederasty.
Looks like my kind of Republican may be right, after all.
Anybody taking bets on necrophilia?
@edutcher,
Anybody taking bets on necrophilia?
No, necrophilia is truly a dead end.
Revenant wrote:
Pretty much, yeah. Although some feel dogs have enough rights that bestiality is akin to rape.
Me, I figure that if the dog isn't consenting then the human is basically kneeling with his dick out next to an angry dog. That seems like a situation that can resolve itself without government involvement.
If you saw your son having sex with a dog would you tell him it was wrong? or would you be neutral on it?
edutcher wrote: All this, "It's over, you lost", is met with such screeching outrage when we say, "Nothing is over until we say it's over".
Brilliantly and succinctly put. I find this whole "give up now, history is against you" line of progressive rhetoric offensive and inconsistent. About 2 years ago discovered/realized that progressives do not have principles. Not really.
One of the ironies of modern politics, isn't it? The things progressives want to do to other humans would have them up in arms and shrieking if done to an animal.
There's no irony there. The distinction is between consensual sex and non-consensual sex.
There is nothing "ironic" about thinking sex between consenting adults should be legal but sex between one adult and a non-consenting person or animal should not be.
That by the way is why I can't get with libertarianism.Rev's attitude towards bestiality
If you saw your son having sex with a dog would you tell him it was wrong? or would you be neutral on it?
The question is off-topic and the answer isn't your business. I do not deign to reply to it. :)
30 percent rate its performance as poor
Looks like it is the Court that is the real LOSER.
If you saw your neighbor having sex with a dog would you tell him it was wrong? or would you be neutral on it?
Or rather, if you were a social worker, and had complaint about a certain family and when you went in there you saw the son in the household having sex with a dog,how would you as a social worker respond?
Would you check off "nothing to see here" and go about your business. How is the state SUPPOSED to treat people having sex with dogs?
If you saw your neighbor having sex with a dog would you tell him it was wrong? or would you be neutral on it?
Again, the question is off-topic and the answer is none of your business.
Both progressives and conservatives operate from the mindset that everything which is morally wrong must be forbidden by the government; anything permitted by the government is either morally right, or a gross oversight on the government's part. Thus your inability to grasp that, say, bestiality might be morally wrong but not require armed government agents to kick in the door and put a stop to it.
Libertarians operate from the mindset that very few moral decisions are any of the government's business. The government exists to a very limited set of needs, and "regulating dog-fucking" is not among them. :)
Rev reminds me of a book I read in college by Marquis De Sade.
In it a bunch of libertines walk out into the woods after a storm and come across a person who was dead on the ground (hit by lighting). One of the libertines then proceeds to have sex with the dead body becuase, that's what libertines do.
Any problem with that? I mean, if the issue is with consent, you can't get consent from a dead body. Is there anything objectively wrong with fucking a corpse? If they're in the woods I suppose anything is permissiable, but what about in polite society?
I don't know if it's a good idea if society remains neutral on things like dog fucking and screwing corpses. do you?
Both progressives and conservatives operate from the mindset that everything which is morally wrong must be forbidden by the government; anything permitted by the government is either morally right, or a gross oversight on the government's part. Thus your inability to grasp that, say, bestiality might be morally wrong but not require armed government agents to kick in the door and put a stop to it.
Morally wrong accourding to whom? The person who is fucking his dog? Or are you saying that such an action is objectively wrong.
As to the argument that all actions are only right if there are laws against them? Who argued that.
In Germany now there are animal whorehouses as it were where you can go and get your groove on with various species (apparently as per the article linked above). Precisely because there is no law against it. So, if its getting to the point where its prevalent, maybe there should be a law against it?
I mean, it may be true that you don't have to pass a law to outlaw every thing that is immoral, but that doesn't mean that sometimes you shouldn't.
As to the argument that all actions are only right if there are laws against them? Who argued that.
Certainly not me. I did say that the conservative mindset is that everything immoral should be illegal, though.
Your questions betray your mindset. :)
Relax, people.
Marriage is marriage regardless of what the Supreme Court does, or does not, say about it.
Their brief only runs on Caesar's side of the ledger.
Revenant wrote:
Certainly not me. I did say that the conservative mindset is that everything immoral should be illegal, though.
Your questions betray your mindset. :)
Would you argue that nothing that is immoral should also be illegal? I'm wondering when you would actually pass laws.
The problem with "everything is ok so long as you get consent" is problematic, because consent is problematic. How valid is consent when you get it from a drunk person or a crazy person or a person with learning disabilities. Does no mean no, or yes mean yes, in perpetuity.(ie if they said yes you can kill me two weeks ago, do you still have consent if afterwards they change their mind) can they do takebacks. Do you need to get a psych eval before agreeing to what is obviously a crazy example of consent.
Im thinking of for example, the cannibals in germany. One wanted to eat people. He advertised that and found someone who agreed to be eaten.
And then then ate the guy who agreed to be eaten until he was dead.He actually ate parts of his own body .
So the cannibal got consent. But that's a pretty crazy thing to give consent to.Only a crazy person would agree to be eaten. So even though he got consent, is that enough, considering he still killed the guy and the guy was obviously crazy.
Libertarianism has this simplistic view of permissable things that are permissable simply because consent is given.
Rev wrote:
conservative mindset is that everything immoral should be illegal, though.
I don't know if I'dagree with that. IF youre a christian and you believe in the seven deadly sins being Envious is immoral. But how do you pass a law against envy.
Hagar, good one.
Rick67 said...
All this, "It's over, you lost", is met with such screeching outrage when we say, "Nothing is over until we say it's over".
Brilliantly and succinctly put. I find this whole "give up now, history is against you" line of progressive rhetoric offensive and inconsistent. About 2 years ago discovered/realized that progressives do not have principles. Not really.
They've been doing it for years.
Christopher Dodd once said that, by opposing the spread of communism in Africa, we might be on the wrong side of history.
Rev wrote:"Both progressives and conservatives operate from the mindset that everything which is morally wrong must be forbidden by the government; anything permitted by the government is either morally right, or a gross oversight on the government's part."
I do agree this is largely true about libs. Except when it comes to things that they believe are right which are somehow banned. And then they argue the libertarian position, but only for that one thing. Kind of like with gay marriage.
At least libertarians are consistent. I disagree with both at least you're not changing your standard to fit your lust for power.
Also does consent need to be written down, or can it be verbal or can it be inferred?
There's no irony there. The distinction is between consensual sex and non-consensual sex.
There is nothing "ironic" about thinking sex between consenting adults should be legal but sex between one adult and a non-consenting person or animal should not be.
I have yet to see a fetus sign a consent form to be aborted.
I guess it is also ironic that you are so focused on the SSM crusade that you didn't notice I deliberately spoke far more broadly than just SSM.
I have yet to see a fetus sign a consent form to be aborted.
You don't need the consent of another to remove him or her from your property. Even if a fetus had a mind capable of giving or withholding consent, it would need the *mother's* consent to reside within her body.
Revenant:
The consent is offered implicitly when the woman chooses to have sex. The potential but predictable outcome of that behavior is commonly known.
Should equal protection be withheld when a human life lacks an ability to express consent or enforce its observation?
Define "immoral". That is not a term visible in American conservative philosophy; although, it may be implied in its description. Perhaps "moral" can be defined as the difference between functional and dysfunctional, which, among other things, requires respect for individual dignity and an intrinsic -- as opposed to imparted or assigned -- value of human life.
Would you withhold equal protection when a human life is incapable of expressing consent or unable to enforce its observation?
Revenant wrote:
You don't need the consent of another to remove him or her from your property. Even if a fetus had a mind capable of giving or withholding consent, it would need the *mother's* consent to reside within her body.
so a baby is property simply because it resides in a woman's womb? Likewise a slave is property for a slaveowner to do with as he wishes correct? Does the fact that he is not property but a human change that dynamic?
Also, lets not forget why the baby is in there in the first place. The mother put it there through her actions. So its not as if it has a choice to be trapped in her womb.
Imagine if there were a magic portal where actions you do cause someone to be transported into your basement magically. And because of this portal they are knocked unconscious and are in a coma for 9 months where they are trapped there, though feeding tubes are setup to keep them alive. Just because its your house, doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to do everything, even if it is your porperty. Because the person in your basement is a person and because they are not there through any fault of their own. Your actions caused them to be there.
I could see the argument if the baby asked to come into the mothers womb, the mother said no and the baby took up shop anyway. But the baby has no choice. The woman put it there either accidentally or intentionally.
Revenant said....
"You don't need the consent of another to remove him or her from your property. Even if a fetus had a mind capable of giving or withholding consent, it would need the *mother's* consent to reside within her body"
Wow! Just wow!
Baron Zemo:
While the origin of the concept of human life as property to be sold, exploited, or terminated at will did not begin with elective abortion, it did enjoy extraordinary progress with its normalization.
That said, it's not obvious who has contributed more to the general devaluation of human life: liberals, progressives, or libertarians; but, the first group, and the generational variant of the second, are notably the most vocal about ensuring its progress.
The libertarians should note that a prerequisite for liberty is women and men capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. With their inordinate focus and characterization of individual rights to property, including, apparently, a human life, they are sponsoring corruption and a progressive loss of liberty.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा