I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
Egon: America = Separation of Church & State
spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I’ll agree with you.
First Amendment to the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn’t talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.
Gas prices are high. They are not “through the roof” and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.
Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.
Gas prices are high. They are not “through the roof” and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.
Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.
Gas prices are high. They are not “through the roof” and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.
Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.
Posted by Kevin T. Brown at June 7, 2006 02:55 PM
What country are you in?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spain. I´m afraid the Church has seen better times in terms of influence over society around here.
“The Canadian term “First American” is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better.”
Except that it’s speciest. There were plenty of American buffallo, American deer, American Mastodons, etc., before Man showed up. “First Americans”! Indeed.
Historically speaking, marriage is a religious ritual. Up until the last 200 years it could only have been done by religious officials, and the records were kept by religious institutions. In the last 200 years two changes have occured:
Secularism and the strengthening of governments, which meant that there was a demand for non religious marriages, and that the government took over aspects of our lives that used to be handled by religious institutions, as well as havin more interest in monitoring marriages. Nevertheless, even for atheists, marriage is an act of personal, social, and ritualistic meaning.
The people promoting this amendment are trying to restrict a ritualistic aspect of the lives of gays, and are doing it in order to promote a certain moral or religious view about homosexuality. It is being used as an educational tool. In that sense it is like prohibition. (The constitution does have educational messages, but to the best of my knowledge the focus so far was about equality).
“It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges.”
Were there any cases where homosexuals went to courts demanding the right to marry based on equal rights? The only incidents I’m aware of involved local government. It would be an interesting case if it did go to court. It seems as much or even less of a leep to say that gays have an equal right to get married than that blacks have the right to go to unsegregated schools. After all gays are not trying to force institutions that don’t like gays like the catholic church to marry them, only that governments recognize the bureaucratic aspects of such a marriage.
Well, I hate to use these two words, but, ‘of course’ now with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the republicans probably won’t need the marriage amendment for a long while now :-/
(Don’t get me wrong, I think its good the guy is gone, but now comes the Spin Doctors who will use it to raise the Prez’s falling poll numbers; in my opinion anyway).
Let’s just be happy that he’s made his last video. I’ve thought that Zarqawi was the major target for some time now, though Bin Laden has more emotional value.
The real good news is not just his death but the fact that it was locals who had such an instrumental role in his death. Zarqawi thought he would be a heroic figure of liberation against the American aggressor but in the end he was just an embittered butcher who was killed by the people he imagined would flock to his cause.
Expect Al Qaeda to immediately launch a few random killings of civilians just so the media can report that Zarqawi’s death had no effect.
1The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.
****
Right which is why I always thought the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror would be monumentally hard, harder than WWII. The fact remains casualties in this war while terribly tragic, are still fairly low compared to virtually every other war we have been in. No comfort if you don’t believe it should ever have taken place, but some comfort to those who believe it was needed (both wars).
The far majority of the military as of Nov 2004 supprted the war. Whether they do now, not sure, but I believe so from what i’ve seen and heard.
Hmm… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …
***
Right they can’t establish an offical church of the united states, or take steps along that line. That was not interpreted to mean separation of church and state until 1920s (or 40s I forget) and has since been backed off by the Supreme Court, the majority anyway.
In fact, originally did not even apply to the states, and there were official state churches I believe until the 1820s.
Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion. There’s a huge difference. and the Supreme Court has struggled mightily with the differnece. (If there is a separation, you can’t give any money say to religious schools even for books because you are helping them, and thus freeing them up to use the money for other religious things. On the other hand, if there is just no offical religion, you can give money to the religious schools for math textbooks on the same basis you give to any other school because your not creating an official anything). Its extremely complicated, but slogans that are mistatken don’t help.
Posted by: mike weber Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?
******
Very good. I disagree with you politically, and therefore, I must be dumb and uninformed because I can’t possibly be as informed, or more, than you, a good person, smart, and just came to different conclusions then you.
But name calling is fun. I know that you believe you are such a super genius that anyone who disagrees must be either dumb, or ill informed, or evil.
Good way to live life in a democracy, so that compromise, which is essential for democracy, cannot happen.
I am informed, I am smart, I am tuse (ha ha) and guess what, I disagree. and that is ok.
The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn’t talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.
***
No it doesn’t, as I explained above and the Supreme COurt has long struggled with. If it was so easy, it would, be easy. Instead, the jurisprudence in this aresa is a mess beause it isn’t easy.
The wall originally came from a preacher in the 1600s who thought government corrupted religion. Jefferson wrote about it in a private letter in the 1800s to a Baptist group. However, jefferson, while a genius, did not help write the Constitution,he was in France. The Supreme did not use it until the 1920s, and has backed away from it. Establishing religion and separation are two different things. It owuld be easier if there was a separation-cases would be easy-but there isn’t which is why it is so difficult.
Isn’t it interesting that it’s only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political? I wonder if there’s a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they’re going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.
As for the gay marriage ban:
I think everyone is now seeing this maneuver as the political pander than it is. Even social conservatives, who haven’t forgotten that, after Bush campaigned heavily on the issue in 2004, his administration announced in January of 2005 that social security “reform” was a higher priority. It’s an election year and everyone is in full pander-mode. Blah.
Al-Zarqawi:
Glad we got him, but I suspect his death will turn out to be more symbolic than substantive, much like bin Laden’s capture would be, that is if we were still looking for him. I predict the insurgents will have a new leader stepping forward momentarily. And of course, the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr and rallying their followers in his memory.
Separation of church and state:
While that phrase doesn’t appear appear in the Constitution, it has become a shorthand way to (perhaps somewhat sloppily) explain the underlining principle of the establishment clause. The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion. Of course, the raging debate ever since has been where do you draw the line between cultural expressions and favoritisim? Personally, I think posting a 5 ton lump of granite in a courthouse with the ten commendments carved on it does cross the line, while others feel that “Merry Christmas” should be the mandatory greeting in the month of December.
Finally, I should point out, that, despite what Clarence Thomas may think, the intent of the 14th amendment was to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well, so states can no longer establish an official religion either.
the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr
The AP article through Yahoo that was up a little while ago (it’s been updated to something else since) said that Al Qaeda had already declared him a martyr. So, I’m sure others won’t be far behind.
It was also apparently Al Qaeda who first confirmed his death, which sort of surprises me.
In all of this, I think it’s important to remember that nobody would know who the hëll this guy was if it wasn’t for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.
1The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion.
****
Right, so not a separation. A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools are being treated equally. So they continue to be and mean to different things.
In all of this, I think it’s important to remember that nobody would know who the hëll this guy was if it wasn’t for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.
****
Sure. No doubt he’d be a peaceful man, a monk if you will.
Oh wait, he’s a “psycho” murderer fanatic who no doubt would have continued to be. Most did not know wjo Bin Laden was either for the many years he was laying the foundation for what came.
Isn’t it interesting that it’s only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political?
****
Well it is who he insults and belittles, so, no not too interesting at that.
“Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue…
PAD”
Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.
spiderrob8: That’s what you feel. But that doesn’t make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not.
Luigi Novi: I’d say the fact that the Founding Father who popularized it was Jefferson is pretty significant, as is the fact that another proponent of it was Madison. Given that the author of the Declaration of Independence and the primary author of the Constitution were for such a separation, it goes a long way to discerning the intent behind those documents. The Tripoli Treaty of 1796 also makes it clear that the U.S. government is secular. The bottom line is that SOCAS remains a fundamental American principle that we recognize today.
But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?
spiderrob8: Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.
Luigi Novi: They haven’t “backed away” from anything. The Supreme Court and federal courts in general regularly recognizes SOCAS in its rulings, as in the Dover, PA ruling on creationism last year, to name one example.
spiderrob8: It really isn’t correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn’t a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century. The first such mention of this was in Reynolds v. United States in 1878.
Not the 1920s.
Not the 1940s.
spiderrob8: As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed…Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.
Luigi Novi: Semantics. The freedom to marry the consenting adult that you are in love with is a right that is inferred by the pursuit of happiness and basic civil freedoms. Because this right is recognized for heterosexuals, it follows that homosexuals feel it is their right too. By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.
This argument of yours only works if you start with the assumption that each and every single thing that you have the legal right to do is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, including the right of heterosexuals to marry, and that by extension, anything not on this “list” is not a right. Since this is obviously not the case, (because laws are made to make explicit what you can’t do, not every single thing that you can), this argument of yours is false.
Peter David: Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.
spiderrob8: That’s because it doesn’t exist.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s because it’s not being consistently enforced. Slight difference.
A Republican: That’s it…I’m done with this blog. I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.
Luigi Novi: And yet somehow, you clicked on the link for a blog entry that was clearly political, and scrolled all the way down through dozens of posts in order to post on it. You just couldn’t help yourself, could you?
A Republican: Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
Luigi Novi: Um, because the guy who owns it, and whose name is on it, doesn’t want it to be, because it’s his blog, and he wants to be able to write about what he feels like? Why can’t you simply read the blog entries that you prefer, or go elsewhere? Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read this blog entry?
spiderrob8: Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion.
Luigi Novi: That’s what you feel. But that doesn’t make it so. 🙂
The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.
The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.
****
The last couple of decades have seen other theories of interpretation gain hold over separation. It continues to be an area the court struggles with, and redefines.
But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?
****
No. The “famous” founding fathers were mostly, not totally, deists or eventualy became deists-the big names. The less famous ones (of which there are dozens)were more likely to be Christians. However, I don’t know what that means for separation of church and state and who supported it. It would not just be the intent of the author, but the intent of all the people who approved it-which would not just be the constitutional convention but even the states when they approved it. So I am not sure there was one intent anyway.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century.
****
Right. No establishment. That has nothing to do with separation. That first came in vogue in the early 1900s
19476-Everson v. Board of Ed was when the Supreme Court first adopted Jefferson’s letter calling for separation (worth noting that Jefferson opposed presidential proclamations of thanksgving, prayer, fasting, but Washington and Adams favored and used them).
Anyway, recent decisions allowing the government to give money to churches or religious institutions in certain situations have weakened the idea of separation of church and state strongly. They have begun to see strict separation as something a bit hostile to religion and not required. That has been happening for a good 20 years. As always, depends on whose on the Supreme Court
By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.
*****
I’ll phrase it a different way-anyone can be in a union with anyone. But states have never recognized these unions for homosexuals, and thus nothing new is now being taken away by laws or referendums making clear the law and custom for the past couple fo hundred years. The ones who want the change are the people in favor of gay marriage. To phrase it as if they had that recognition before and it is being taken away now is false. But it is a silly debate at this point regarding this point. The overall issue of gay marriage remains.
I wonder if there’s a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they’re going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.
I think Orson Scott Card has gotten some similar responses. But I’d take such claims with a grain of salt–there’s no evidence that PAD’s political leanings are hurting sales of his comics. Just as many new readers may have been created by this board as lost, if not more.
Right, so not a separation.
I think you’re getting hung up on the semantics here. The first amendment mandates government neutrality towards all religions. Separation doesn’t mean active hostility towards religion, just that it can’t play favorites.
A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools are being treated equally. So they continue to be and mean to different things.
Actually, several states have clauses in their constitutions that specifically ban giving any tax dollars to religious schools.
But there’s a difference between giving money to a religious organization to perform a nonreligious purpose and giving to a church to advance their own religion. The latter is legal and has been done for years. Catholic schools, for example, have been receiving federal subsidies for school lunches for many years now.* The former, however, is a clear violation of the first amendment’s establishment clause.
*This has also meant, much to the annoyance of the Philadelphia Archdiese, that their cafeterias have to be inspected by the City Health Department.
I think Orson Scott Card has gotten some similar responses. But I’d take such claims with a grain of salt–there’s no evidence that PAD’s political leanings are hurting sales of his comics. Just as many new readers may have been created by this board as lost, if not more.
I know of many instances where people have boycotted Card’s writings because of his political views on subjests like homosexuality, but I don’t know that anyone has ever taken the time to “announce” that they’re boycotting his work on his own website.
Of course, Orson’s official website, http://www.hatrack.com/, doesn’t have a freeform blog like Peter’s. He uses a moderated message board where, as far as I could tell, he doesn’t really initiated political discussions.
What got me thinking along these lines, though, was an editorial I read in Analog a few months ago where the editor wrote that whenever someone writes to complain that the magazine has become “too political”, it’s always a self-described conservative who says it’s gotten too liberal or a self-described liberal who says it’s gotten to conservatives. Conservatives never seem to have a problem when the mag runs stories that seem to lean rightward nor do liberals seem to have a problem with stories that appear to tilt to the left. They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don’t recognize bias when it swings their way.
1Catholic schools, for example, have been receiving federal subsidies for school lunches for many years now
****
Right. Because we are not practicing separation of church and state (or strict separation). This upsets some, because it frees up these schools, who would be providing this anyway, to use the funds that would have been used for that for other purposes. It is very heatly debated. in my law school class on “Religion and the Constitution” my professor, who wanted a strict separation, was furious about things like this. For her, there is a separation, and that means no money whatsoever to the churches or other religious groups no dealings whatsoever. She even, philosophically, questioned whether they should get fire, police, and other protections. Neutrality-such as given the funds to religious charities the same way to nonreligious, and to all religious charities, or giving free textbooks, is not a “strict” separation. It really isn’t a separation at all.
Actually, several states have clauses in their constitutions that specifically ban giving any tax dollars to religious schools.
*****
I was talking federally. State by state, some may require separation of church and state. I haven’t studied all 50 state constitutions, which usually aren’t interpreted the same way as the federal constitutuion anyway
Looking at spiderrob’s comments above, it looks as though he’s saying gays shouldn’t have the right to marry because it’s not in the Constitution.(I know I realy condensed everything, but hey, it’s all up there.) The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can’t be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT’s a place to start, not the destination.
Well, Spiderrob8, it sounds like your professor was an extremist on the separation issue. But just because some people hold to such an extreme view, doesn’t mean that there is no basis at all in the Constitution for separation of church and state.
Separation, as practiced most of the time, simply means neutrality, not active hostility. Obviously, some can make the case that putting “In God We Trust” on money is a violation of neutrality, but as others have noted, the principle hasn’t always been evenly applied. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation, despite the fact that the founding fathers specifically rejected language that would have enshrined that in the Constitution.
We were then and still are now, a country where the majority of the populace identify themselves as Christians, but we have a secular government. And that’s the main point the principle of separation.
The devil, as they say, is in the details of where you draw that line of separation.
I was talking federally. State by state, some may require separation of church and state. I haven’t studied all 50 state constitutions, which usually aren’t interpreted the same way as the federal constitutuion anyway
I believe all have some version of an anti-establishment clause, some are more restrictive than the Bill of Rights, some are not.
Looking at spiderrob’s comments above, it looks as though he’s saying gays shouldn’t have the right to marry because it’s not in the Constitution.(I know I realy condensed everything, but hey, it’s all up there.) The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can’t be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT’s a place to start, not the destination.
The Constitution doesn’t say one thing or another about gays. It doesn’t even define marriage because that was an issue that the founding fathers felt should be left up to the states as stated in the 9th and 10th amendments.
And that’s why social conservatives want it amended. They want the federal government to take away the right of individual states to define marriage as they see fit.
I saw a quote yetsterday from Jeff Scarborough that social conservatives want it both ways: they want to overturn Roe v. Wade so that the right to ban abortion is returned to individual states, but they want the Constitution amended to take away states’ right to define marriage. He said that they have to be either for states’ rights or against them.
Sure. No doubt he’d be a peaceful man, a monk if you will.
Thank you for completely missing the point. Please, continue to do so in the future, as it certainly isn’t helping your cause in the least.
It’s very, very sipmle:: if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.
They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don’t recognize bias when it swings their way.
*****
That’s probably human nature I guess. I generally prefer politics kept out of my superhero comics, myself. I tend to, at least what I pick up get them mostly from the far left perspective. Probably cause entertainers lean that way anyway. Though even in my personal life, my best friends are far lefties. I seem to attract them, like flies ;). I try to be more of a moderat who leans conservative. But I’d rather not be labelled at all, frankly. I’d prefer to come at the major issues from my own perspective. It’s best, I think, when you can make the arguments both for and against something equally strong, and then see where you come out on it. On gay marriage, I tried to do that, and probably assumed I would be against it in the end. However, I couldn’t make fair and reasonable arguments against it-it all comes down to mostly that it makes people feel weird, or “icky” or they never even considered it before, or made them uncomfortable to think about. And the arguments on the other side had real meat to them, on equality, and basic fairness principles. In some ways, I do think the definition of marriage is one man, one woman, and gay marriage would have another name. But then, if it is going to be exactly the same thing anyway, you might as well change the definition of marriage to include it, because heck, people will say they are married anyway, not civil unionized. There will be some costs associated with it in terms of dollars and cents, but in the end it is the right thing to do.
if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.
****
I can;t name all 19 hijackers on 9/11. But so what? Ok, he is a “martyr” big deal, any islamic fascist terrorist who is killed is. Either way, he’d be working for bad things-heck he came from a different area, and would be doing something that would cause trouble for us. Anytime you take someone on, their name will become more famous and known then before. But that isn’t a reason not to do it. There may be reasons not to, but that one, not so much, when lives are at stake. (Yeah, if he wrote a book or something you didn’t want anyone to read, it is better to ignore it then publicize why you don’t anyone to read it, perhaps, but this is different). Or to put it another way, he was a bad guy before Iraq, he would be a bad guy without Iraq. Anyone who considers him a martyr is themselves either ignorant, or a bad guy themselves, so i am not too concerned. I kinda wish someone had dropped a grenade down that spider-hole Saddam was in, and I’d like Bin Laden’s head on a pike too. Martyrs or not.
I’d rather people , even those who oppose the war, say “Wow, I am glad we finally got that psycho killer” rather than “Its good, but man it will help Bush” or “It is good, but heck now he is a martyr.” How bout just “It’s good!” Not to say I make the rules, but it just makes sense to me.
originally posted by Micha: “Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.”
originally posted by CCR: “I don’t think so. In that case, you had constitutional amendments that were being flouted… So the Judges were applying the law.”
Micha is correct: Brown v Kansas BOE is a classic example of judicial activism — by which I mean a case which, at the time it occurred, conservatives were almost unanimous in denouncing as judicial activism. As late as the 1960s, Bill Buckley and National Review were still denouncing it.
It was the Brown decision which so angered conservatives of the 1950s that some began calling for the impeachment of chief justice Earl Warren. To which Buckley famously responded that he didn’t know if impeachment was the proper response in order, but perhaps lynching was. (He later apologized for the poor taste of his remark, but not for the underlying sentiment.)
I was alive during those years and paying attention to the news. I somehow suspect you weren’t. I invite you to go back through the pages of National Review (available in microfilm and bound volumes at many university libraries) to see for yourself. You will find many items in NR denouncing the Brown decision; I was browsing through microfilm copies of their 1950s issues a couple years ago and couldn’t find any praising it.
In contrast, a classic case of failed judicial activism is the Dred Scott decision. That was an attempt by liberal activists to get the Supreme Court to strike down slavery. The court of the day, unfortunately, chose strict constructionism.
Looking at spiderrob’s comments above, it looks as though he’s saying gays shouldn’t have the right to marry because it’s not in the Constitution.(
****
No, I am saying ” I want gay Americans to have the right to get married and have the government recognize that marriage. I wish state legislatures would vote for it and Governor’s would sign it. I think the case that the Constitution requires states to recognize it is weaker than say interracial marriage, but there is some argument to be made under equal protecion. However, states can choose to do so. I think if courts force the issue, it will become even more divisive than before, with people trying to change constitutions and pack courts with people who would hold differently. Times are changing, but right now the majority of the people are not in favor of it, and people who favor gay marriage will have to deal with that fact. Better to take smaller, incremental steps like Civil Unions, and change people over time. The young are already different on the issue. That may be unfair, but the sham weddings by the mayor of New Paltz, for heavens sake, and San Fran, hurt the movement. The good thbing is the debate has already shifted where I believe even the President favors Civil Unions. So civil Unions are coming and that is something real. Better for gay marriage to take time, but be permanent when it gets here”
Brown v Kansas BOE is a classic example of judicial activism — by which I mean a case which, at the time it occurred, conservatives were almost unanimous in denouncing as judicial activism.
***
The conservatives were wrong-Brown is based on real constitutional principles. Not a handful of Judges imposing their personal views despite what is in Constitution or statutes (or lack thereof). Both in theory, and certainly in practice, segregation was simply incompatible with the 14th Amendment (and I’d argue the 13th too). That’s very different than “I’ll say the Constitution (or law) requires this, even though it doesn’t, simply because I believe the Constitution (or law) should require it” which is what I beleive true Judicial Activism is.
I don’t think technically the issue in Dred was the continuance of slavery (allowed unfortunately in the Constitution at the time but changed by the 13th Amendment) per se, but about whether blacks could be United States citizens and sue in Federal court, and whether the fact Scott lived in free terroritory for a long time meant he was not a slave.
The Constitution doesn’t say one thing or another about gays. It doesn’t even define marriage because that was an issue that the founding fathers felt should be left up to the states as stated in the 9th and 10th amendments.
****
Right. The issue really is what does that mean left to the states? and some were horrified, even when supporting gay marriage, that some mayor would defy state law and perform meaningless marriages, and some courts were inventing things that were never in state law.
Overturning Roe V. Wade would be because they believe the constitution doesn’t recognize that right.
Putting a gay marriage amendment in there would be the constitution actually saying something on the topic.
I don’t consider them incompatible. It would be incompatible if they said the Constitution prohibits gay marriage implicitly, but doesn’t provide a right to an abortion because it isn’t explicitly stated
It was the Brown decision which so angered conservatives of the 1950s that some began calling for the impeachment of chief justice Earl Warren.
****
There were many reasons people wanted to impeach Earl Warren. Much of it in the area of criminal law.
originally posted by Sean Scullion: “Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being “conservative” isn’t as homogenous as it once was.”
originally posted by Bill Mulligan: “Er, I think it’s always been that way…you may not be old enough to remember the fights between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans.”
What you may not remember is that Rockefeller Republicans were also known as liberal Republicans and were roundly denounced by Bill Buckley and Phyllis Schlafly (to name a pair of recognized conservative leaders). So the existence of both Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans speaks to the (former) diversity of the Republican party, not to the diversity of the conservative movement.
I do agree with your larger point, that the conservative movement is more diverse than some people realize. There is an unfortunate tendency to confuse conservative with right-wing.
But the liberal side of the fence is also much more diverse than some people realize. When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals — which I do, all too often — I’m never sure whether to laugh or cry.
Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown…”
Then I think you are guilty of the same misperception of liberalism which others are making about conservatism.
I suspect that, because you are more sympathetic to conservatism, you are more aware of differences of opinion being expressed among conservatives. The same problem, in reverse, affects people who are more sympathetic to liberalism. We tend to hear the good in our own side (while minimizing some of the problems) and to hear the bad in the other side (while minimizing the good things). If you come up with a neutral protocol for measuring the freedom for people to express their differences, I think you will find liberals are at least as free to do so as conservatives.
I think there has been a movement among many far leftliberals in postition of power to eliminate some diversity of opinion. They are for all sorts of diversity, but say on a college campus (even the media), have diversity of opinion, and you’re a nazi, fascist, racist, etc. and that’s just the professors who say that, forget the students.
Many a times I had to change papers to get better grades to match the professor’s ideology. It helped my GPA tremendously to make my papers as far left as possible. I did get to attend one class with and ask a question of George HW Bush, though, so it wasn’t all bad those four years. But God forbid the student newspaper print something conservative, whoops, all the copies get stolen.
The far left though has had less political success then the far right lately. and has forgotten with great power comes great responsibility. It has made the right more arrogant, and less in touch than they were before, and made the far right whackos get more attention than they would have.
They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don’t recognize bias when it swings their way.
Not surprising–lots of people don’t think a bias is a bias if it agrees with them. If Kaitie Couric opened up her first broadcast with “This just in–experts contacted bu CBS News agree that President Bush has the IQ of a turnip.” there will be those who will loudly defend her against any charge of bias because they agree with her. Eric Alterman will accuse her of right wing bias for overstating Bush’s IQ. Human nature.
(Of course this also brings to mind a fallacy I hear a lot from the media–the old “Since both the right and left think we are biased we must actually be fair and blanaced. No, maybe you just suck. It only bothers people when you suck in a way that disagrees with them.)
It’s very, very sipmle:: if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.
Hmmm, I’m not sure that’s accurate. He was a known terrorist even before 9/11–the Jordanians certainly knew about him when they sent him to prison and later sentenced him to death in adstencia. He had “made a anme for himself” by, among other things,the 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman. Before the Iraq war he was mentioned by Colin Powell as being in Iraq and evidence of a Saddam /Al Queda link.
If you want to “blame” Bush for making him a martyr I suspect it’s something the White House will welcome. I rather hope they can do a similar favor for Bin Laden (one can only imagine the sadness that would be felt by hopeless partisans for the spike in approval ratings THAT happy day would engender.)
oiginally posted by spiderrob8: “The conservatives were wrong-Brown is based on real constitutional principles…”
And yet, for at least a dozen years conservatives were unable to see this, and I don’t recall ever reading an article by Bill Buckley (or the other prominent conservatives who denounced Brown as judicial activism) admitting their error and explaining how and where their analysis was wrong. So at a minimum this indicates that conservatives may not be very well qualified to identify judicial activism when they see it.
They were profoundly wrong then. Why should we trust that their judgment is better today?
“I don’t think technically the issue in Dred was the continuance of slavery (allowed unfortunately in the Constitution at the time but changed by the 13th Amendment) per se, but about whether blacks could be United States citizens and sue in Federal court, and whether the fact Scott lived in free terroritory for a long time meant he was not a slave.”
Precisely my point! Liberals were attempting to use the case to overturn slavery. If the court had done the kind of ruling in Dred as to the basic rights of blacks (based on the spirit of the constitution) which the Warren court did in Brown, it would have been as fatal a blow to slavery as Brown was to segregation. But the Taney court chose to rule simply on narrow legal issues — to take a strict constructionist approach.
The Dred Scott case, like the Scopes trial, was a deliberate effort by liberals to use the courts to challenge laws they disliked and attempt to use the courts, rather than the legislature, to achieve what they viewed as socially-desirable results.
Those who denounce judicial activism were quite vocal in the 1950s in opposing Brown. And yet, they were wrong. They were wrong in the 1950s, and they were wrong in the 1850s. There are times when it is good to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
Jesus pointed that out a couple thousand years ago, so it is surprising to me that it is often the people who claim to be the most ardent followers of Jesus who are the most adamant about ignoring the spirit.
The spirit of the US constitution favors equality (regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation). The letter has sometimes taken a while to catch up with the spirit.
Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown…”
Then I think you are guilty of the same misperception of liberalism which others are making about conservatism.
I suspect that, because you are more sympathetic to conservatism, you are more aware of differences of opinion being expressed among conservatives. The same problem, in reverse, affects people who are more sympathetic to liberalism. We tend to hear the good in our own side (while minimizing some of the problems) and to hear the bad in the other side (while minimizing the good things). If you come up with a neutral protocol for measuring the freedom for people to express their differences, I think you will find liberals are at least as free to do so as conservatives.
Well, I DID add, in the part you left out (in my experiences. You mileage may vary.)
We are all products of our experiences. For me, going to college the year Reagan was elected was a pretty formative event. I had much more opportunity to see liberals acting badly than I would otherwise have had (and it wasn’t just the professors–my mom’s an economics professor so they had big shoes to fill and most came up short. No, what horrified me were my firends–good, decent people who nonetheless saw no problem in celebrating Reagan’s near-assassination. Whoa. If I’d gone to Liberty College I probably would have ended up as a bomb throwing anarchist. It just so happens thatthe only tyranny I’ve ever experienced is the petty tyranny of the academic left.)
Many a times I had to change papers to get better grades to match the professor’s ideology. It helped my GPA tremendously to make my papers as far left as possible.
Oh yeah, me too. I think most students learn to give the bad professors whatever it is they want. It can actually be fun–you can make your paper absolutely ridiculous, turn the volume up to 11, then show it to your right minded friends and all have a good laugh at the Ratskeller. It works on fanatics of all stripes–I wanted a bunch of those insane Jack Chick comics so I wrote to and acted like the biggest anti-catholic nutcase you could imagine–he sent me a box with over 100 different comics!
The best college class for waist deep BS has to be film studies. Wow, if you could see some of the essays I handed in…Every time I thought “ok, this time ZI went too far, he’s gonna know I’m totally making this up.” but it never happened. My teacher’s big ficxation was phallic symbolism–make of that what you will–and castration. Boy, did loving 42 Street grindhouse shlock come in handy.
Sigh. I miss college. And kids today can get away with a lot more than we could, if a professor tries to indoctrinate his class he might end up with a video of it popping up on myspace.
Sean Martin: I believe less money should be spent on prisons
Bill Mulligan:
Not to pick on you, but this leapt out at me. How? Decriminalize drugs (ok by me)? Make the prisons little more than Cool Hand Luke hellholes? Reduce sentences overall?
No problem. I’m not feeling picked on. I tossed that in — along with several other views — after only quick reflection to make a point about my (and many others) not falling easily into the “conservative” and “liberal” pigeon holes that folks like to use. If I were to think about it more deeply…
IIRC it costs around of $30k a year to keep someone in jail. Just this morning a report was released stating that 60 billion a year is spent on prisons and they have a 60% recidivism rate. It’s been well documented that money spent earlier in a persons life (on education, on Head Start type programs, etc) does far more to prevent anti-social behavior later than life. Something on the order on $1 spent on a 5 year old saves a couple thousand spent on an adult.
So I’d spend less on prisons and more on schools (which is what I’d originally said(. I’d spend less on solitary confinement (which doesn’t work per this morning’s report) and more on counseling (20% of all inmates have significant mental problems, ibid) and medical care (1 doctor per 2000 prisoners, ibid).
I’d spend the money to
– to avoid having people become criminals in the first place
– to stop having/wanting to continue to be criminals
– on the cause and cure, not on the syptoms
Zarkawi was a roving jihadist going back to Afganistan. Iraq was only the best of several possible Islamic struggles he could have joined.
The comment about Brown is not my own, I’ve read it somewhere, in a liberal article claiming the liberals should rely less on change through the courts. I’ll post it if I find it. In any case the two salient facts are that the NAACP used the court because they couldn’t or wouldn’t wait until public opinion caught up with their views; and that the court made a new interpretation of the constitution in claiming that having seperate schools denies blacks equality. A few years ago I’ve read essays by Martin Luther King, and he addresses the issues of whether using the courts is justified, and whether a gradual approach wouldn’t be better. Whether or not the situations are similar, I leace to you to decide. In any case, here it is Bush who is trying to add something to the constitution. Have gay advocates tried to take the issue to the courts?
Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman’s decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.
Fables by Vertigo is written by someone with clear conservative opinions. I’ve found the way these views filtered into the story quite entertaining most of the time. But it did cause harm to a storyline involving Arab Fables because the writer couldn’t get beyond his prejudices.
Oh, I understand what you’re saying–it’s just that what will happen when you spend less on the prisons? And how do you do that? Fire guards? Serve worse food? Or just release more prisoners?
One could make the argument–I’m not saying it’s a certainty–that one major cause of becoming a criminal is growing up in a crime ridden neighborhood. If true, then spending more on prisons to get more criminals off the streets will improve the quality of life for the poor (crimes biggest victims) and lead to less criminals being formed. We already know that it will lead to a reduction in crime.
One good argument for legalizing drugs–and I say this as someone who has absolutely no intention of taking any, regardless of legal status–is that we could free up some prison space better reserved for thieves and killers.
You know what I find wonderfully ironic about this whole situation? Bush and Co go ahead with a specious vote on a gay marriage amendment to shore up the conservative base and shift the focus away from the war. A day after the Senate votes down discussion on the amendment, Al-Zarquawi gets himself killed, putting the attention back on the war, effectively making the whole gay marriage thing a waste of time. As if we didn’t know it already.
Aruging about the definition of marriage is gay.
Lots of things to comment on here:
Spiderrob8:
Right. The issue really is what does that mean left to the states? and some were horrified, even when supporting gay marriage, that some mayor would defy state law and perform meaningless marriages, and some courts were inventing things that were never in state law.
I think the mayors that performed those marriages were going about it the wrong way and did their cause more harm than good.
As for the courts inventing things, the court case that has declared that gays have a right to get married is the Mass. supreme court. There, the state constitution has a definite anti-discrimination clause. The only thing that was stretched a bit was ruling that prohibiting gay marriage was discrimination. They didn’t make up anything, they just interpreted it in a way that makes some people uncomfortable.
And that’s the definition most people, whether they admit it or not, of “judicial activism” – any ruling that they don’t like. They can claim that the judges are “legislating from the bench”, but what they really mean is that they don’t like the way that the court interpretted the law.
A prime example is the Kelo case, which many cite as an example of “judicial activism”, but if you actually read the case, it’s the exact opposite of “legislating from the bench” – the court ruled that because there was no state or federal limits defining what was the “public good” in terms of eminant domain, the courts had no authority to impose one by judicial fiat. In which case, the solution isn’t to curse the courts, but to get your state legislator on the phone to write limits into state law.
Overturning Roe V. Wade would be because they believe the constitution doesn’t recognize that right.
Let’s be honest, the average pro-lifer doesn’t give a rat’s ášš what the Constitution does and does not say. They want it overturned because they believe abortion is murder, pure and simple.
Putting a gay marriage amendment in there would be the constitution actually saying something on the topic.
True, but you can’t be for that and say you’re in favor of state’s rights at the same time.
I don’t consider them incompatible. It would be incompatible if they said the Constitution prohibits gay marriage implicitly, but doesn’t provide a right to an abortion because it isn’t explicitly stated
What’s incompatitible is the idea that you can claim to be for state’s rights on one issue yet expect the federal government to intervene on the other.
Nova Land:
When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals — which I do, all too often — I’m never sure whether to laugh or cry.
Which is very true, especially given Hillary’s hawkishness on the war in Iraq and her railing against violence in video games.
Bill Mulligan:
We are all products of our experiences. For me, going to college the year Reagan was elected was a pretty formative event. I had much more opportunity to see liberals acting badly than I would otherwise have had (and it wasn’t just the professors–my mom’s an economics professor so they had big shoes to fill and most came up short.
I went to college during the Bush I years and, to be honest, saw plenty of examples of people on both the left and the right behaving badly. I’ve been on and off the campus scene as both a student and an instructor and haven’t seen any difference. Most recently, the Republican students club at my alma matter -PSU- got some flak over their planned “Catch an Immigrant” day where a group of students would pretend to be illegal immigrant and participants would get prizes for “catching them.”
No, what horrified me were my firends–good, decent people who nonetheless saw no problem in celebrating Reagan’s near-assassination. Whoa. If I’d gone to Liberty College I probably would have ended up as a bomb throwing anarchist. It just so happens thatthe only tyranny I’ve ever experienced is the petty tyranny of the academic left.)
I would exactly call that tyranny. Extremely poor taste, but not tyranny.
Oh yeah, me too. I think most students learn to give the bad professors whatever it is they want. It can actually be fun–you can make your paper absolutely ridiculous, turn the volume up to 11, then show it to your right minded friends and all have a good laugh at the Ratskeller.
I never really had an experience where I had to regurgitate a professors’ political views just to get a good grade. Maybe I was lucky, maybe not. Or maybe it was because I focused on physical science and comparative literature (I know, weird combo) instead of political science and economics.
Interestly enough, David Horowitz, author of “The Professors”, found a sympathetic state representative in Pennsylvania and convinced him to hold a series of hearings across the state on academic bias. But don’t expect Horowitz to be crowing over his huge success in uncovering bias in Pennsylvania’s colleges. Instead of the expected hordes of poor, oppressed conservative students they expected, the results were somewhat disappointing for Horowitz. Some students did report encountering politically biased professors, but the majority of them didn’t find it a big deal and didn’t feel that they were treated with hostility for holding an opposed view. At least one hearing had no one show up to testify! The consensus of the committee was that the whole talk about widespread academic tyranny was much ado about nothing.
It works on fanatics of all stripes–I wanted a bunch of those insane Jack Chick comics so I wrote to and acted like the biggest anti-catholic nutcase you could imagine–he sent me a box with over 100 different comics!
Jack Chick actually got a conservative group at PSU in trouble with their national organization while I was at PSU. The Penn State Chapter of the American Family Association was distributing the Chick comic “Are Catholics Really Christians?”. Someone complained to the national AFA headquarters and their local charter was pulled.
Sigh. I miss college.
Me too. I plan on going back for my PhD in a couple of years.
And kids today can get away with a lot more than we could, if a professor tries to indoctrinate his class he might end up with a video of it popping up on myspace.
Students got away with plenty in my time, left and right. In the interest of balance:I remember a feminist group bringing whistles to class and blowing them really loud whenever a professor would say something that they perceive as sexist.
Micha:
Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).
IMHO, yes it does, according to the 5th and 14th amendments.
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman’s decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.
This is the part that I do think is a judicial stretch, but I agree with the underlying principle. Contrary to popular belief, the court didn’t just wake up one day and decide to expand the right of privacy to anything and everything. It was a series of steps, with each ruling building on the one before it. First it was saying that it was a violation of a married couple’s right to privacy to make it illegal to sell contraceptives. Then it was a violation of an unmarried couple’s right to privacy. From there, it’s just a short hop to say any restriction on a woman’s reproductive destiny is a violation of her right to privacy.
Bill again:
Oh, I understand what you’re saying–it’s just that what will happen when you spend less on the prisons? And how do you do that? Fire guards? Serve worse food? Or just release more prisoners?
And that’s the rub. For those who are already hard core prisoners, that isn’t much you can do except toss them in prison. Maybe if we start rebuilding families and communities, the next generation will have less incentives to become criminals. I know, attacking poverty, divorce, and absentee fathers is not as much fun as saying gay marriage is the biggest threat to families, but what’s a little reality between friends?
One good argument for legalizing drugs–and I say this as someone who has absolutely no intention of taking any, regardless of legal status–is that we could free up some prison space better reserved for thieves and killers.
How about a compromise: Let’s treat drug addiction as a public health problem and lock up the big time dealers and smugglers.