| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2010 11:51:19 PM · #4951 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) The judge was gay? |
Why is this worth pointing out? What if the judge was straight? Would you have posted that?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 12:57:49 AM · #4952 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) The judge was gay? |
Why is this worth pointing out? What if the judge was straight? Would you have posted that? |
I point it out because it was interesting and I didn't know it. According to his wiki (I think that's where I saw it), he's one of two openly gay justices. One one hand he could have a unique perspective on things. On the other hand he could have a conflict of interest. I've heard of judges recuse themselves for far less.
Had he been a fundamentalist Christian and ruled the other way, would someone think there was a conflict? I'm not even saying there is, but it is at least a talking point. You guys get so defensive so quickly. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:09:09 AM · #4953 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the other hand he could have a conflict of interest. I've heard of judges recuse themselves for far less. |
Had he been straight, would it still be a conflict of interest? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:32:54 AM · #4954 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the other hand he could have a conflict of interest. I've heard of judges recuse themselves for far less. |
Had he been straight, would it still be a conflict of interest? |
Good question. I dunno. Probably the % of straight people that fall on either side of the issue is much more even than the % of gay people that fall on either side of the issue. Would you disagree? Of course that's just statistics and you could have a highly conflicted straight person. Or perhaps I should say a highly biased straight person. Maybe conflicted is a poor choice of words. If Walker himself was trying to get married, then he would be conflicted. Could he be biased? Of course he could.
If you are a priori much more likely to arrive at a certain conclusion given a characteristic, is that enough for concern? If 98% of gay people favor gay marriage and 47% of straight people favor gay marriage, which is less "biased"?
Haven't we read a zillion articles that somewhere say, "he was convicted by an all-white jury"? What's that supposed to mean? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:48:22 AM · #4955 |
An interesting quote in the The New York Times:
Professor Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it is too soon to tell which way Justice Kennedy might come down on the issue of same-sex marriage. "I have no way of predicting how heĂ¢€™d come down on this and I donĂ¢€™t think he does, either, at this point."
I totally agree the SCOTUS decision will come down to Kennedy, but I quite disagree that he doesn't already know how he'll vote. I think the decision has already been made, but we won't find out for a few years. I also doubt that a broad sweeping decision will come forth. The Roberts Court is well known for issuing very narrow legal decisions and I doubt there will be an overwhelming desire to change that method with this. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 02:58:06 AM · #4956 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the other hand he could have a conflict of interest. I've heard of judges recuse themselves for far less. |
Had he been straight, would it still be a conflict of interest? |
Good question. I dunno. Probably the % of straight people that fall on either side of the issue is much more even than the % of gay people that fall on either side of the issue. Would you disagree? Of course that's just statistics and you could have a highly conflicted straight person. Or perhaps I should say a highly biased straight person. Maybe conflicted is a poor choice of words. If Walker himself was trying to get married, then he would be conflicted. Could he be biased? Of course he could.
If you are a priori much more likely to arrive at a certain conclusion given a characteristic, is that enough for concern? If 98% of gay people favor gay marriage and 47% of straight people favor gay marriage, which is less "biased"? |
And what if he were biased? Does that suddenly invalidate the logic he used in the decision? Of course not. If that were so then all of your arguments in rant should have been dismissed the moment you admitted you were religious.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are a priori much more likely to arrive at a certain conclusion given a characteristic, is that enough for concern? If 98% of gay people favor gay marriage and 47% of straight people favor gay marriage, which is less "biased"? |
To use your own logic, what if your wife learned that 75% of men cheat? Should she automatically become concern that you will too? Should she start to question anything you do that happens to involve the opposite sex?
You know you mentioned the all white jury and I immediate thought of Martin Luther King's speech about judging someone by the content of their character. It would seem that is still a dream.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 02:59:56.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:41:07 AM · #4957 |
Originally posted by yanko:
You know you mentioned the all white jury and I immediate thought of Martin Luther King's speech about judging someone by the content of their character. It would seem that is still a dream. |
Martin Luther King was a Southern Baptist minister. I would venture to guess he didn't have gay rights in mind during his speeches.
Unless you want this to go back to a religious debate, I think we should stay away from morals and religious figures and stick with the courts decisions. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:13:56 AM · #4958 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Roberts Court is well known for issuing very narrow legal decisions and I doubt there will be an overwhelming desire to change that method with this. |
The Citizens United case shows that this is far from the case, just as Justice Roberts apparently deceived the Senate as to his views on "judicial activism" and respect for precedent.
Also, neither side asked for Judge Walker to recuse himself before the trial.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 10:27:47. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:35:18 AM · #4959 |
OK, I havent contributed to this post since page 1 - seems everything is still going strong. So, who is willing to summarize everything said thus far?
Also, how many of you have been `converted` one way or the other? Surely one of you must of bent over (pun not intended - no, really it wasnt) and admitted the other party is/was right..
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:35:35 AM · #4960 |
OK, I havent contributed to this post since page 1 - seems everything is still going strong. So, who is willing to summarize everything said thus far?
Also, how many of you have been `converted` one way or the other? Surely one of you must of bent over (pun not intended - no, really it wasnt) and admitted the other party is/was right..
Anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 11:40:55 AM · #4961 |
I converted... to married! :)
I suppose that doesn't count. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 11:42:51 AM · #4962 |
Originally posted by yanko:
And what if he were biased? Does that suddenly invalidate the logic he used in the decision? Of course not. If that were so then all of your arguments in rant should have been dismissed the moment you admitted you were religious.
|
I realized as I went to bed that there was a contradiction in my agrument that needs correcting.
The implication that Walker could have recused himself was wrong. His bias does not make him any different from other judges because I believe all judges have personal biases. So Walker's logic is not somehow invalidated because of the fact he's gay. He lays out a sound logic and obviously has tried to gird it and frame it as best he can for the obvious appeal (as any good judge should). I believe that nearly all cases that make it this far have a sound logic on BOTH sides of the argument and so a judge can use his/her personal bias to select which logic to rule as valid. So mentioning that Walker is gay does not invalidate his decision. He's a US Justice and his decision stands. BUT, had I known this fact I could have predicted with a great deal of confidence the outcome long ago (and would have been right). Ask yourself this: When the case gets to the SCOTUS, do you have any question at all in your mind which way Scalia is going to vote? You'd be a fool if you did. Why can we accurately predict how many of this SCOTUS justices will vote ahead of time? Because we understand their biases.
So when I mention Walker was gay, I mention it to reveal his bias. The people above who innocently furl their brow and ask "why should that matter?" are being disingenous at best.
So in my next post where I mentioned Kennedy I mean that he likely has already made his mind up about the case, but I don't think we understand Kennedy's biases well enough (or the multiple biases are in competition enough) and this keeps the outcome in doubt.
I highly recommend the book The Nine about the SCOTUS. VERY interesting, but in my view it dispels the notion that justice is blind and that the justices can somehow transform their minds into a tabula rasa with each and every case.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 11:44:45. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 12:46:27 PM · #4963 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that nearly all cases that make it this far have a sound logic on BOTH sides of the argument and so a judge can use his/her personal bias to select which logic to rule as valid. |
No logic here: "Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis." Moreover, your claim is a cynical mockery of the judicial system. Like any other profession, there are undoubtedly very few judges who will use their position to advance a personal bias, but it's a career-ending abuse of power that's far less likely to occur on such a widely-scrutinized case. Law is FAR less open to interpretation than religion. Like validations on DPC, arbiters are bound by the rules and sometimes have to make decisions against personal feelings.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...had I known this fact I could have predicted with a great deal of confidence the outcome long ago (and would have been right). |
Would you have predicted the outcome of the "Gay Olympics" case he presided over? Not likely, because you can't see past your own extreme prejudice. Likewise, you couldn't predict the outcome of the recent Massachusetts case just because the judge was straight. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 12:59:41 PM · #4964 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that nearly all cases that make it this far have a sound logic on BOTH sides of the argument and so a judge can use his/her personal bias to select which logic to rule as valid. |
No logic here: "Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis." Moreover, your claim is a cynical mockery of the judicial system. Like any other profession, there are undoubtedly very few judges who will use their position to advance a personal bias, but it's a career-ending abuse of power that's far less likely to occur on such a widely-scrutinized case. Law is FAR less open to interpretation than religion. Like validations on DPC, arbiters are bound by the rules and sometimes have to make decisions against personal feelings.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...had I known this fact I could have predicted with a great deal of confidence the outcome long ago (and would have been right). |
Would you have predicted the outcome of the "Gay Olympics" case he presided over? Not likely, because you can't see past your own extreme prejudice. Likewise, you couldn't predict the outcome of the recent Massachusetts case just because the judge was straight. |
You are twisting my words as per usual Shannon.
1) Walker was HIRED in the case of the Gay Olympics. He wasn't a judge, he was a lawyer. Completely different.
2) We've already pointed out that one couldn't predict the outcome from a straight judge because the split of "straight" people in the country is roughly 50/50.
3) "rational basis" BTW, is a specific legal level of scrutiny, not perhaps exactly what you think it means.
4) Since you claim a very uncynical view of justice, what would your explanation be for the predictability of how SCOTUS justices vote? Don't think I'm saying we have a 100% accuracy and that justices don't go against the prediction at times, but would you feel comfortable if we entered into a wager of even odds? I predict decisions by individual SCOTUS justices. If I'm right, you owe me $100. If I'm wrong, I owe you $100. Who do you think is gonna get rich on that?
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 13:08:06. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:00:05 PM · #4965 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that nearly all cases that make it this far have a sound logic on BOTH sides of the argument and so a judge can use his/her personal bias to select which logic to rule as valid. |
No logic here: "Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis." Moreover, your claim is a cynical mockery of the judicial system. Like any other profession, there are undoubtedly very few judges who will use their position to advance a personal bias, but it's a career-ending abuse of power that's far less likely to occur on such a widely-scrutinized case. Law is FAR less open to interpretation than religion. Like validations on DPC, arbiters are bound by the rules and sometimes have to make decisions against personal feelings.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...had I known this fact I could have predicted with a great deal of confidence the outcome long ago (and would have been right). |
Would you have predicted the outcome of the "Gay Olympics" case he presided over? Not likely, because you can't see past your own extreme prejudice. Likewise, you couldn't predict the outcome of the recent Massachusetts case just because the judge was straight or that Olson would be arguing for the plaintiffs just because he's staunchly conservative. |
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:20:54 PM · #4966 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I realized as I went to bed that there was a contradiction in my agrument that needs correcting.
The implication that Walker could have recused himself was wrong. |
That's good to hear from you, because this is exactly the kind of discrimination gay people face daily. We often can't be (or are forced out of being) teachers, politicians, coaches, or religious authorities because people can't accept us as humans first, instead of ambulatory evil agendas only out for our own good.
To turn it around... who of the following should recuse themselves from the case?
- A Mormon judge
- A Catholic judge
- A black judge
- A straight judge
- A married judge
- A conservative judge
If not them, why Walker? If all of them, who's left to decide the case?
That we see near uniform complaints about Walker's failure to recuse himself on almost every major conservative information outlet just goes to show you how disingenuous the conservative position has become to support taking away my rights. Pair that with the lame "Will of the people: VIOLATED! Why should I bother voting anymore???" we see plonked down right next to the former complaint, blithely ignoring the fact that we live in a republic, and that many states don't even ALLOW a vote by the people for anything other than their representatives (and the constitution itself containing no provisions for citizens to legislate directly)... the general response of conservatives is complete lunacy, ignoring law and history to flail about how unfair it all is and how judges are imposing tyranny... TYRANNY... on the people trying to take away my rights...
It's shocking to say the least. When I read the comments from Prop 8 supporters on middle of the road or conservative outlets... with their absolute disregard for legal and historical facts, and constant, unthinking refrain of the talking points I've just mentioned, I can't imagine why someone would choose to associate themselves with these people. Your side has been falling over itself to look ignorant since this decision was released. Go on, take five minutes to read the comments on any article about the case that's NOT on a gay news site, and see what I mean.
So, dearest opponents:
- Should Walker have recused himself?
- Is the court fulfilling its historic role by hearing challenges to existing law, and at times invalidating them, even if those laws were established via a direct popular vote?
- Is it the court's historic (and intended) role to protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority?
- Was the 'will of the people' ACTUALLY violated when nearly half (or more, by now!) of voters think my marriage SHOULD be allowed? What about the will of the people against Prop 8, a near even split, who always seem to vanish in a puff when conservatives talk about 'the will of the people'?
Finally... Twitter can be used as a non-scientific gauge for the general mood of the country, at least for certain demographics. Check out this chart, showing an analysis of the reaction to the announcement:
Pretty cool! |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:47:33 PM · #4967 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
When I read the comments from Prop 8 supporters on middle of the road or conservative outlets... with their absolute disregard for legal and historical facts, and constant, unthinking refrain of the talking points I've just mentioned, I can't imagine why someone would choose to associate themselves with these people. Your side has been falling over itself to look ignorant since this decision was released. |
Exactly right. I have yet to read one sane comment opposing the ruling. The most common arguments are all too familiar and just plain stupid:
That marriage is only for procreation (ignoring that sterile or elderly people can be married).
That religion prohibits gay sex (ignoring that gays don't have to be married to have sex).
That the U.S. can't interfere with state law (despite trying the same losing tactic with school segregation and interracial marriage).
Then there's the loony bin claiming that this ruling will lead to people marrying horses, the end of the world, population crashes, etc. It's frightening that such views still exist in modern society. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:54:20 PM · #4968 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mousie:
When I read the comments from Prop 8 supporters on middle of the road or conservative outlets... with their absolute disregard for legal and historical facts, and constant, unthinking refrain of the talking points I've just mentioned, I can't imagine why someone would choose to associate themselves with these people. Your side has been falling over itself to look ignorant since this decision was released. |
Exactly right. I have yet to read one sane comment opposing the ruling. The most common arguments are all too familiar and just plain stupid:
That marriage is only for procreation (ignoring that sterile or elderly people can be married).
That religion prohibits gay sex (ignoring that gays don't have to be married to have sex).
That the U.S. can't interfere with state law (despite trying the same losing tactic with school segregation and interracial marriage).
Then there's the loony bin claiming that this ruling will lead to people marrying horses, the end of the world, population crashes, etc. It's frightening that such views still exist in modern society. |
It's even more frightening when those views are argued by the supposedly intelligent and well-educated. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 02:02:25 PM · #4969 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
What about the will of the people against Prop 8, a near even split, who always seem to vanish in a puff when conservatives talk about 'the will of the people'? |
Ack!! I've been misinformed -- I've been hearing all morning that the vote was 7 million to 0 ... :-(
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... the split of "straight" people in the country is roughly 50/50. |
So if half the straights are in favor of same-sex marriage, and virtually all gays and lesbians feel similarly inclined, doesn't that mean that it is "the will of the people" that it should be legal? Majority rules, right? |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 02:51:56 PM · #4970 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mousie:
What about the will of the people against Prop 8, a near even split, who always seem to vanish in a puff when conservatives talk about 'the will of the people'? |
Ack!! I've been misinformed -- I've been hearing all morning that the vote was 7 million to 0 ... :-(
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... the split of "straight" people in the country is roughly 50/50. |
So if half the straights are in favor of same-sex marriage, and virtually all gays and lesbians feel similarly inclined, doesn't that mean that it is "the will of the people" that it should be legal? Majority rules, right? |
Come on Paul, you know the voting majority was in support of Prop 8. See my word "roughly". And, yes, the will of the people should be the law of the land unless the courts of the land overrule. That's the way we operate and I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 14:52:20. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:10:16 PM · #4971 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And, yes, the will of the people should be the law of the land unless the courts of the land overrule. That's the way we operate and I'm not suggesting otherwise. |
The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit. No matter how overwhelming the majority, voters do not have the right to prohibit a class of people (blacks, gays, asians...) from marrying. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:18:14 PM · #4972 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And, yes, the will of the people should be the law of the land unless the courts of the land overrule. That's the way we operate and I'm not suggesting otherwise. |
The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit. |
You are not saying anything different than me with this sentence. The Constitution and the Courts are synonymous to me. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:29:28 PM · #4973 |
| Neither our courts nor our presidents honour their oaths or our Constitution. Sad. If they don't like what they say they ignore them. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:54:37 PM · #4974 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Come on Paul, you know the voting majority was in support of Prop 8. See my word "roughly". And, yes, the will of the people should be the law of the land unless the courts of the land overrule. |
So Jason thinks a voting majority has the right to deny marriage to a class of people.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The will of the people cannot take away fundamental liberties. That's the way the constitution operates, and the courts of the land are supposed to follow suit. No matter how overwhelming the majority, voters do not have the right to prohibit a class of people (blacks, gays, asians...) from marrying. |
You are not saying anything different than me with this sentence. The Constitution and the Courts are synonymous to me. |
So Jason doesn't think a voting majority has the right to deny marriage to a class of people? You can't dodge the issue with word games. Sorry. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 04:50:18 PM · #4975 |
Originally posted by scalvert- 11/14/2008 12:11:11 AM:
Ultimately Prop 8 will be shot down as unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time, and by pushing for this amendment I think its supporters have unwittingly accelerated the process. |
Called it. Proposition 8 was the dumbest move gay marriage opponents could have possibly made. These guys wasted tens of millions of dollars calling attention to their own prejudices. As they say, Ă¢€œNothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." Under legal scrutiny, it became painfully obvious that there was no rational basis for the fear and discrimination they espoused (an appropriate word, eh?). Now that each point of this campaign of religious hatred has been debunked in court, the appeals process will only delay the inevitable: a SCOTUS decision overturning DOMA and state gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. The tide of public opinion has already turned to the point that they can't even argue for the "will of the people" any more. Rather than stopping gay marriage through referendum, these groups have only managed to highlight a social issue that many people probably hadn't really thought about. Such consideration can only go in their favor among the most evangelical and conservative groups (those who favor tradition and belief over facts and evidence).
San Diego Republican mayor Jerry Sanders testified how he transitioned from believing that domestic partnership was an ideal compromise to believing that same-sex marriage was fundamental. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced", he explained. During cross-examination, he agreed with the defendants that not all people who voted for Proposition 8 were "bigots", but that he believed their vote was "grounded in prejudice".
|
|
