6 ms·

Your argument is invalidated by the fact that apparently "conservative" judges here voted to SUPPORT LGBT rights in this case. The notion that the Supreme Cour

Your argument is invalidated by the fact that apparently "conservative" judges here voted to SUPPORT LGBT rights in this case. The notion that the Supreme Court is an ideological legislative body is propaganda meant to subvert the integrity of the court. Some of the most liberally-hated conservative judges, just voted FOR LGBT rights here, because it's they believe it's what the law implies - not because it's what they believe is ethical. In fact, none of the dissenting opinions said that LGBT people don't deserve the same protections - they simply believed that it's congress's job to make those changes - and that's a hard point to argue honestly. Sowing partisanship by demonizing the people you disagree with, whilst also undermining the institutions our government is based on is... a really shitty thing to do.

erichocean 6y ago
> apparently "conservative" I think you answer your own objection right there. Conservatives don't conserve anything, it's liberalism with a speed limit. The United States doesn't have any party that is interested in conserving anything cultural or legal, anywhere. Which is great for Democrats (like myself). (There are many conservative voters in both parties, of course, and they would absolutely disagree with this latest ruling. But that's not the same as those voters having a party—there are literally no "conservative" elites in position of power in the Democrat or Republican parties, or anywhere else for that matter. We're effectively at year zero.) > not because it's what they believe No, they believe it. The courts are by far the fastest and best means of enacting liberal reforms today. Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves (quite the opposite, in fact—they consistently vote against them). Civil rights legal principles always trump any other law or principle, which is why it's the sole justification for all of these landmark cultural rulings. The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is as out-of-date with culture today as a statue of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. After the courts, we have to rely primarily on finance (private corporations) to push change; Goldman Sachs and assorted hedge funds are incredibly powerful allies in the long march towards progress.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Which is great for Democrats (like myself) I find it rather grimly ironic that a political party that calls itself "Democratic" endorses explicitly non democratic means for making reforms, on the grounds that, in your own words, "Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves".
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Political labels are almost meaningless; always judge politics by actions, not words. The Democrat Party today is as far from Andrew Jackson (it's first President) than North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is from being a democracy, or a republic.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      You called yourself a "Democrat". Even if you want to disclaim association with the political party that calls itself that, you still have the same problem I attributed to them.
      - erichocean 6y ago
        Judges are nominated and confirmed by elected officials, which are determined by the voters. Which part of that is "undemocratic"?
        pdonis 6y ago
        > Which part of that is "undemocratic"? The part where judges make political decisions that are supposed to be made by voters and their elected representatives. The fact that some busybody believes that voters "can't be relied on" to enact particular policies that the busybody favors does not justify getting those policies enacted by judges instead. Judges are not supposed to enact policies. They are supposed to say what the law is, not what someone believes it ought to be.
jawns 6y ago
7 of 9 justices voted with their respective liberal/conservative blocs and you say my point (that the public perceives the justices as having ideological biases) is invalidated? Invalidated by the fact that 2 of 9 justices broke ranks in this one particular case? The fact that there are so-called liberal/conservative blocs away from which the justices occasionally break means that yes, there is a common perception that the justices allow their ideological biases to influence their opinions.

erichocean 6y ago

> apparently "conservative" I think you answer your own objection right there. Conservatives don't conserve anything, it's liberalism with a speed limit. The United States doesn't have any party that is interested in conserving anything cultural or legal, anywhere. Which is great for Democrats (like myself). (There are many conservative voters in both parties, of course, and they would absolutely disagree with this latest ruling. But that's not the same as those voters having a party—there are literally no "conservative" elites in position of power in the Democrat or Republican parties, or anywhere else for that matter. We're effectively at year zero.) > not because it's what they believe No, they believe it. The courts are by far the fastest and best means of enacting liberal reforms today. Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves (quite the opposite, in fact—they consistently vote against them). Civil rights legal principles always trump any other law or principle, which is why it's the sole justification for all of these landmark cultural rulings. The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is as out-of-date with culture today as a statue of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. After the courts, we have to rely primarily on finance (private corporations) to push change; Goldman Sachs and assorted hedge funds are incredibly powerful allies in the long march towards progress.

pdonis 6y ago
> Which is great for Democrats (like myself) I find it rather grimly ironic that a political party that calls itself "Democratic" endorses explicitly non democratic means for making reforms, on the grounds that, in your own words, "Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves".
- erichocean 6y ago
  Political labels are almost meaningless; always judge politics by actions, not words. The Democrat Party today is as far from Andrew Jackson (it's first President) than North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is from being a democracy, or a republic.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    You called yourself a "Democrat". Even if you want to disclaim association with the political party that calls itself that, you still have the same problem I attributed to them.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      Judges are nominated and confirmed by elected officials, which are determined by the voters. Which part of that is "undemocratic"?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > Which part of that is "undemocratic"? The part where judges make political decisions that are supposed to be made by voters and their elected representatives. The fact that some busybody believes that voters "can't be relied on" to enact particular policies that the busybody favors does not justify getting those policies enacted by judges instead. Judges are not supposed to enact policies. They are supposed to say what the law is, not what someone believes it ought to be.

jawns 6y ago

7 of 9 justices voted with their respective liberal/conservative blocs and you say my point (that the public perceives the justices as having ideological biases) is invalidated? Invalidated by the fact that 2 of 9 justices broke ranks in this one particular case? The fact that there are so-called liberal/conservative blocs away from which the justices occasionally break means that yes, there is a common perception that the justices allow their ideological biases to influence their opinions.