7 ms·

> apparently "conservative" I think you answer your own objection right there. Conservatives don't conserve anything, it's liberalism with a speed limit. The U

> 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 The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is as out-of-date with culture today as a statue of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.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.
        erichocean 6y ago
        > Judges are not supposed to enact policies. They are supposed to say what the law is, not what someone believes it ought to be. I think that was true at the country's founding, but is no longer true today. The entire purpose of Civil Rights legislation was to enable the courts to "enact policies", which they have done continuously since. They are literally doing what Congress asked them to do. If you don't like Civil Rights legislation, fine. But don't blame the courts for using it as the basis to do what Congress has clearly empowered them to do.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > The entire purpose of Civil Rights legislation was to enable the courts to "enact policies" Congress cannot change the structure of the government by passing a law. The Constitution makes enacting policies the job of Congress (and the President, for either signing or vetoing bills passed by Congress), not the Supreme Court. If we want the Supreme Court to be able to enact policies, we would need to amend the Constitution. As I said in another comment upthread, I think you have a highly idiosyncratic (and wrong) view of how law in the US works.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Maybe it’s because the majority should never have the right to impinge on basic liberties because of religious beliefs — see also, laws against “sodomy” (non heterosexual sex) and laws against “miscegenation” (interracial marriage).
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What’s a “basic liberty?” Who gets to decide? What happens if the majority literally believes that God will punish their society if it condones “sinful” behavior? You can say that religious beliefs shouldn’t be the basis of law, but who put you in charge? And what happens when people’s “basic liberties” conflict? Isn’t freedom of association a “basic liberty?” Is there somewhere in the constitution that says it doesn’t apply to employers? I view the legal process like arguing with your spouse. Every win has a cost. Every victory for individual self determination achieved through litigation chips away at the right of collective self determination, and that’s not cost free.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So we can argue theory all day long. Do you think a “democracy” should have the right to imprison someone who marries someone of a different race or if two consenting adults decide to have sex? In this case at hand. Do you think someone should end up dying because they can’t get healthcare because of prejudice against the trans community?
rayiner 6y ago
> 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). It’s a rare moment when people can agree on what’s happening while disagreeing on whether it’s good or bad. This is exactly the criticism conservatives have about the Court. We have had a “conservative” majority Supreme Court for almost 50 years, and on social issues we have gone at more or less the same pace as Western Europe. (I would like to think that conservatives had a hand in filtering out a bunch of dead ends they liberals otherwise would have led us down.) For example, same-sex marriage: > In 2001, the Netherlands[b] became the first country to establish same-sex marriage by law.[124] Since then same-sex marriage has also been established by law in Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[c] (2013), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[e] (2015), Ireland (2015), Colombia (2016), Finland (2017), Malta (2017), Germany (2017), Australia (2017), Austria (2019), Taiwan (2019), Ecuador (2019), the United Kingdom[d] (2020), and Costa Rica (2020). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is performed in several states and recognized in all thirty-one states.

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.
      - erichocean 6y ago
        > Judges are not supposed to enact policies. They are supposed to say what the law is, not what someone believes it ought to be. I think that was true at the country's founding, but is no longer true today. The entire purpose of Civil Rights legislation was to enable the courts to "enact policies", which they have done continuously since. They are literally doing what Congress asked them to do. If you don't like Civil Rights legislation, fine. But don't blame the courts for using it as the basis to do what Congress has clearly empowered them to do.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > The entire purpose of Civil Rights legislation was to enable the courts to "enact policies" Congress cannot change the structure of the government by passing a law. The Constitution makes enacting policies the job of Congress (and the President, for either signing or vetoing bills passed by Congress), not the Supreme Court. If we want the Supreme Court to be able to enact policies, we would need to amend the Constitution. As I said in another comment upthread, I think you have a highly idiosyncratic (and wrong) view of how law in the US works.
scarface74 6y ago
Maybe it’s because the majority should never have the right to impinge on basic liberties because of religious beliefs — see also, laws against “sodomy” (non heterosexual sex) and laws against “miscegenation” (interracial marriage).
- rayiner 6y ago
  What’s a “basic liberty?” Who gets to decide? What happens if the majority literally believes that God will punish their society if it condones “sinful” behavior? You can say that religious beliefs shouldn’t be the basis of law, but who put you in charge? And what happens when people’s “basic liberties” conflict? Isn’t freedom of association a “basic liberty?” Is there somewhere in the constitution that says it doesn’t apply to employers? I view the legal process like arguing with your spouse. Every win has a cost. Every victory for individual self determination achieved through litigation chips away at the right of collective self determination, and that’s not cost free.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So we can argue theory all day long. Do you think a “democracy” should have the right to imprison someone who marries someone of a different race or if two consenting adults decide to have sex? In this case at hand. Do you think someone should end up dying because they can’t get healthcare because of prejudice against the trans community?

rayiner 6y ago

> 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). It’s a rare moment when people can agree on what’s happening while disagreeing on whether it’s good or bad. This is exactly the criticism conservatives have about the Court. We have had a “conservative” majority Supreme Court for almost 50 years, and on social issues we have gone at more or less the same pace as Western Europe. (I would like to think that conservatives had a hand in filtering out a bunch of dead ends they liberals otherwise would have led us down.) For example, same-sex marriage: > In 2001, the Netherlands[b] became the first country to establish same-sex marriage by law.[124] Since then same-sex marriage has also been established by law in Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[c] (2013), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[e] (2015), Ireland (2015), Colombia (2016), Finland (2017), Malta (2017), Germany (2017), Australia (2017), Austria (2019), Taiwan (2019), Ecuador (2019), the United Kingdom[d] (2020), and Costa Rica (2020). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is performed in several states and recognized in all thirty-one states.