March 28, 2013

"The swing vote is in (so stop kissing up)."

Writes Dana Milbank, in a slight twist of the usual lazy journalist approach to covering the Supreme Court: Inform readers that Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote, pull his statements/questions out the transcript, and riff about them — What's he thinking? Who knows? Could go either way — and let him know — subtly or unsubtly — how much you'll love him if he does what you want and how he risks his social and historical standing if he does not.

There's an issue of "standing" in both same-sex marriage cases. Standing — the legal doctrine — has to do with whether the party seeking access to the judicial process has a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the opposing party and likely to be redressed if he happens to prevail on the legal issue. But the real issue of standing — these journalists make me think — is Justice Kennedy's standing within the elite crowd of politics, academia, and journalism.

Milbank's riff is: He can already tell. 
Early in the oral argument [in Windsor], the conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts (a silent Clarence Thomas can be assumed to be their tacit tagalong) — explored the idea that the case might be disposed of on the technical grounds that no injury had been proved, a technique that would avoid a ruling calling DOMA unconstitutional.

But Kennedy was having none of it. “It seems to me there’s injury here,” he said.

The swing vote had swung....

Kennedy left little doubt about what he thinks the answer is. When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that DOMA violated the notion of equal protection under the law, Kennedy cut him off. “You are insisting that we get to a very fundamental question about equal protection,” he said, “but we don’t do that unless we assume the law is valid otherwise to begin with.”

And if Kennedy doesn’t assume something, nobody can assume it.
The usual sucking up is not needed.

It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way, and — ironically — it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law. That unwittingly bolsters the argument for leaving this issue in the arena of majoritarian politics.

126 comments:

AJ Lynch said...

They are not gods; none of our elected or appointed officials are gods. The sooner we remember that and view them accordingly the sooner we can get a few big things fixed.

edutcher said...

We all knew how Roberts was going to go, too.

Bob Ellison said...

"tagalong" is a telling choice of words.

Matthew Sablan said...

""tagalong" is a telling choice of words."

-- I thought so too, but I wasn't going to say anything since I thought I was just seeing things.

Palladian said...

I read it ("tagalong") and immediately felt that the choice of the word to describe Justice Thomas was racially charged. Since feeling is all that's needed to condemn people for racial insensitivity, I'm calling Milbank a crypto-racist.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hooray! I wasn't the only one who read that into the word. I doubt it was intended that way, but, you know, there was an implied word or some such nonsense.

Hagar said...

What's "crypto-" about it?

Vermin McCann said...

"(a silent Clarence Thomas can be assumed to be their tacit tagalong)"

Good god.

Henry said...

(a silent Clarence Thomas can be assumed to be their tacit tagalong)

Me too.

Even if you read with the best intentions this is nasty and misinformed.

Henry said...

The usual sucking up is not needed.

But the usual slander can't be avoided.

Pogo said...

"...that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law"

Jesus.

Are there still people who actually believe that decisions from US courts involve the Constitution?

It's long been known that "dutiful judicial analysis" means "whatever way the wind blows".

Nonapod said...

And yea, The Great Robed Godthings shall create unto us a Marriage of Word and Law.

edutcher said...

And, while we expend all this time and energy on whether Titus should be able to wear white when he gets married in Milwaukee, GDP for the last quarter of '12 was .4%.

garage mahal said...

Thomas: What Scalia said!

Bob R said...

What is crypto about Milbank's racism? The accusation - despite ample evidence to the contrary - that Thomas was a dumb n@##$% who followed Scalia has been open, explicit, and loudly voiced by the left (cf. e.g. Harry Reid.) Any African American who wants to see what happens when you step off the plantation only has to look at the court.

Pogo said...

The US Potemkin Court.

C'mon. Who are we kidding here?

William said...

I don't see anything much wrong with gay marriage. Marriage is what people think marriage is. If most people think that gays can get married, then they can. If most people in your society think you can have four wives, then that's marriage too. Ditto with your first cousin and deceased brother's widow.....I don't mind people persuading me, but I wish they would advance worthier arguments than that the people who disagree with them are immoral and bigoted. That goes for both sides, but the left has control of all the secular puplpits and cudgels......If at the time of the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court had decided that slavery was unconstitutional, that would not have freed the slaves anymore than the Dred Scott decision legitimatized that institution. Some issues are not decided in court.

Chuck said...

Very well stated, Professor Althouse. And a very much needed observation.

I suppose that perhaps the Supreme Court has always been the subject of dumb and ill-informed coverage by newspapermen who don't have a detailed understanding of the law. I have always nominated Citizens United v. FEC as the most misunderstood Supreme Court opinion of our lifetimes. And that the public misunderstanding is the result of a campaign of active misinformation on the part of the mainstream press, as much as incompetence in underdstanding the detailed issues.

But I can't recall another occasion in my life when the press has more actively lobbied for a particular result from the Court. It is an embarassment to the press. Or at least it should be, and this post gives some voice to that notion.

Brava.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I'm going to assume that Dana Milbank makes pretty good money.

Hagar said...

"crypto-" means hidden, concealed, underhanded.

Milbank's swipe is blatant and straightforward.

jr565 said...

William wrote:
I don't see anything much wrong with gay marriage. Marriage is what people think marriage is. If most people think that gays can get married, then they can. If most people in your society think you can have four wives, then that's marriage too

so marriage is definition less?
And let's separate what you do in your personal life with what society endorses as a marriage. You can be involved in a polygamous relationship but that doesn't mean that society must sanction it and confer it with benefits.
Why do you think that just because it works for
You that society must give you a license for it?

Aridog said...

It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way ...

When an individual or an organization gets an embarrassing reputation, who is responsible for it?

AllenS said...

"tagalong" or "step and fetch it", what's the difference?

bpm4532 said...

Didn't you know? Milbank is a recognized expert on all subjects known to man.

Richard Dolan said...

"It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way, and — ironically — it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law."

Perhaps it is more sensible to see the irony as the intended result of the embarrassment. Those who talk about the Court in those terms certainly think it is embarrassing for the "Court to find new/bigger individual rights" that they don't like. For lefties, that would include Heller, for example. Righties have never much cared for Roe (and would hate Windsor if it comes out the way Ann wants).

So two cheers for embarrassing irony, or ironic embarrassment, or however that should go.

gregq said...

That is because it's entirely impossible for 5+ members of the Court to "find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law."

They are not supposed to be philosopher kings, they're supposed to be judges. Change only properly comes from "the arena of majoritarian politics." Anything else is an assault on Democracy, and assault on the rule of law, and a complete and utter violation of their Oath of office.

Terry said...

Dana Milbank is a hack.
He once wrote an entire column on the topic of Eric Cantor's sneer:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-07-12/opinions/35267406_1_eric-cantor-debt-limit-talks-tax-revenue

hawkeyedjb said...

I was talking with my wife last night about the Slippery Slope argument, and why it does or doesn't apply in the case of marriage. Well, why doesn't it apply to polygamy or polyandry? These are people, like gays, who are in committed relationships and sometimes have children. Why, exactly, should the law discriminate between those who love one person (of either sex) and those who love more than one? What's the specific reason for denying them the recognition and governmental benefits of marriage? Is it because polygamy/andry is all icky and stuff? Hey, that's pretty much how everyone felt about gay marriage only a few years ago. And that includes pretty much all the Democrats whose strongly held beliefs now bring them to support gay marriage.

Mind you, I'm not talking about bestiality or some extreme end of the slippery slope, just this specific institution. What's the reason for denying recognition of the loving, caring, committed relationships of polygamists/andrists? Will the strongly held beliefs of trendy politicians (I'm talking about you, Mr. Obama) evolve again? Why not?

MayBee said...

Maybe it should be hard for the court to bless us with brand new "rights".

William said...

@jr565: Marriage is a social norm. It is not an immutable idea in the mind of God. Some social norms are better than others and can be adapted or rejected on that basis....Marriage used to be defined as an unbreakable union. People have since decided otherwise. Male pattern baldness is now considered appropriate grounds for divorce. That's the way we roll nowadays. It might be for the better or for the worse, but that's the way the institution has evolved.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Thomas: What Scalia said!"

That's rich, bitchtits the uneducated attempting mockery of a man with sterling educational accomplishments (and no failed marriages).

Fatty is a racist.

Thomas said...

What's "dutiful judicial analysis of the law"?

–ordinary person

jr565 said...

William wrote:

@jr565: Marriage is a social norm. It is not an immutable idea in the mind of God. Some social norms are better than others and can be adapted or rejected on that basis....Marriage used to be defined as an unbreakable union. People have since decided otherwise. Male pattern baldness is now considered appropriate grounds for divorce. That's the way we roll nowadays. It might be for the better or for the worse, but that's the way the institution has evolved.

bullshit. I still can't marry two other people, nor my family members nor have more than ones triage at a time. What you're talking about is your personal choice as to how to run your life. And that's fine. Have a polygamous relationship with your kids for all I care.
Society does not give you a license simply because you have a relationship that brings you happiness.
Personal choice versus socially sanctioned institutions. Two separate issues entirely.

garage mahal said...

That's rich, bitchtits the uneducated attempting mockery of a man with sterling educational accomplishments (and no failed marriages).

As an attorney, perhaps you could give us a crisp legal analysis of this case before the Court.


BWAHAHAHA.

Just kidding bro!

Alex said...

Scalia is already on record as being pro-anti-sodomy laws.

Alex said...

I find it hilarious that Rush Limbaugh(a college dropout) deems himself the intellectual superior of Obama(an Ivy League prof).

Darleen said...

it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law.

Um, I'm not a law professor, but last I looked that was NOT the court's province.

If it's the Court (rather than the states & the People as stated in the Constitution) that creating "new rights" out of thin air, they why do we have a legislative processes at all?

Let's just genuflect in front of our black-robed Imams and be done with this Liberty thing once & for all.

Jay said...

Since behaviorally speaking, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality sprout from the same dysfunction, I eagerly await the judgements finding that laws against those behaviors are unconstitutional.

Darleen said...

Alex

Intellect is not bestowed on an individual by a sheepskin ala The Wizard of Oz

And Obama was't a law prof, he was a visiting lecturer.

And I'll take seriously the thoughts of a small business guy over an affirmative action, never had a job, red-diaper baby any day of the week.

Alex said...

Jay...

Since behaviorally speaking, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality sprout from the same dysfunction, I eagerly await the judgements finding that laws against those behaviors are unconstitutional.

Here ladies & gentlemen is the mindset of the modern GOP. Filled with hate.

Alex said...

Darleen... you sound bitter and angry.

Chuck66 said...

Alex, ask a small businessman what he thinks about the Democrat's ideas:

-Obamacare
-Lawsuit trolling trial lawyers
-Over-regulation
-"Paying your fair share"
-Skin color quotas
-And wait until Barry Obama gets his "gender equity" laws.

Alex said...

Chuck - I know plenty of progressive small business people are are super happy about President Obama and his policies.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

People don't get my analysis for free, fatboy, certainly not sniveling racist assholes like you.

But your sad attempt at deflection aside, trying to change the subject does not for a second make anyone forget your racist swipe at Thomas earlier in the thread.

Enjoy paying alimony, racist.

Chuck66 said...

Jay is correct though. The normal default for 3,000 years is that you have a relationship with one adult (or close to it) member of the opposite sex.

Those that are attracted to the same sex and similiar to those that are attracted to children. And don't forget that Yale University just had a conference that supported beastiality.

jr565 said...

Marriage is defined and then laws are passed around marriage since we are
Also talking about dissolution of marriage and a divvying up of assets. As such it needs to be defined as something and is regulated.
So, marriage is legal when you meet the criteria. What is that criteria? That which is
Set by society.
You may personally think marriage means you a dog your brother and the Brooklyn bridge, but the law doesn't have to view marriage that way, and doesn't.

SteveR said...

So Alex (I realize what you are doing here now as you always do here) but please explain, for the sake of this game you play, why anyone who claims to be "smart" would equate academic credentials with intelligence? To the extent they correlate, the exceptions are infinite.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Maybe soon, Gays will get to pay alimony just like you.

Assuming said gays have the same failure of their marriages that you did, tubby.

Gays tend to make it past high school however, so they probably will have better chances at avoiding the failures of your life.

William said...

jr565: In Dickens' time, a marriage was for life, even if it killed you. We've since loosened up the strictures. I believe that there was considerable Biblical support for lifetime marriages, and, as we have learned, it's probably better for children to grow up in unhappy families than in single mother households. Are you claiming that divorce laws should be rescinded?....Divorce and cohabitation are now social norms, and these social norms are far more subversive to marriage than gay unions.

Chuck66 said...

Alex, I know some too, but most are hypocrits. Ask a progressive restaurant or bar owner what they think about paying their employees a living wage.

One of the most liberal people I know used to own a small business. It was in city that was about 20% white hetrosexual male. Yet over the years he ran his shop, his empoyees were 100% white hetrosexual males. Imgaine how this progressive would have handled the gov't coming in and telling him he needed to hire an employee base that mirrored his community. 1 part black. 1 part asian. 2 parts women. 1 part homosexual.

Darleen said...

I know plenty of progressive small business people are are super happy about President Obama and his policies

We're talking about actual business people, not Orren Boyle cronies.

Jay said...

Alex said...

Here ladies & gentlemen is the mindset of the modern GOP. Filled with hate.


Who, exactly, do I "hate" again?

Inga said...

"Since behaviorally speaking, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality sprout from the same dysfunction, I eagerly await the judgements finding that laws against those behaviors are unconstitutional."

3/28/13, 11:23 AM

Thank God he's not one of ours.

jr565 said...

Chuck66 wrote:
Jay is correct though. The normal default for 3,000 years is that you have a relationship with one adult (or close to it) member of the opposite sex.

this is based in biology. Two people produce children not three. And two people of the opposite
Sex not the same sex. I'm sure that this didnt stop people from having sex outside the marriage but the reason society promotes this pairing is because its the one that produces the kids.society doesn't really care About other relationships unless there is some perceived harm being commited.
Biology is so imperative that speem donors can be forced
To pay child support when there is a dissolution of
A lesbian marriage. Because, like it or not, even our laws about paternity favor biology in determining who gets kids or what people are responsible for.

MayBee said...

Marriage was for life in Dickens' time? No. Divorce has been around a long time.

As for divorce and cohabitation being bad for marriage, when they first started becoming the norm we were supposed to believe they were good for society! Nothing ever starts with the cool kids saying, "this is really going to ruin future generations". Even the hippies thought they' had some new, better way to live.

Now, I believe gay marriage will be a net positive. But let's not pretend there is some spotless record for liberal ideas.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Since behaviorally speaking, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality sprout from the same dysfunction, I eagerly await the judgements finding that laws against those behaviors are unconstitutional.

Thank God he's not one of ours.


This is the same She Devil of the SS that was comparing those who oppose same sex marriage to Narzis last night.

Of course, that was how the Narzis got the locals to do their dirty work on Jews, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses. Get a mob together, bring out a few unfortunate schmucks, point to them, and remind the crowd, "They're not like us".

Then the fun would begin.

O, for the good old days in Minsk and Riga; right, sweetie?

Jay said...

Inga said...
Thank God he's not one of ours.


Notice you have very little interest in any fact based discussion on the matter.

You are just happy to reassure yourself you're not a bigot.

And that's, that.

Chuck66 said...

edubutcher, are you aware of how the Gaystapo is attacking Christian churches, especially the Catholic church? The demonization and dehumization is all done on the left.

Colonel Angus said...

Marriage was for life in Dickens' time? No. Divorce has been around a long time.

I'm sure once homosexuals learn the joys of alimony, child support and property settlements, I'm sure they will start wondering why they worked themselves up in such a frenzy over this.

edutcher said...

Chuck66 said...

edubutcher, are you aware of how the Gaystapo is attacking Christian churches, especially the Catholic church? The demonization and dehumization is all done on the left.

Where do you think they learned it?

And that's where the Narzis came from. Why do you think so many people compared the GM bailout to National Socialism?

And get the name right. It's not that hard.

Inga said...

"This is the same She Devil of the SS that was comparing those who oppose same sex marriage to Narzis last night."

3/28/13, 11:50 AM

Edbutcher, have you gone completely insane?

Jay said...

The Stuebenville Rape Victim Either Wanted It or Brought It On Herself, Says former president of the Steubenville chapter of the NAACP

Thank God He's not one of ours!

Roger J. said...

Fortunately for Dana Milbank, stupidity is not a capital crime.

GrandpaMark said...

"President-Mom-Jeans said...

Maybe soon, Gays will get to pay alimony just like you.

Assuming said gays have the same failure of their marriages that you did, tubby.

Gays tend to make it past high school however, so they probably will have better chances at avoiding the failures of your life."

I would imagine most divorced people have graduated high school.
I would also be inclined to believe it difficult to prove gays tend to make it past high school.

Gay people are not all born especially brilliant or talented.

edutcher said...

Their relationships are far more unstable than heterosexual ones, too.

Inga said...

This is the same She Devil of the SS that was comparing those who oppose same sex marriage to Narzis last night.

Edbutcher, have you gone completely insane?


From the post about the US Army rabbi at Buchenwald last night:

Inga said...
An example of what happens when some humans are considered "less than".

3/27/13, 8:11 PM

Cute, more of that, "Oh, I'm so distressed...".

And get the name right. It's not that hard.

Alex said...

edutcher lost his mind last November. He just snapped.

Baron Zemo said...

This blog has gotten to be very boring.

garage mahal said...

Gays will get to pay alimony just like you

I don't pay "alimony", you stupid, stupid motherfucker.

JL said...

Since behaviorally speaking, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality sprout from the same dysfunction, I eagerly await the judgements finding that laws against those behaviors are unconstitutional.

Thank God he's not one of ours.

Why not ask him to explain himself, rather than engage in such an ugly, blatantly divisive tactic. Which BTW, identifies you as the bigot in that exchange. He may or may not be a bigot.

His statement implies a sort of interchangeableness or similarity between gays, pedophiles and, um, hmmm... for lack of a better word, "animal lovers". There are big differences in my mind between those "behaviors".

I would ask him, specifically what "dysfunction" is he talking about?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

You don't Garage?

But you are so wealthy, you always are saying how you make so much money.

What, you can't pay your fair share?

Who knew, old bitchtits the undeducated is part of the war on women.

In addition to his racism toward Thomas.

In the words of Ann, how "ugly."

Inga said...

How is that comparing anything to anything, EDBUTCHER? Honestly, everyday your incessant barking gets louder and more demented. It's tiresome and quite annoying.

You want me and everyone else (who have called you edbutcher and there have been several lately because you have become so annoying) to call you by your proper name? YOU first. You want to continue with your odd behavior and name calling? Expect retaliation.

Darleen said...

you stupid, stupid motherfucker

Now now, who are you to judge who someone loves?

Colonel Angus said...

I don't pay "alimony",

And you shouldn't. Alimony is one reason I don't take feminism seriously because you can't claim to be equal to men while simultaneously being dependent on collecting a monthly stipend from an ex spouse.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

garage mahal,

Thomas: What Scalia said!

Someone (over at SCOTUSblog, I think) did an analysis of which pairs of Justices voted together most often in the past few terms. Scalia/Thomas didn't even make the top ten.

I am getting very tired of people portraying Thomas as Scalia's lapdog or something. The two differ sharply on any number of issues.

And this condescension damn well is racially tinged.

Remember this exchange?

Stephanopoulos: You got yourself into a little hot water last month when you said that Judge [sic] Thomas had been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Did you go too far there?

Reid: Well, let me say this. I voted against Judge Thomas when he was going to be confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Why in the world would I ever vote for that man for chief justice? And probably that's all I should have said.

Stephanopoulos: Because you did go on and say that, you know, you talked about his opinions and said they were poorly written, and you talked about one case, the Hillside Dairy case, where you said his read like an eighth-grade dissertation compared to Justice Scalia's dissent, you said, which was like one from a Harvard graduate. We went back and looked at that, and Justice Thomas's dissent was a simple two sentences, pretty clear to me, and Justice Scalia didn't even have a dissent.

Reid: But here's the problem in the Hillside case. But Justice Scalia did write in that case, and--

Stephanopoulos: But in the majority. Not a dissent.

Reid: Yeah, that's right. But his reasoning was very logical. That's my whole point, and I think that when we have an activist judge like Thomas, who wants to turn precedent on its head, it's not good. And I can give you other cases. The Mitchell case on Fifth Amendment, where he and Scalia wrote differently. I mean, I know opinions. But, again, George, I acknowledge what I should have said: I voted against him the first time and I'm gonna vote against him the second time if he comes up.

Stephanopoulos: And leave it at that.

Reid: Yeah.


Except it's worse than that, because Scalia didn't write in Hillside Dairy at all; he joined Stevens' majority opinion. So Reid went out of his way to praise an imaginary document as the work of "a really smart guy," while calling a two-sentence, completely comprehensible dissent something you'd expect from an "eight-grader." No doubt he read the nonexistent Scalia opinion with great attention. Bleh.

Inga said...

JL, obviously you don't know Jay or have ever engaged in a "discussion" with him. What makes some conservatives here look like "The Stupid Party" is to "enable" the village idiots here at Althouse.

But hey don't let me stop ya.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Alex,

I find it hilarious that Rush Limbaugh(a college dropout) deems himself the intellectual superior of Obama (an Ivy League prof).

When did the University of Chicago join the Ivy League?

Besides, there are college dropouts and college dropouts, you know. Steve Jobs springs to mind.

Jay said...

Inga said...
JL, obviously you don't know Jay or have ever engaged in a "discussion" with him.


AS your continuing drivel indicates, you're not capable of any sort of "discussion" other than to reassure yourself you're not a bigot.

Jay said...

I would ask him, specifically what "dysfunction" is he talking about?

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness - listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Homosexuality meet's the APA’s present criterion for a mental illness as the criterion is: “… a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress…or disability…or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.”

That's what I mean by "dysfunction"

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Grandpa Mark,

I would say that there is at least an argument to be made that gays attend college at a higher rate than heteros.

At the very least, you would have less pregnancys during high school which would finanicially and otherwise prevent higher education.

Emperically, I would say that gays are certainly over represented in academics, at least that has been my observation.

As to divorce and high school, well, yes, more people with college degrees get divorced, but I would say a large percentage of that is because it is mostly the college educated who get married in the first place.

All of these are tangents to my main point, which is that Bitchtits the Uneducated should be mocked for his racism, obesity, failed marriage, academic failures, and now apparently being a deadbeat to his ex wife and not paying alimony despite his self proclaiming a high income.

Jay said...

I'd also add that Inky has no capability in understanding what I just wrote about the American Psychiatric Association.

Therefore, she'll just sit there and reassure herself she's not a bigot.

JL said...

JL, obviously you don't know Jay or have ever engaged in a "discussion" with him.

No; I don't read every thread, and tend to only make an effort to remember the names of the commenters I find interesting.

What makes some conservatives here look like "The Stupid Party" is to "enable" the village idiots here at Althouse.

But hey don't let me stop ya.


You are the one who responded to the "village idiot" (your words not mine). I directed my comment at you, not him.

Inga said...

JL, you asked me why did not engage Jay. I just told you why. Pay attention next time you're reading Althouse. Note the manner in which Jay comments and how he engages in " debate". No I try not to ever engage him in conversation or debate.

JL said...

I appreciate the response Jay. I figured that is what you were referring to. I'm not a psychiatrist so I cannot render a "professional" opinion on whether gays are mentally ill. But I have a schizophrenic brother-- he is mentally ill. The gay people I know, no.

(BTW I didn't mean to imply your comments are not interesting. I was trying to make the point that I have a problem remembering names.)

Inga said...

And JL, my initial comment was not directed AT Jay, it was directed to the conservative commentariat ABOUT Jay. I was basically inviting the rational commenters here to denounce his comparison of homosexuals to beastiality and pedophilia.

But perhaps you agree with him? I doubt it.

Jay said...

JL,

Someone who is willing to have anonymous sex with 1,000+ people putting their health and life at severe risk, if they are not mentally ill, they are ______?

Jay said...

I'd also add that it is easy to perceive "Mentally ill" as some sort of visible crazy, or weirdness.

However, that is not the APA's criterion for mental illness.

Not everyone mentally ill looks like the shooter from the Colorado movie theater, for example.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
creeley23 said...

It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way, and — ironically — it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law. That unwittingly bolsters the argument for leaving this issue in the arena of majoritarian politics.

This is pretty much where I stand. I'm not on a burning crusade to oppose gay marriage, but I do object strenuously to the way the campaign for it is being conducted and the repercussions of it that I believe significantly erode the American system of governance, more than whatever effect it will have upon marriage.

Inga said...

Amazing JL, you accept at face value what Jay has just tried to bamboozle you with. You really do not know Jay. He made the comparison of homosexuals to those who engage in beastiality and pedophilia, and no one here besides myself calls him on it?

Sorry, but I just have to say it, The Stupid Party at work.

Jay said...

Headed the comparison of homosexuals wih those who engage in beastiality and pedophilia, and no one here besides myself calls him on it?

It is beyond comical that you think how dare you is responsive to anything.

Inga said...

Yup, he's ALL yours, enjoy the decline conservatives, lol.

Jay said...

Alcoholism is classified as a substance abuse disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)

Remember, a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress…or disability…or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.”

hombre said...

"It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way, and — ironically — it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law. "

When it comes to "dutiful judicial analysis" the abiding circle jerk of lefties on the Court eliminated that illusion long ago.

I recall Marshall and Brennan in a case I was arguing destroying opposing counsel during oral argument then putting up a two-man dissent for him to push some liberal dogma not precisely on point. So much for 9-0.

The Court never looked the same to me again.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Jay said...
Alcoholism is classified as a substance abuse disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)


He he he, I see what you did there.

JL said...

JL,

Someone who is willing to have anonymous sex with 1,000+ people putting their health and life at severe risk, if they are not mentally ill, they are ______?



Wilt Chamberlain?

hombre said...

Igna wrote: "He made the comparison of homosexuals wih those who engage in beastiality and pedophilia, and no one here besides myself calls him on it?"

I think It is unlikely that the sexual impulses giving rise to each behavior are the same, although none are normative. That's about as far as one can honestly go, Igna. Pardon me if I don't share your hysteria or your partisanship.

That still leaves his questions unresolved. As a social/legal question, what prevents progressives and their judges down the road from deciding pedophilia, if not bestiality, are acceptable socially and protected constitutionally? How about polygamy? Polyandry?

Where and how do you draw the line in the face of political pressure, Igna? If the question is unfair, why is it unfair?

creeley23 said...

It's embarrassing to the Court that it is talked about this way, and — ironically — it makes it harder for the Court to find new/bigger individual rights that ordinary people can believe really came out of a dutiful judicial analysis of the law.

Again to home on this excerpt, what are the ramifications if Americans come to understand the Supreme Court as just "nine glorified lawyers" playing word games with constitutional law to remake American society according to whatever agenda?

The left already understands the law this way and conservatives are coming to accept it as the pragmatic reality of the Supreme Court.

How good is this for America and the Supreme Court?

Is this the America we want to live in?

creeley23 said...

I recall Marshall and Brennan in a case I was arguing destroying opposing counsel during oral argument then putting up a two-man dissent for him to push some liberal dogma not precisely on point. So much for 9-0.

The Court never looked the same to me again.


hombre: I wouldn't mind hearing more detail about this.

I'm rather late to the realization that the Supreme Court isn't much for "dutiful judicial analysis."

Alex said...

Inga - it's true that social cons are in full decline, but doesn't mean people are pro-socialist economic & educational policies. Look what's happening around the country with alternative schooling and online education.

creeley23 said...

So I’ll be content with this observation: The fact that the Supreme Court may be about to pass judgment on the age-old definition of marriage is the reductio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence. That we have reached this point tells us that the Supreme Court has taken some terribly wrong turns.

The fact that, until very recently, marriage has universally been deemed to require an opposite sex component doesn’t mean that this component must be required forevermore. But a decent appreciation of democracy, human history, and the fallibility of the individual means that nine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.


This is my position exactly. Gay marriage advocates start from their redefinition of marriage and once that is accepted, there is really no logical way to oppose ratifying gay marriage.

In response opponents dig in their heels and stick with the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. If that definition is acccepted, then gay marriage can't exist by definition.

Of course, marriage is not a Platonic ideal like circles and triangles but a human institution, and these institutions can change over time.

I can see it either way, and furthermore that there is no honest way to settle this by appeals to reason or the Constitution.

I agree with Mirengoff that a change so fundamental to American society should not be left up to the Supreme Court.

If gay marriage advocate are so confident that their cause is the inevitable future -- which is a reasonable projection given its acceptance by young Americans -- they should not mind leaving up to a majoritarian approach.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Amazing JL, you accept at face value what Jay has just tried to bamboozle you with. You really do not know Jay. He made the comparison of homosexuals to those who engage in beastiality and pedophilia, and no one here besides myself calls him on it?

gayness is more normalized now, but we should not forget that when gay was in its activist stage, many gays were pushing for a lowering of the age of consent because sex with boys on the cusp of becoming adults was really big in the ay community. And prior to that if you look at gayness as a political conscienceless if you look to Germany and the Youth movement there it was tied into pedophilia and men having sex with boys were close to becoming men.

But, in the case of pedopilia, there are many who argue that its an orientation, that pedophiles are born that way. If that is true, should society punish people for behavior that they can't control. There is currently, and has always been since the days of Nambla a push to normalize pedophilia. Perhaps you are simply on the wrong side of history when it comes to this issue.

In the case of bestiality, its tied into the idea of a right to privacy. Do you think society should be jailing people for having sex with animals simply because of the ick factor? Or are animals really harmed by having sex with them?

There currently isn't as much of a push to normalize bestiality as a political movement, but I thought you were all about the tolerance of alternate lifestyles.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Alex said...

edutcher lost his mind last November. He just snapped.

At least I know what side I'm on.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Lets also recognize that its not only pedophiles that are pushing for sex for kids at younger and younger ages. In many schools are giving kids condoms and telling them how to have sex.
If they are old enough to be taught about sex, isn't that kind of making the point that a pedophile is making, that these kids are old enough to have sex? If one of these kids got pregnant, the school could assist the child with an abortion and not even have to tell the parents.
So, isn't there an assumption there that the kids are old enough to be having sex? Abstinence programs are poo poohed as naive, because the kids are going to have sex anyway and you're just leading to kids having sex without the knowledge of knowing what they're doing.

Maybe Nambla was right all along.

Alex said...

edutcher - the crazy side?

creeley23 said...

If they are old enough to be taught about sex, isn't that kind of making the point that a pedophile is making, that these kids are old enough to have sex? If one of these kids got pregnant, the school could assist the child with an abortion and not even have to tell the parents.

So, isn't there an assumption there that the kids are old enough to be having sex?


Sure. Althouse posted recently that quote from Lily Tomlin about 12-13 year-old girls feeling expected to give blow jobs to boys as a rite of passage.

If that's the score, how much of a stretch is to shrug and accept these girls giving blow jobs to men eighteen and over?

Heck, why not? Who are we to judge?

edutcher said...

Alex said...

edutcher - the crazy side?

Joe and Beria said all the people that opposed them were on that side.

So I'm in good company.

Unlike You.

hombre said...

@creeley: Without getting into the minutiae, the outcome was dependent upon a finding that the defense attorney engaged in misconduct. Marshall and Brennan both castigated him past the point of embarrassment for his misbehavior then claimed in their dissent that the record didn't support a finding that his misbehavior was as significant as their badgering clearly indicated they believed it to be.

The DOJ observers and I concluded that they just couldn't bear to validate the pro-prosecution precedent.

jr565 said...

Creeley23 wrote:

If they are old enough to be taught about sex, isn't that kind of making the point that a pedophile is making, that these kids are old enough to have sex? If one of these kids got pregnant, the school could assist the child with an abortion and not even have to tell the parents.

So, isn't there an assumption there that the kids are old enough to be having sex?

Sure. Althouse posted recently that quote from Lily Tomlin about 12-13 year-old girls feeling expected to give blow jobs to boys as a rite of passage.

If that's the score, how much of a stretch is to shrug and accept these girls giving blow jobs to men eighteen and over?

Heck, why not? Who are we to judge?


So its just a hop and a skip to kids being able to marry. Why not? Wat if kids are the next aggrieved class saying ages restrictions are discrimination. Who are althouse and Inga to say otherwise. Maybe they are on the wrong side of history on that one.

hombre said...

@jr565 re your 2:40 comment: if you think for her, Igna will never be responsible about her silly comments. Lol.

creeley23 said...

hombre: So Marshall and Brennan argued to one conclusion then voted against it because of their own agenda.

Yep. That's the way it looks like the Court works to me.

Thanks.

jr565 said...

Hawkeyedjp wrote:
Hey, that's pretty much how everyone felt about gay marriage only a few years ago. And that includes pretty much all the Democrats whose strongly held beliefs now bring them to support gay marriage.

sure,exactly. Althouse mentioned other reasons why the t
State would bar incest or polygamy, but why are those reasons not simply an example of her being closed minded about the question. Clearly there is discrimination going on. If you look at the history of polygamy and what Mormons had to endure to have Utah become part of this country and you realize tht gays had it and have it easy.
But do polygamists not love each other? Are they not consenting adults. Why's Gould society deny them rights simply because Althouse and Inga a on the wrong side of history?
So too with incest. So too with gay incest and so too with polygamous incest. Other than the ick factor what is the suggestion or,argument to deprive people of a fundamental right, simply because some people (the bigots!) find it to be wrong or harmful.

jr565 said...

Hombre wrote:

@jr565 re your 2:40 comment: if you think for her, Igna will never be responsible about her silly comments. Lol.

she isn't anyway.

hombre said...

There is that!

Inga said...

Jr. It would help to understand you if you learned how to type, spell and punctuate. Sheesh, I thought I was bad. Reading your gibberish is becoming way too tedious.

Inga said...

At the very least Homber can spell.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"Homber," Inga?

jr565 said...

It's not as if you respond to the points. But pointing out typing errors, rather than addressing points is the first sign of someone who doesn't really have a counter argument.

And its not as if I can't spell. I'm relying on my iPad and type badly on it, and have been hitting enter before correcting errors. Since there is no edit button, and I don't always feel like deleting a comment just to resubmit without typos, you'll sometimes get gobbledygook.

Inga said...

Michelle, how did Homber misspell my name, did you notice?

Inga said...

Jr. I use my iPad at all times, no excuses.

Joshua said...

Be paid weekly and earn like a boss! I just bought a great Mazda MX-5 from having earned $7126 this past 4 weeks and $10k past month. Without any doubt this is the easiest and most comfortable job I’ve ever had. I began this 6 months ago and right away was bringing in more than $83 per/h. Here’s what I’ve been doing Rich45.com

Inga said...

Ooooo, Joshua is a hottie.

Harold said...

Alex said...
I find it hilarious that Rush Limbaugh(a college dropout) deems himself the intellectual superior of Obama(an Ivy League prof).

3/28/13, 11:20 AM

If you have read the few available writing from Obama in his college years, or listened to him talk WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER, I'm amazed that you can think Obama is anyone's intellectual superior.

Or that he is an intellectual at all. He's been propped up by a compliant media.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Inga, I will make it my mission to do better on the typos. Why don't you try to do better on the bogus calls of intolerance, you hypocrite.

I've allready shown how your leaders not only enacted DOMA in the first place but only came out for gay marriage in the last few months. I also have shown how you are a hypocrite for calling people intolerant when you say you are for marriage based on love, but then seek to deny polygamists the right to marry (whom I presume, love each other)

In other words, you don't believe your own standard and are just glomming on to the latest "civil rights crusade" because its popular, but not because you aren't a bigot.

So how about defending your own principles you hag.