tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post2846640785455078670..comments2023-06-08T03:05:43.638-07:00Comments on Gay Married Californian: All eyes on Justice KennedyIThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-77074798877309482222010-08-12T10:02:07.090-07:002010-08-12T10:02:07.090-07:00Well, Roe was decided by extending the "penum...Well, Roe was decided by extending the "penumbra" of personal privacy rights protected under the constitution to encompass reproductive issues. I believe that the right to privacy is a "civil right". <br /><br />However, the point I was making is not that these cases are the same or equivalent. Rather, I am pointing out that Justice Ginsberg's decision on this matter may be influenced by her stated reluctance to have the Court address divisive constitutional issues where an issue is being addressed by the states and is better left to legislative action. Roe, like the present case, invalidated laws nation wide. <br /><br />On the related issue you raise, I don't know how long it would have taken or how many states, if any, would still outlaw inter-racial marriage if the Loving decision had not been reached. Polls showing what people approve of does not necessarily reflect what people would outlaw. For example, I don't approve of adultery but would not criminalize it. <br /><br />Justice Ginsberg's writing reflects a subset of thinking which has long driven SCOTUS. That is that the Court's authority rests ultimately on the belief of the people that decisions do not impose the personal moral views of the majority writing a decision on the people. This is obviously, a delicate balancing issue. In a more conservative era (yes they have existed) Justice Holmes argued cogently that majorities on the court were imposing what they believed to be good public policy under the guise that the constitution mandated the result. <br /><br />Kevin K.Kevin Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01192330313518885427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-61014282828358465312010-08-12T07:09:17.312-07:002010-08-12T07:09:17.312-07:00But by that logic, Kevin K, how long do you think ...But by that logic, Kevin K, how long do you think it would have taken for the pAmerican public to approve of inter-racial marriage?<br /><br />If it took 25 years for the majority to "come around" with Loving v. Virignia in 1967, we'd still see the south outlawing it.<br /><br />This case is nothing like Roe-v-Wade. It's a civil rights case. And it's a false equivalence to assume it's thes amse. But it's the current favorite conservative talking point against Teh Gay to rile up the base.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-53926728493470736552010-08-12T06:02:22.572-07:002010-08-12T06:02:22.572-07:00Dear IT,
I understand that the cases are fatuall...Dear IT, <br /><br />I understand that the cases are fatually different. But the constitutional issue of sweeping away the laws and in many cases nullifying state constitutional provisions, in more than thirty states is similar to the impact of Roe. <br /><br />Ginsburg's writing has suggested that the Supreme Court should take pains to avoid such sweeping constitutional decisions. She correctly notes that Roe has had zero impact in persuading its opponents that they were wrong. Based on what she has written, she believes that SCOTUS should avoid addressing such issues and allow the states to work this out through the political process whenever possible. <br /><br />These concerns, if they guide her decision, would mean that she is not a certain vote to affirm the district court. That does not mean that these concerns would require her to overrule the district court. <br /><br />However, only God knows how SCOTUS will decide any given issue. <br /><br />Kevin K.Kevin Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01192330313518885427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-49117653343058154712010-08-11T18:28:01.529-07:002010-08-11T18:28:01.529-07:00Perhaps you should read the transcript, Kevin K. T...Perhaps you should read the transcript, Kevin K. This case has nothing in common with Roe, aside from being controversial.<br /><br /> And it's worth remembering that it wasn't until the 1990s that a majority of Americans "approved" of inter-racial marriage--almost 30 years after Loving v. Virginia.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-91191240745449876942010-08-11T10:46:53.714-07:002010-08-11T10:46:53.714-07:00Kennedy isn't the only potentially uncertain v...Kennedy isn't the only potentially uncertain vote. You may want to consider Ginsburg. She has written that Roe v. Wade is an example of an issue that a Supreme Court decision took out of the political sphere with unforseen long term adverse consequences. <br /><br />If she means what she says, she would be a possible vote to overrule the district court and to allow the issue of same gender marriages to be resolved by the states.<br /><br />Kevin K.Kevin Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01192330313518885427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-61817170285313707792010-08-10T17:53:23.430-07:002010-08-10T17:53:23.430-07:00Oops, of course. Fixed!Oops, of course. Fixed!IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-88428396469088793592010-08-10T14:41:50.815-07:002010-08-10T14:41:50.815-07:00UMM. . .
Isn't it Lawrence v Texsas?UMM. . .<br />Isn't it Lawrence v Texsas?Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12752647845657172289noreply@blogger.com