Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[SlaveNoMore]

Santorum
Earlier this week Arlen Specter, in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a post-election news conference that he thought the Senate would be unlikely to approve "judges who would change the right of a woman to choose." He also strongly suggested he knows more than has been reported about CJ Rehnquist's cancer, and implied that there will soon be a vacancy.

Specter also, while besmirching the reputations of the current bench, implied that he himself would make a great Supreme Court judge.

His ego will be his undoing. As I said yesterday, watch him flip affiliation to "I"

It will be interesting to see if this is an isolated event, or the first of many fights within the Republican party. For example, it's easy to imagine deficit hawks refusing to support the administration's campaign promises without a plan to pay for them.

We're counting on it.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, I don't agree, except in the most extreme cases, like incest, abuse, rape, and murder. In each of these instnaces, the distinuisihing factor is that the rights and freedoms of the victim are being grossly violated. If you limit the conversation to things that take place between two adults capable of consent, then no, there is no limit.

It is the right and duty of the courts to overturn the tyrrany of the majority where the legislative branch does try to draw lines. One of the biggest perversions of Federalism in this era is the loss of the belief that there are simply some things that are beyond the purview of the government, state or federal to regulate, absent some compelling police or health risk.

Concur. One problem is, I think, that people have differing ideas about what a "compelling police or health risk" (or otherwise: a compelling gov't interest) is. Some people really, truly do think that gay sex creates a risk of damage to the public at large - general moral decay, or something, I don't know, but they really seem to believe this. Or: drugs. I happen to think that the prohibition system does actual damage to the safety and health of the general populace, but, while I acknowledge that there is enough of a health/safety concern with drug use to justify regulation, there isn't a risk that justifies the current policies. I'm even willing to hear arguments about seriously reducing the reach of the FDA.

People who are morally outraged at something, though, tend to believe that their outrage itself indicates that there is an actual, serious public risk present. Even though the more obvious cases of "overreaction," for lack of a better description, may be clear, there are still judgment calls to be made.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We're counting on it.

As Josh noted this a.m. in the post I encouraged everyone to read, Specter is already backing off what he said. The threat being that they'll give the chairmanship to someone else. How did Republican Senators give up the individual power that they used to have?

And if you're counting on adult Republicans to rein in spending, dream on.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
The only viable argument to distinguish between bigamy/polygamy and gay marriage is immutable characteristic.

Plus the "how the fuck do you figure out how to apply laws relating to spousal rights/benefits to combinations of more than 2 people" issue, which is considerable. Otherwise, actually, I agree with this statement. Which is why I think the practical difficulty of administering polygamy is the only argument against it, and I don't think think is a winner.

BR(see, now I've done it, and come out in favor of polygamy. I'm now going home to explain this position to the Mr. Who wants to move to Utah with me?)C

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We're counting on it.

Note that the fight involving Specter is one where Arlen departed from Bush Orthodoxy, and he's getting de-pantsed for it even after he ran away from his earlier remarks.

Imagining deficit hawks standing up to Bush requires, among other things, a willful disregard of the last several years that the GOP was at the fiscal helm. I like the theme, Slave, but if you can tell me how this will credibly happen when we know that Bush tells us he plans to "spend his political capital" by simultaneuously doing the following .....

* "Reform" the tax code in some heretofore unknown way, which I cannot believe will result in a net increase in the aggregate tax burden

* Reform SocSec, with some eventual explanation for the additional $1 Trillion it'll take to accomplish his goal

* Make the 2001 tax cuts permanent, at an estimated cost of $1-2 Trillion

AND

*"Reduce the federal deficit by half in the next 4 years."

..... I'd love to hear it. Even Carnac the Magnificent couldn't pull all this shit off at once. Which of the above incompatible goals do YOU think Bush will cast overboard in pursuit of his agenda?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Look, I'm pointing out a position here clearly against my own, but gay rights, neither historically in this country nor anywhere in the Western world, have been regarded as inalienable.

My grandmothers would have laughed at the concept, and each was extremely progressive in their own way.

We can say that they are until we're blue in the face, but until it becomes accepted by the general public (my generational argument), neither us screaming from the mountaintops nor the institution of rule via judicial fiat is going to change any hearts and minds. If anything, you get a backlash making things worse.

Gay or straight is irrelevant. We have long believed that the State has no place in our bedrooms. If that is the case, then what happens in the bedroom is not a valid basis for distinction. And quite frankly, I don't particularly care about changing hearts and minds. It doesn't matter to me if the redneck HS boys from Kingwood or Scarsdale or Naperville never come to see homosexuality as anything other than wrong, so long as the court knows its duty is to tell them to mind their own fucking business, like it or not.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What, pray tell, is the compelling reason for prohibiting bigamy?

Sidd's post above was a good response to this question. Bigamy involves a confusion of legal and social relationships, property rights, family law issues involving intestate and testate succession, custody of minor children, community property, etc.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Again, sliding scale. On this basis alone, the state could forbid sex with someone with hepatitis.

I don't know that I agree with you on this, but I would observe that hepatitis is a far more likely basis for regulating sexual activity than the genders of the participants.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sidd's post above was a good response to this question. Bigamy involves a confusion of legal and social relationships, property rights, family law issues involving intestate and testate succession, custody of minor children, community property, etc.

I'm waiting for club to say whether the State of Texas should be able to criminalize threesomes.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm waiting for club to say whether the State of Texas should be able to criminalize threesomes.

That would cause ReplacedTexan to again become DsplacedTexan.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Plus the "how the fuck do you figure out how to apply laws relating to spousal rights/benefits to combinations of more than 2 people" issue, which is considerable.

The parties can contract with each other as to how to resolve this issue.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Otherwise, actually, I agree with this statement. Which is why I think the practical difficulty of administering polygamy is the only argument against it, and I don't think think is a winner.

If marriage is a substantive DP right, why does the government require you to take out a license to get married? Why isn't this a private matter? Why is the government involved at all? Why do you need to go before a court to get a marriage disolved? Isn't this a private matter protected by substantive due process between individuals that the government has no business being involved in?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me If marriage is a substantive DP right....

No one said marriage is a substantive Due Process right.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
We have long believed that the State has no place in our bedrooms.

This sounds nice - but it just isn't true. By your own admission, the State regulates plenty of stuff for plenty of reasons, both in and out of the bedroom.

eta: Whatever. I'm having a shitty enough day and now I feel like I'm stuck in a law school hypothetical.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• 
  NORTH KOREA DEVELOPS "SUPER NUKE"; U.S. INVADES YEMEN
  A mere six hours after beginning, "Operation Frequent Flyer" has proved a rousing success...
  
  --------------------
  
  FOURTH PATRIOT ACT PASSES BY WIDE MARGIN
  Tackling the problems of "treasonous speech," "thoughtcrime," and "looking all faggy," Congress passed its latest salvo in the war on terror...
  
  --------------------
  
  HIGH COURT RULES LIFE BEGINS ON "THIRD DATE"
  Prodded by the Bush's administration's repeated citing of the dictionary definition of conception as "The act of forming a general idea or notion," the Supreme Court today...
  
  --------------------
  
  BUSH TO RUN FOR 3RD TERM, SLAMS DEMOCRAT JESUS
  His Second Coming seemed promising at first, but today the Bush campaign lashed out at Mr. Christ, branding him as "out of touch with mainstream Christian values." Polls show an increasing number of voters feel that Christ is soft on defense, and it seems that the ads from "Last Supper Diners for Truth" has done some real damage...

more

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
family law

With the exception of those laws that protect the rights/interests of minors, the entire body of family law should be taken off the books.

Lawrence v. Tx said that who you fuck is a private matter between individuals protected by substantive due process and the state has no right to interfere. Isn't marriage the same thing? Why are we required to be licensed by the government to get married or to get unmarried? It is our substantive due process right to get married to whomever we wish.

The government needs to stay out of our bedrooms and out of our marriages.