Here is another take on the Supreme Court's decision to disallow the Federal District Court's broadcast of the ongoing gay marriage trial. It is well worth reading.
Dahlia Lithwick's analysis is that the Supreme Court's conservative majority (the vote was 5-4 with all the conservative justices voting to disallow the broadcast) has a profound disdain for the intelligence of the American public. But this analysis seems sound only if one assumes that their arguments were sincere. I doubt this. As Dahlia Lithwick pointed herself out, their written justifications were supremely unconvincing.
The Supremes are smart enough to know when their arguments are bad, particularly when they are really bad. So I think the true answer is the one I gave in my earlier post. These men are conservative catholics. They don't want the public to view a trial where the case for both sides gets a fair hearing and appropriate scrutiny. They know (in their hearts) that the evidence and rational arguments run in favor of allowing gay marriage. They just can't rid themselves of Catholic teaching on the issue.
In short, they're afraid of the results of that debate on public opinion. That is the most obvious explanation
Well, I hate to break it to you gentlemen, but that horse has left the barn. I hope, when the case gets to you, that you're not foolish enough to write another Dred Scott or Plessy v. Fergeson decision.
Imfamy lasts a long time. Every week you attest to that when you attend mass and recite the Apostle's creed - "He was crucified under Pontious Pilate."
Be careful.
Joe H
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
3 comments:
Haha, Dude, how come you're not on the supreme court, since you seem to know so much? Does your your vast legal experiences surpases theirs?
Or are you just grinding your ax to keep wacking at anything that is contrary to your liberal point of view. I'd guess that any of the five justices that voted the way they did probably had some legal justification other than their "catholic" beliefs.
And don't you agree that comparing their ruling to Pilate's is a bit extreme? Boy, you must really hate anything that even hints at conservative convictions.
Hey, "Anonymous",
Let me summarize your points:
1. Nobody who is not on the Supreme Court should comment on what they do (which I just violated);
2. You don't have any idea what argument the conservative justices had for blacking out the proceedings...but you're sure there's something besides what Joe pointed to (with support).
3. You take the opportunity to purposefully? misunderstand Joe's point about Pilate - a bad decision can put you down in history.
Joe is right...the dam is already broken on this issue...and as a registered Republican, I can STILL tell you that it is far more healthy for society to encourage monogamy among homosexuals (who will be there whether we let them marry or not) than it is to play a colossal game of make-believe and pretend they aren't there.
Leave the games in the sandbox - time to grow up.
Anonymous,
If you read the article I linked to (and implicitly relied on) you can see for yourself if their arguments were weak. Did the author rely upon an erronious factual premise? Did she infer incorrectly? She explained why the petitioners arguments were bogus and why the Supreme Court's reasoning was poor. She explained these her criticism - she didn't simply rail at them. If she was wrong, explain how. Do you have a better explanation for their refusal to allow the court to broadcast a trial of such national importance? Do you have a better explanation for why the court broke on this issue in the familiar 5-4 split? If you do, let's hear it.
Far from grinding an ax against all things conservative, I'm calling conservatives "chicken" for not wanting to have their arguments aired in a fair venue.
And by the way, I don't hate all things conservative. I have said repeatedly that there is a very strong cconservative case in favor of gay marriage. But if you have a better explanation for why they stopped the broadcast, I'll all ears.
And for the record, I'm not comparing their ruling to Pontious Pilate's ruling. I was pointing out that if they eventually decide to uphold proposition 8, that ruling and the court will ultimately be seen as the last gasp American of bigotry. They will become imfamous, just as Pontious Pilate, of whom Catholics are reminded each week when they say the Apostle's creed.
I now see that Jim already said this much better - a bad decision will put you down in history is exactly what I was trying, inartfully to say.
Thanks Jim
Joe
Post a Comment