tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post6785576637444686665..comments2023-10-03T07:01:41.144-05:00Comments on Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans: Interesting Take On Obergefell v. HodgesAlways On Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-71955320653750429962015-07-12T15:20:42.149-05:002015-07-12T15:20:42.149-05:00Thank you for posting the link. It's about wha...Thank you for posting the link. It's about what I would expect from the Witherspoon Institute...but I'll keep my opinion of their work largely to myself. The most glaring facet of this opinion piece is that the author appears to be thoroughly confused on the generally accepted definitions of classical Liberalism and modern Liberalism. I'm thoroughly confused as to how he equates individual autonomy with modern Liberalism. <i>That</i> is the currency of Libertarians....and to a much lesser extent [my opinion], modern Conservatives. Certainly not modern Liberals.<br /><br />The rest of his essay is rather convoluted and seemingly meant as some scattershot hit piece on modern Liberal/Progressive ideology.<br /><br />Frankly, Turley's piece was far more cogent.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-8420937625121416532015-07-12T14:38:28.302-05:002015-07-12T14:38:28.302-05:00CI,
Here is that link I mentioned:
Justice Kenned...CI,<br />Here is that link I mentioned:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/07/15286/" rel="nofollow">Justice Kennedy and the Lonely Promethean Man of Liberalism</a>.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33497433490159396602015-07-11T20:39:30.604-05:002015-07-11T20:39:30.604-05:00The image of our society is bound by the Constitut...The image of our society is bound by the Constitution. Repeal it or amend it. Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-40626656538252154212015-07-11T20:07:44.316-05:002015-07-11T20:07:44.316-05:00It seems then that the people can't vote to ma...It seems then that the people can't vote to make society in their image, but a man in a robe can dictate it.Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-89354964578082916482015-07-11T20:07:12.024-05:002015-07-11T20:07:12.024-05:00It seems then that the people can't vote to ma...It seems then that the people can't vote to make society in their image, but a man in a robe can dictate it.Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-55585024177556744102015-07-11T17:58:35.672-05:002015-07-11T17:58:35.672-05:00___ Battling in the Darkness ____
Irrationality c...<b>___ Battling in the Darkness ____<br /><br /><i>Irrationality combined with spite<br />Laced with paranoid self-righteous zeal<br />Makes a combination hard to fight,<br />Since adversaries treat with nothing real.<br /><br />Projection of self-doubt with willfulness<br />Combines to seal out decent, common sense.<br />So, even virtue shown with skillfulness<br />Can’t penetrate Obduracy’s defense.<br /><br />Alas! The joy of honest thoughts exchanged<br />Is lost midst warring egotists stalemated ––<br />Entrenched by suppositions oft deranged ––<br />Employed to see all mutually berated.<br /><br />Thus trapped in darkness blindly on we fight<br />Afraid to see our faults exposed to light.</i></b><br /><br />~ FreeThinkeFreeThinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-83525430284987709072015-07-11T17:08:09.124-05:002015-07-11T17:08:09.124-05:00We will have to remain divided on your first point...We will have to remain divided on your first point.<br /><br />Voting on the basis of "feeling good" is the only logically reason I can find to arbitrarily restrict the consensual actions of your fellow citizen, without even rational basis. I didn't say that you said it. I'm trying to draw some sort of logic line with what you typed. I'm sure that it can be couched in more favorable terms, including verbiage such as 'deeply held beliefs', 'tradition', etc...but in the end, it merely makes one feel good about having their world view legislated. I suppose I'm similar in a fashion, except I have no vested interest in either way the ruling may have gone.<br /><br />We do have laws limiting contracts.....which by and large are premised on some level of rational basis. You seem to think that our society can Constitutionally, vote to deny liberty <i>sans rational basis</i>. <br /><br />Don't you think that the proper role of the court [or more rhetorically, a "man in a robe"] is to ensure that society doesn't arbitrarily and un-Constitutionally restrict the liberty of citizens? Or again.....do we simply not need a Constitution...and simply rule by mob vote?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-63875143054461040792015-07-11T16:42:43.586-05:002015-07-11T16:42:43.586-05:00"Marriage being a construct of man and societ..."Marriage being a construct of man and society", therein being our dividing point.<br />But suppose it is. Then society doesn't get to choose to construct it the way society wants in your view.<br />In your view, a fundamental right to constructing a contract contrary to society's wishes must exist. So the society's right to construct this marriage is short circuited by a man in a robe.<br />And if marriage is only a contract, we have lots of laws limiting contracts.<br />I'm missing where I said "feels good."Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-22099626048297064422015-07-11T14:51:27.428-05:002015-07-11T14:51:27.428-05:00And for the king now to be perceived as able to co...And for the king now to be perceived as able to confer "dignity" upon certain subjects and "classes" of said subjects is merely an indication of just how far "off-track" Constitutional interpretation has been allowed to drift. It's high time we return to the Constitution. Impeach Associate Justice Kennedy!-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-75316873751275920082015-07-11T14:42:02.051-05:002015-07-11T14:42:02.051-05:00The only "dignity" in affirmative action...The only "dignity" in affirmative action lies smugly ensconced within the contemptuous sense of superiority 'felt' by its' legislators. It is in reality, the epitome of intellectual hubris to believe that one can confer "dignity" through legislation. One may confer safety, security, and even prosperity upon others. But dignity is something "earned" through personal effort, not conferred by the powers du jour. For it is an "inalienable" property (Madison).<br /><br />Gay marriage will always be a joke. That the "king" approves of it, does not render the acts performed by its' adherents "dignified" in the eyes of one's fellow subjects, only in the eyes of the king.-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-15516979454183211582015-07-11T14:31:24.535-05:002015-07-11T14:31:24.535-05:00It isn't "sincerity". It's &quo...It isn't "sincerity". It's "righteous indignation".-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-75836564269879540542015-07-11T13:52:30.725-05:002015-07-11T13:52:30.725-05:00If homosexual marriage was "natural".......<i>If homosexual marriage was "natural"....</i><br /><br />Marriage being a construct of man and society, I'm not sure this helps your argument. Nor the fact that marriage has indeed evolved multiple time throughout history, even unto the past century.<br /><br /><i>So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.</i><br /><br />Marriage is, under law, a contract. The contract has been unequally enforced until <i>Obergefell</i>.<br /><br /><i>" maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want....</i><br /><br />Except to arbitrarily restrict the consensual actions of your fellow citizen, without even <i>rational basis</i>. Unless of course.....thats what you support....<br /><br />If merely voting for what makes us <i>feel</i> good, is the prime directive, why do we need the Constitution?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-4907962999237640872015-07-11T12:46:51.606-05:002015-07-11T12:46:51.606-05:00Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced ...Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced by "Natural Law".<br />If homosexual marriage was "natural" it would be far more prevalent in history and today. <br />Inter-racial marriage bans were a fairly recent constructs and opposed Natural Law.<br />So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.<br />" maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want.<br />The liberty of the citizenry to decide for themselves has been abrogated (sorry for using that word twice).<br />If society voted for "gay marriage" I'd feel a lot better about it than by judicial fiat. Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-88780573898607058932015-07-11T12:40:43.556-05:002015-07-11T12:40:43.556-05:00Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced ...Actually, our Constitution was heavily influenced by "Natural Law".<br />If homosexual marriage was "natural" it would be far more prevalent in history and today. <br />Inter-racial marriage bans were a fairly recent constructs and opposed Natural Law.<br />So Loving was reasonable in recognizing a "right" that had been abrogated.<br />" maximum liberty for the citizenry" to vote the way you want.<br />The liberty of the citizenry to decide for themselves has been abrogated (sorry for using that word twice).<br />If society voted for "gay marriage" I'd feel a lot better about it than by judicial fiat. Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33810360371966270162015-07-11T12:25:26.077-05:002015-07-11T12:25:26.077-05:00FT, your comment sounds suspiciously like a retrea...FT, your comment sounds suspiciously like a retread of the old "you can't legislate morality" trope. Forgive me if that's not the intent, as I know you're careful in your language, but it's how it looks in print. Virtually ALL laws are anchored in morality that is considered close enough to universal truth to merit public codification of the 'truth' as part of the legal/social contract that governs our actions. <br /><br />Absolute Truth [eternal, immutable Truth] <br />+ Interpretation of its Application [beliefs and opinions]<br />= A Law<br /><br />If I lobby for a law that says people can’t wear yellow because I don't like the color - THAT's a 'pet peeve.' (Of course under the Ober ruling I can now mount a nuisance claim an impingement on my ‘dignity’ to support a law about the offense, but I digress.) <br /><br />But to lobby to maintain the status quo of an institution that is the underpinning of all societies I know of and has been privileged by governments for millenia for roughly that reason can hardly be dismissed as an opinion or pet peeve. We obviously disagree to the very depth of this issue. Let's acknowledge how profoundly we disagree and not try to swat it away with such a demeaning arm wave as calling it <i>peevish.</i> <br />Baysiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562129788572031587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-29265444651829425472015-07-11T11:51:23.784-05:002015-07-11T11:51:23.784-05:00FT,
Lobbying is a HUGE part of what is wrong with...FT, <br />Lobbying is a HUGE part of what is wrong with our political system, IMO.<br /><br />As citizens, we certainly have the duty to contact our elected public servants, but what we say without the power of a lobby no longer seems to matter!<br /><br />I wonder what the history of lobbying is.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-32595352371140576572015-07-11T11:49:39.604-05:002015-07-11T11:49:39.604-05:00I still do. Allow me to amplify my meaning. I trul...I still do. Allow me to amplify my meaning. I truly wish that the citizens and legislatures of all 50 states would strive toward - and vote for - the maximum liberty for the citizenry; that they would act on their own volition, to overturn and remove arbitrary prohibitions that deny the rights, liberties and privileges that are enjoyed by <i>most</i> citizens.....to <i>some</i> citizens. Arbitrary legislation and code that stands without a rational basis.<br /><br />But much like the <i>Loving</i> ruling, it took SCOTUS to rule on the issue....another example of "judicial fiat" if you're being logically consistent.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-64612430028112415222015-07-11T11:26:25.493-05:002015-07-11T11:26:25.493-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.FreeThinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-22080404068027297822015-07-11T10:51:38.300-05:002015-07-11T10:51:38.300-05:00You expressed at my blog that you would haw prefer...You expressed at my blog that you would haw preferred that 50 states had approved of the result. Of course, the majority of states that allowed "gay marriage" did so by judicial fiat also.<br />What I don't like about this is how it was done.<br />Judicial tyranny.<br />We are repeating ourselves.<br />Scalia and Thomas's opinions, while unorthodox , don't carry the weight of a majority opinion. Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33648065767571424382015-07-11T10:03:26.658-05:002015-07-11T10:03:26.658-05:00BTW.....does this mean you stand firm behind the t...BTW.....does this mean you stand firm behind the tenets of Scalia and Thomas's unorthodox dissenting opinions?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-38649569226665054482015-07-11T10:01:21.298-05:002015-07-11T10:01:21.298-05:002nd paragraph should read "confers" rath...2nd paragraph should read "confers" rather than "concerns". I can't type on my phone with the grace and skill of a teenager.....Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-796121626036184202015-07-11T09:59:04.011-05:002015-07-11T09:59:04.011-05:00No Ed.....it does not give me pause, because per t...No Ed.....it does not give me pause, because per the 14th Amendment, this case was adjudicated correctly. When you self analyse your position....does it not give you pause that the Justices you happen to admire, share your political leanings........while the others, you consider "political hacks". Is there not perhaps, some bias in your position?<br /><br />Majority opinions do have weight in future rulings.....as do minority rulings. Neither codifies nor concerns a 'right'. You've more than once, framed a response to me with "because I 'liked' the ruling"......and since I think poorly of that tactic (since I've provided the Consitutional basis for my position) I haven't responded in kind; but your narrative continues to strike me as you simply "not liking" the ruling.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-759204836421393582015-07-11T09:23:45.242-05:002015-07-11T09:23:45.242-05:00CI:" You're placing a lot of stock in Ken...CI:" You're placing a lot of stock in Kennedy's 'appeal to dignity'.....but you do know his words do not actually establish a right....right? "<br />The words of a Supreme carry a lot of weight in arguments down the road on other cases.<br />And indicate his faulty rationale. Once again, if there is no right to dignity, does it not scare you that a Supreme thinks there is? And said so? An official interpreter of our Bill of Rights?<br />So, if four justices I admire find against gay marriage, four justices I see as political hacks find for it, and one other "decides" demonstrating his lack of understanding of basic rights as enumerated in our Constitution, does that not give pause for concern as to the legitimacy of the ruling?Ed Bonderenkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03724552853113809036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-2536571521469423862015-07-11T09:10:32.633-05:002015-07-11T09:10:32.633-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.FreeThinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33587086486806177262015-07-11T07:47:14.814-05:002015-07-11T07:47:14.814-05:00CI,
Good grief! I'm not putting a lot of st...CI,<br />Good grief! I'm not putting <i>a lot of stock</i> in the words. After all, I did not write the essay, did I? A supporter of same-sex marriage did. I think that point is significant. You don't think so?<br /><br />But I do really think that this may come back to curtail some Americans' freedoms and to stir up further unrest as the wrestling to define "a right to dignity" ensues.<br /><br />If <b>you</b> disagreed with the SCOTUS ruling, wouldn't <b>you</b> be a bit concerned about Justice Kennedy's words?<br /><br />As for persecuting and prosecuting gays, I didn't do any or that -- nor have I <b>ever</b> advocated doing so.<br /><br />Gotta go to work. If I remember to do so later, I will post a link to another essay which I read -- on the topic of "the right to dignity," that is. Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.com