Myths about American politics...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1. How did Reagan Democrats not exist?

3. It depends on the state and office a lot of the time.

4. I've never heard anyone claim this.  I've heard the claim that black people oppose gay marriage more than white people, and until Obama came out in support of gay marriage, that was true.

5. That really depends on how you define "conservative nation".  But it is true that conservatives vastly outnumber liberals when asked for self-identification in polls.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

5. That really depends on how you define "conservative nation".  But it is true that conservatives vastly outnumber liberals when asked for self-identification in polls.

Self-identification is a horrible way of measuring this thing. How about support for liberal policies-which a majority of Americans support?

Well, when you post a topic about myths of American politics and list 5 very short myths lacking any discussion, it's hard to understand exactly what about the list you don't believe.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In my opinion it's homophobic to oppose for example, hospital visitation rights for gay couples, but thinking that these rights shouldn't have the name  "marriage" isn't homophobic, just something I disagree with.

Why hospital visitation rights has anything to do with goverment policy is beyond me.  Heck, if you want to let your neighbor visit you in the hospital, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.  If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

It wasn't the Supreme Court that ended segregation for private companies. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court had historically been opposed to such legislation, ruling the similar 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional.

But the SCOTUS has upheld the CRA.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

My background has nothing to do with my beliefs.  That's how I interpret the U.S. Constitution.  It's a states' rights issue, not a federal issue.  If a state wants to mandate companies hire 25% of their workforce from homosexual African-American populations, then that'd be their right too.

Come on, Al... you can't pull this card on me - you're not exactly Mr. Empathy of the forum.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights.  If a vote to amend the constitution to allow homosexuals to engage in civil unions came up (since I think the federal government should be out of the marriage game, I'd vote against any amendment involving federal government marriage), I'd vote for it.  If you wanted to pass an amendment saying Congress can pass laws against discrimination in employment by private companies, I'd vote for it.

I'm just saying that the Civil Rights Initiative and many SCOTUS cases following it didn't follow the Constitution as originally framed.  I argue that we shouldn't change what hte framer's meant to say - they supported slavery (at least a majority did) and discrimination... the CRI wasn't Constitutional under that framework.  Instead of BSing through the Constitution and calling it Constitutional (which makes a mockery out of the process and the Consitution), admit that the framers wouldn't have allowed the CRI and amend the Constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

there is/was a left

Huh?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I mean... of course my background has something to do with my beliefs, but I was a lot different than my political beliefs.  Sure, if I was an African-American Jewish person living in San Francisco, I'd probably have some different beliefs.  My point was merely (and perhaps I overstated this a bit) that my being a white straight male doesn't make me biased against those who are different than me.

And again, I'd argue that the framers probably did not want (again, as a majority - I realize there were those who opposed slavery) overall libertry for all people.  Does that make it right?  No.  But instead of trying to twist what the framers crafted to fit what we now see as right, we should just change it.  Arguing that the CRI fits into the Constitution as the framers saw it doesn't fit with the facts.  Instead of trying to force a square peg into a round hole, admit that a square hole should've been carved in the first place.  And who knows - in 100 years, our grandchildren may be saying that our square pegs were idiodic and that we should've had octagonal pegs.

My point is that the job of the courts isn't to change the size of those holes, it's to explain what can and can't fit into those holes.  It's our job as citizens to elect legislators to change the holes as necessary as time goes on, and when they don't do that, we can take matters into our own hands via citizens initiatves.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights. 

If you oppose the only viable route to enacting civil rights, you oppose civil rights. Even if you are a nice, honest person who genuinely wishes civil rights were in place.

Well I disagree with that.  Opposition to the route taken does not mean opposition to the end destination.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?

It depends what the issue is.  Take the First Amendment, for example: if a private company wants to restrict speech, that's their right.  What authority, under the Constitution does Congress have to say a small diner can't have separate seating for whites and blacks?  In my opinion, they don't.  Does that mean I think diners should be able to segregate seating?  Absolutely not.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That being said, I realize that I'm in an extreme minority in my opinions, and if I were in a judicial position, I'd put my personal view aside and stick to the precedents of what the Court has decided.  I think the Court got the case(s) wrong, but at this point, we have to move forward on the path we're on - to reverse such cases would put the legal system into chaos.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My background has nothing to do with my beliefs.

How can it not do, to some extent?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does this matter more to you than basic fairness?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a trick and it has nothing to do with empathy.

I'm not saying fairness should matter less than the Constitution.  I'm saying you should amend the Constitution to make it fair, rather than twist what it says to force fairness into it where it was never written.

The framers weren't "fair".  Instead of trying to pretend what they wrote was, change what they wrote.  But until you do that, you have to abide by what they wrote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Constitution was crafted to be a living document. It was left deliberately vague in many cases due to the fact that the Framers had the foresight to realize that they couldn't possibly know what specific issues would arise in the future--and which issues that at the time seemed vital would later fade to obscurity (the 3rd Amendment comes to mind here).

But the changes to the Constitution were not meant to be done via the Courts; they should be done via amendments.

Marbury v. Madison?

What do you mean?

Sorry, made a mistake. Disregard that statement.

Anyway, isn't it the courts' job to interpret the law and, by extension, the Constitution?

Yes, it's their job to interpret the law and the Constitution (altough I'd argue not by extension - I'd argue those two are different in their origin, although same in ultimate outcome... a small difference).

Were the civil rights cases (Brown v Board of Education and stuff) not interpretations of the law and Constitution?

Yes.  They were.  And equal protection under the law is something that should be enforced in schools, because that's a public institution.

But private institutions can defy the Constitution all they want, right?

It depends what the issue is.  Take the First Amendment, for example: if a private company wants to restrict speech, that's their right.  What authority, under the Constitution does Congress have to say a small diner can't have separate seating for whites and blacks?  In my opinion, they don't.  Does that mean I think diners should be able to segregate seating?  Absolutely not.

The SCOTUS unanimously disagreed with you. Remember this as you enter 1L.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States

I spent 30 minutes trying to remember that case.

And like I said, I realize that the Court disagrees with me.  And if I were ever in a judicial position, I'd put my personal beliefs aside and go along with the precedent.  I think the Court got the case wrong, but at this point, we're too far along to reverse years of precedent.