|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In this article about Supreme Court accepting petitions onlookers have noted an oddness about the way the petitions have been split into two cases; one on the requirement of a state to issue same-sex marriage licenses and one on the requirement of a state to recognize marriages done in other states.
It may be due to reconciling the needs of different petitions but some are seeing this as a set up to issue a split ruling which allows states to keep same sex marriage bans while requiring them to recognize marriages done in other states.
Interesting times ahead.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's not a win in all but name. It reduced it from a ruling based on civil rights to an accommodation temporarily based on the current feelings of the legislature and the court.
It also loses some of the momentum needed to leverage other civil rights from same sex marriage.
The win is not any special form of second class citizenship that needs a bus ticket to work. it's full citizenship with full rights. If the court half delivers, it will be necessary to keep moving forward.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Requiring mutual recognition of equal marriage wouldn't just be an accommodation, it'd be a right. With marriages accessible to all who can make it to a neighboring state, and 36 states checked off, momentum towards nationwide recognition would be nigh-on unstoppable.
The Prop. 8 ruling was upheld on a technicality: the appellants to the Supreme Court lacked standing. Has that devalued equal marriage in California? Not noticeably.
My definition of victory isn't everyone's, and I respect that. I am, I admit, an ultra-pragmatist on these issues. I don't think there's a convincing legal argument to protect equal marriage via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also think the courts should do it anyway, 'cause it's right. I consider putting equal marriage to referenda to be demeaning, but don't think that undermined the 2012 victories.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't think there's a convincing legal argument to protect equal marriage via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also think the courts should do it anyway, 'cause it's right.
Goodbye rule of law. There's already a Congress for unprincipled populist voting, do you really want a Supreme Court that does the same? Because the 'populist' part might bite you in the arse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It's inevitable if the Supreme Court decides political questions.
They've invented an entire school of jurisprudence, the "living constitution," that translates as, "ignore the intent of the authors and enactors, just make it up as we go."
In Windsor, the Court decided that an amendment written by men who believed that sodomy should be a capital crime dictated that Congress had no power to define marriage as the Union of a man and a woman! Most of us are glad they did, but seriously, that's supposed to be based in law?
Do you believe the unanimous decisions to strike down segregation were matters of law also? Nah. They were righteous political theater. I hope we see a reprise with equal marriage.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In this article about Supreme Court accepting petitions onlookers have noted an oddness about the way the petitions have been split into two cases; one on the requirement of a state to issue same-sex marriage licenses and one on the requirement of a state to recognize marriages done in other states.
It's probably because the court wishes to separate issues under the "full faith and credit" clause (states have to treat other states' "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings", which includes marriages, as valid) from issues relating to the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause (government can't discriminate between its citizens without cause, like excluding certain couples from marriage without reason). Since the arguments deal with different sections of the U.S. Constitution it makes a certain amount of legal sense for the court to consider them separately, even if it seems odd from a policy standpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
They've invented an entire school of jurisprudence, the "living constitution," that translates as, "ignore the intent of the authors and enactors, just make it up as we go."
First off, the U.S. Constitution is a living document, having been changed eighteen* times. Second, that kind of interpretation is necessary when a document is heavy on generalized principles and short on material specifics. For example, are U.S. courts bound by James Madison's opinions on whether or not e-mails count as "papers" in the meaning of the term in the Fourth Amendment? Because I'm pretty sure he never gave the matter any real thought.
--------------------
*I'm counting the Bill of Rights as a single "change", since its slate of amendments were all passed at the same time.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First off, the U.S. Constitution is a living document, having been changed eighteen* times. Second, that kind of interpretation is necessary when a document is heavy on generalized principles and short on material specifics. For example, are U.S. courts bound by James Madison's opinions on whether or not e-mails count as "papers" in the meaning of the term in the Fourth Amendment? Because I'm pretty sure he never gave the matter any real thought.
--------------------
*I'm counting the Bill of Rights as a single "change", since its slate of amendments were all passed at the same time.
Amendments and fresh application of underlying principles aren't the issue with originalists, just the opposite, they welcome 'em. Their issue is ignoring authorial intent. Great for a po-mo lit class I'm sure, not so great for interpreting laws. As Justice Stanley Reed said of Brown, if justices just do what they like, it risks creating a kritarchy.
He joined Brown anyhow, and good thing, too. Sometimes principles must bend, else, the law becomes a set of amoral rules, that crush, instead of liberate. Just so long as everyone involved knows what's going down, and departs sparingly. Ginsburg's been procrastinating on equal marriage 'cause she's terrified of creating a new Roe. I disagree with her interpretation of the role abortion playing in galvanizing the religious right, but see her point.
Now, though, is surely the time.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's a good thing the people struggling for the right to same-sex marriage are very successfully ignoring the likes of your "ultra-pragmatist" advice. And they are unlikely to do so in the future. That's a good thing, since your "pragmatic" advice is bad.
Recognition but not a right to marry may happen, but it's not a desirable goal. The right to marry is not just recognition of out of state marriages, but the ability to make such a marriage where you live. Establishing a second class right is a terrible idea.
This is what Martin Luther King was saying in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moderates who kept counseling "not yet".
I can just hear "pragmatists" like you saying that a "whites-only" bathroom isn't so bad as long as there is a "colored" facility no matter how terrible.
Anyhow, the case is before the court now. It may be reading too much into the division of the case, but there are rumors that the case has a good chance of succeeding.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's a good thing the people struggling for the right to same-sex marriage are very successfully ignoring the likes of your "ultra-pragmatist" advice. And they are unlikely to do so in the future. That's a good thing, since your "pragmatic" advice is bad.
Eh? It's been the opposite: putting a fundamental right to popular vote (as demeaning as holding a referendum on "miscegenation"), and, as I noted above, getting marriage equality in California on a technicality (majority joined by demon judge Scalia!).
quote:
Recognition but not a right to marry may happen, but it's not a desirable goal. The right to marry is not just recognition of out of state marriages, but the ability to make such a marriage where you live. Establishing a second class right is a terrible idea.
This is what Martin Luther King was saying in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moderates who kept counseling "not yet".
I can just hear "pragmatists" like you saying that a "whites-only" bathroom isn't so bad as long as there is a "colored" facility no matter how terrible.
Was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown before the Supreme Court, a "white moderate" by your reckoning? 'Cause Brown didn't overturn segregation overnight. It was a major stepping stone.
I'm not defending any second class right: I'm saying that equal marriage should be expanded by near any means necessary. What exactly are you saying? That it should be all-or-nothing? If so, you may well get nothing, and who does that help?
quote:
Anyhow, the case is before the court now. It may be reading too much into the division of the case, but there are rumors that the case has a good chance of succeeding.
Of course it does, and I hope it's an unequivocal victory for equal marriage. If, however, it's a partial victory, that's good too.
Heck, Windsor was a partial victory, that's laid the groundwork for where we are now. Was Windsor not worth having because it wasn't a slam dunk?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm saying that if it gets split into two cases, and only recognition passes, it's not "A win in all but name" because of the ability to buy cheap bus tickets to get married. It's a partial defeat, and the pressure needs to continue for a complete victory. That doesn't mean tossing away what partial victory you get, It means not stopping. If you think not stopping means you have to throw away a partial victory no wonder you give such bad advice.
Certainly a partial victory is better than total defeat. But calling a partial victory pragmatically good enough is delusional.
And I certainly wasn't comparing you to Thurgood Marshal and I doubt King was describing him either.
[ 21. January 2015, 19:59: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
If the Supreme court rules that states aren't required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, what will that mean for states that are currently required to do so by existing judicial orders?
The pro-marriage decisions of the various appellate courts are not, strictly speaking, on trial here. So would they be automatically negated by a Supreme court decision here? Or would that cause a second wave of ligation through those appellate circuits?
I'm also slightly confused the by very narrow wording of the Supreme court's topic of analysis: "Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" I was under the impression that the various successful same-sex marriage cases had used at least 3 differing lines of reasoning to reach their conclusions. Do the Supreme court intend to only examine one of those lines of reasoning, or do all of them ultimately refer back to the 14th Amendment? (I'm pretty sure I've seen other amendments referenced over the last year in these marriage cases)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This is what Martin Luther King was saying in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moderates who kept counseling "not yet".
I can just hear "pragmatists" like you saying that a "whites-only" bathroom isn't so bad as long as there is a "colored" facility no matter how terrible.
Was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown before the Supreme Court, a "white moderate" by your reckoning? 'Cause Brown didn't overturn segregation overnight. It was a major stepping stone.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm saying that if it gets split into two cases, and only recognition passes, it's not "A win in all but name" because of the ability to buy cheap bus tickets to get married. It's a partial defeat, and the pressure needs to continue for a complete victory. That doesn't mean tossing away what partial victory you get, It means not stopping. If you think not stopping means you have to throw away a partial victory no wonder you give such bad advice.
Certainly a partial victory is better than total defeat. But calling a partial victory pragmatically good enough is delusional.
And I certainly wasn't comparing you to Thurgood Marshal and I doubt King was describing him either.
I never said anyone should stop if the result's 36 states + recognition, just the opposite, I said it should (and would) be used to extend marriage rights nationwide.
The practical result, however, would be that equal marriage was available to near everyone who wanted it, in their home state. All substantive protections and recognition would be there.
Second class rights would be settling for civil unions. I've not for a second suggested that. I don't think we even disagree on strategy, just what counts as a result.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?
Just ... no. I said nothing whatsoever about Marshall's abilities, nor am I under the impression that counsel write opinions. Marshall was a genius, went on to become a giant of 20th century jurisprudence, not to mention heroic.
I was using Brown (and Windsor) as examples of how incremental successes can prove to be victories. Do we even disagree on that?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
I never said anyone should stop if the result's 36 states + recognition, just the opposite, I said it should (and would) be used to extend marriage rights nationwide.
The practical result, however, would be that equal marriage was available to near everyone who wanted it, in their home state. All substantive protections and recognition would be there.
Second class rights would be settling for civil unions. I've not for a second suggested that. I don't think we even disagree on strategy, just what counts as a result.
I was using Brown (and Windsor) as examples of how incremental successes can prove to be victories. Do we even disagree on that?
Incremental Successes are incremental successes. Victories are victories. The former may be useful steps, but it's wise not to confuse them with the latter. Calling an incremental success a victory in all but name is not useful.
[ 21. January 2015, 21:20: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If the Supreme court rules that states aren't required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, what will that mean for states that are currently required to do so by existing judicial orders?
The pro-marriage decisions of the various appellate courts are not, strictly speaking, on trial here. So would they be automatically negated by a Supreme court decision here? Or would that cause a second wave of ligation through those appellate circuits?
I'm also slightly confused the by very narrow wording of the Supreme court's topic of analysis: "Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" I was under the impression that the various successful same-sex marriage cases had used at least 3 differing lines of reasoning to reach their conclusions. Do the Supreme court intend to only examine one of those lines of reasoning, or do all of them ultimately refer back to the 14th Amendment? (I'm pretty sure I've seen other amendments referenced over the last year in these marriage cases)
Fourteenth Amendment applies other parts of the Bill of Rights (including the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, used in Windsor) to the states. The 14th also has several elements that could be used to apply equal marriage to the states (due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, etc).
So it does ultimately come down to the 14th Amendment, which is worded vaguely enough to allow the Supreme Court to extend equal marriage rights nationwide.
As for the grounds they'll use, it's anyone's guess. Three votes for nationwide marriage equality are a slam dunk. (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer.) Kennedy's a moderate who likes states' rights, be he has a history of defending gay rights from the bench, and I doubt he'll want to tarnish that legacy. The biggest problem could be Ginsburg, who's terrified of creating a religious backlash, as she believes Roe did. She may go for a compromise position to avoid that. I hope she doesn't.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Incremental Successes are incremental successes. Victories are victories. The former may be useful steps, but it's wise not to confuse them with the latter. Calling an incremental success a victory in all but name is not useful.
Fair enough. My position's that the substance of those successes varies greatly, and some can be substantive victories.
To give a comparison, Second Amendment advocates keep pushing in Congress for mutual recognition of state carry licenses. Gun control advocates fiercely oppose this, 'cause they recognize that, in effect, it'd make may-issue permits like New York's a dead letter.
To go back to California, would you agree that, even though the Supreme Court kicked the case for lack of standing, the effect of that technicality was a victory for equal marriage?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It was a victory. The federal ruling stands that such marriages are equivalent to other marriages.
That's a different goalpost than saying if you can surmount a state enforced inequality by going to another state then you have won.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
To clarify, I'm absolutely not arguing that it's a victory if folk are forced to move state to marry. The crucial thing is that their marriage is recognized in their state of residence. If they can't marry there too, of course it's unequal, and wrong, and should be overturned as soon as possible, but recognition would fuel the momentum towards that change.
In California, no ethical or constitutional principle was established: the Supreme Court ducked the issue on a technicality. Yes, equal marriage is legal there, but if the Ninth Circuit had gone the other way (unlikely, I know), it'd also have stood.
Victory in all but name may be the wrong phrase, I'll accept: 36 states and full faith and credit would, at the least, be substantial progress.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?
Just ... no. I said nothing whatsoever about Marshall's abilities, nor am I under the impression that counsel write opinions. Marshall was a genius, went on to become a giant of 20th century jurisprudence, not to mention heroic.
I was using Brown (and Windsor) as examples of how incremental successes can prove to be victories. Do we even disagree on that?
Oh, you were doing a lot more than that. You started off with the rather interesting assertion that the "authorial intent" of the Radical Republicans who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment was to preserve the racial caste system of the American South as closely as possible to what had existed prior to the just-concluded U.S. Civil War.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Amendments and fresh application of underlying principles aren't the issue with originalists, just the opposite, they welcome 'em. Their issue is ignoring authorial intent. Great for a po-mo lit class I'm sure, not so great for interpreting laws. As Justice Stanley Reed said of Brown, if justices just do what they like, it risks creating a kritarchy.
The standard history is that one of the motives to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was as a reaction to the "Black Codes" enacted by southern states after the Civil War. If you have some kind of alternate interpretation, I'd be interested to hear it.
You then went on to imply that the fact that the Brown decision didn't immediately end Segregation everywhere and all at once was due to the arguments advanced by Thurgood Marshall when arguing the case and that this was Marshall's desired outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown before the Supreme Court, a "white moderate" by your reckoning? 'Cause Brown didn't overturn segregation overnight. It was a major stepping stone.
There's no reason to mention Thurgood Marshall in this context unless that's the point you're trying to make: that the slow progress of desegregation is at least in part due to his influence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Stop trying to mutate my criticism of your "Victory in all but name" by implying I was criticized Thurgood Marshall for incomplete success. I do not, but I recognize it as a step toward success.
This is especially inappropriate because Thurgood Marshall recognized the incomplete success of the movement to establish full civil rights.
quote:
Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.
Please spare me more straw men about how my criticism of what you see as your ultra pragmatism is a criticism of all that has been done in civil rights.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Sweet home Alabama is today's lucky winner.
Aaaand the religious right are objecting with their normal level of utter and complete hypocrisy:
"It is outrageous... we will continue defending... Conservative Christian values" responds the speaker of the Alabama house, Mike Hubbard, who is currently being indicted on 23 federal charges of corruption.
Why does it seem to be the most immoral people in the world that think they are in a position to go around telling others what is right and wrong? Peter Akinola, for example, when he was Primate of the single most corrupt country in the world, thought of himself as some sort of authority on morality who could tell people in the West how wrong they are about equal rights. These people are nutbars.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage
Apparently he thinks the state constitution trumps the federal constitution.
Moore said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade "raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction" over the Alabama amendment
Moore has previously attracted attention by refusing to remove a statue of the ten commandments from a courthouse.
He's asked probate judges and clerks not to issue licenses. The Federal judge has issued a stay until February 9 so the state can appeal the ruling.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage
Apparently he thinks the state constitution trumps the federal constitution.
Moore said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade "raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction" over the Alabama amendment
Moore has previously attracted attention by refusing to remove a statue of the ten commandments from a courthouse.
He's asked probate judges and clerks not to issue licenses. The Federal judge has issued a stay until February 9 so the state can appeal the ruling.
Them people be crazy. I see this guy has already been fired once before from his job for refusing to follow a federal court injunction. (The morons who live in Alabama subsequently reelected him)
There was, similarly, a group in Alabama, who announced that they didn't feel like obeying the court ruling either. (That's unlikely to get far, since federal judges tend to get quite angry quite fast when their orders are disobeyed. In Florida, when someone suggested the same thing there, the judge's response was amusing.)
More interesting, as Horseman Bree pointed out is that some people in Alabama are seriously talking about banning all marriages there: Which would be a repeat of a (failed) strategy that they implemented in their historic stand against desegregation (they shut down all high-schools rather than force them to integrate).
[ 27. January 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Oh, you were doing a lot more than that. You started off with the rather interesting assertion that the "authorial intent" of the Radical Republicans who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment was to preserve the racial caste system of the American South as closely as possible to what had existed prior to the just-concluded U.S. Civil War.
[...]
The standard history is that one of the motives to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was as a reaction to the "Black Codes" enacted by southern states after the Civil War. If you have some kind of alternate interpretation, I'd be interested to hear it.
Erm, nope, I said no such thing. If anything I posted here gave that impression, I apologize for my poor choice of wording, and clarify it now.
quote:
You then went on to imply that the fact that the Brown decision didn't immediately end Segregation everywhere and all at once was due to the arguments advanced by Thurgood Marshall when arguing the case and that this was Marshall's desired outcome.
No, that limitation was inherent to the case. Marshall undoubtedly desired segregation end everywhere, but went about dismantling it piecemeal. Are you even disagreeing with that? If not, we've no disagreement on this score.
quote:
There's no reason to mention Thurgood Marshall in this context unless that's the point you're trying to make: that the slow progress of desegregation is at least in part due to his influence.
I mentioned Marshall to refute the MLK comparison, and show that an incremental strategy isn't synonymous with being a white moderate. Marshall was, I reiterate, heroic, and a legal genius. That's precisely why I cited him.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Stop trying to mutate my criticism of your "Victory in all but name" by implying I was criticized Thurgood Marshall for incomplete success. I do not, but I recognize it as a step toward success.
This is especially inappropriate because Thurgood Marshall recognized the incomplete success of the movement to establish full civil rights.
quote:
Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.
Please spare me more straw men about how my criticism of what you see as your ultra pragmatism is a criticism of all that has been done in civil rights.
You compared my position (well me, actually, but I've had my fill of hellish antics for the present, so I'll let that slide) to that of the white moderates in Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I rebutted by showing that civil rights icon Justice Marshall adopted the exact same strategy to dismantle segregation.
I accept that "victory in all but name" is insufficient to acknowledge the inequality that remains with 36 states and full faith and credit. I apologize for a poor choice of phrasing. It would, I hope we can both agree, be substantial progress, and bring a victory very much closer.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
...I accept that "victory in all but name" is insufficient to acknowledge the inequality that remains with 36 states and full faith and credit...
Also remember that many of the current states where equal marriage is the law, it is because discrimination was found to be unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, those laws that are still on the books will be reactivated, and states will be free to pass new ones.
So don't assume that equal marriage will survive a contrary SCOTUS decision in all states where it currently is in force.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Please show me where Thurgood Marshall decided it was fine to lose one of two cases fighting discrimination before the Supreme Court.
Your wrong and unfortunate description as "Victory in all but name" bears no relation to Marshall's strategy. He took his losses and called them losses and set out to reverse them.
The victories so far are progress. The losses so far are not irrelevant toward the goal of equality. Tolerating a second class status "for pragmatic reasons" threatens the victories and impedes further progress.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
In France, the highest court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and thus any treaties France has with other nations cannot restrict the freedom of same-sex couples to marry in France. (This case comes after a French-Moroccan couple married in France and were informed it was invalid due to a Moroccan ban on gay marriage and a treaty France has with Morocco.)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Also remember that many of the current states where equal marriage is the law, it is because discrimination was found to be unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, those laws that are still on the books will be reactivated, and states will be free to pass new ones.
Yes, already highlighted this, and said that full faith and credit combined with a reduction in equal marriage jurisdictions wouldn't be any kind of victory.
quote:
So don't assume that equal marriage will survive a contrary SCOTUS decision in all states where it currently is in force.
I don't!
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Please show me where Thurgood Marshall decided it was fine to lose one of two cases fighting discrimination before the Supreme Court.
I never claimed he did. I don't think it'd be "fine" to get anything less than equal marriage in all 50 states (+ D.C. & territories).
What I said was that Marshall saw the value in incremental victories. I raised him only in response to the white moderate crack.
quote:
Your wrong and unfortunate description as "Victory in all but name" bears no relation to Marshall's strategy. He took his losses and called them losses and set out to reverse them.
He didn't, however, call Brown a "loss," which, on what you're saying here, it presumably would be (being something short of the total abolition of segregation).
If "victory in all but name" is too strong, and I accept it was, then so too is calling 36 states + full faith and credit a "loss." Back in '04, when marriage amendments swept the states, and a federal constitutional amendment looked imminent, the gay rights movement would've killed for a "loss" like that.
quote:
The victories so far are progress. The losses so far are not irrelevant toward the goal of equality. Tolerating a second class status "for pragmatic reasons" threatens the victories and impedes further progress.
I've not suggested it be "tolerated," I suggested it be overturned as soon as possible. I say again, if I wanted to advocate second class status, I'd be arguing for civil unions, not that equal marriage be imposed nationwide.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
What I said earlier
quote:
It may be due to reconciling the needs of different petitions but some are seeing this as a set up to issue a split ruling which allows states to keep same sex marriage bans while requiring them to recognize marriages done in other states.
To which you replied
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If states are compelled to recognize marriages conducted across state lines, if it includes their own residents, it's a win in all but name. With the proliferation of equal marriage, few live out-of-reach of a town clerk empowered to do the necessary.
If marriage equality is batted back to the coasts and Great Lakes, however, it'd be a far more serious blow. Even California would lose equal marriage, unless it overturned Prop. 8.
...
There are now two cases on the Supreme Court docket because the court split the cases. Thurgood Marshall took individual cases to the Supreme Court. By the nature of the court they are incremental; they have to be based on a court case. He strove to win each case as it was brought to court. He didn't dance around and say one of the cases didn't matter, That was what you were doing in your statement. Your trying to write off one of the cases is nothing like his strategy. And your "pragmatic" framing as a victory in all but name is in fact similar to the moderates MLK criticised for saying that lesser actions were good enough.
Since you are unclear on the obvious, I'm saying:
Winning half a case (because it's been split in two) is better than losing all of a case. It's no where near as good as winning all the case for the reasons cited before.
You were busily trying to claim I think that the other half of the case is unimportant. I do not. Winning the recognition of marriage made by states that are allowing same sex marriage is not a "loss". No one has said so that I can see. If the other half of the case (now split) to require states to grant same-sex marriage fails, that will be a loss.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[...] You were busily trying to claim I think that the other half of the case is unimportant. I do not. Winning the recognition of marriage made by states that are allowing same sex marriage is not a "loss". No one has said so that I can see.[...]
And I never said you thought full faith and credit was unimportant, so that's that cleared up.
quote:
If the other half of the case (now split) to require states to grant same-sex marriage fails, that will be a loss.
My position's that it depends exactly what the Court orders. If states are free to ban equal marriage, I agree, it's a terrible loss, and said as much.
If, however, the current 36 states must continue to recognize marriages between same-sex couples (presumably on some theory like the District Court/Ninth Circuit's California ruling, that a right, once established, can't be withdrawn) I wouldn't call that a loss. Combined with full faith and credit, it'd make equal marriage both permanent and accessible nationwide.
My ideal scenario is for the SCOTUS to declare equal marriage to be a constitutional right. I desire it so much that I openly admit I want them to ignore the letter of the law. If they don't make that ruling, it's not about settling for less, but using the ruling they do make as a springboard to achieve nationwide equal marriage by other means.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I desire it so much that I openly admit I want them to ignore the letter of the law.
This still strikes me as a fundamentally dangerous position. This ruling is not the end game of Supreme Court rulings.
It will go on making rulings for many years to come, and if you start saying it's okay to ignore the letter of the law in a case where you like the outcome this will get you, sooner or later the Court will bite you with a ruling that you don't like, and you'll protest to no avail that the ruling isn't in accordance with the law.
In other words, confidence in the process is, in the longer term, more important than the a single outcome. You're so keen to win this battle that you're prepared to risk losing entire wars.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
He didn't, however, call Brown a "loss," which, on what you're saying here, it presumably would be (being something short of the total abolition of segregation).
Your presumption is at tortured extrapolation of my saying that losing half a case on same sex marriage is a loss means that I think Brown is a loss. That's your defective thinking and not anything I said about Brown. So I'm glad we've cleared up another one of your erroneous claims as to what I said.
You've shifted your statement to be
quote:
My position's that it depends exactly what the Court orders. If states are free to ban equal marriage, I agree, it's a terrible loss, and said as much.
So when you were saying "a victory in all but name" you really meant "a terrible loss". depending on what the courts rule. Thanks for clarifying that.
If the court says that states have to give full faith and credit but don't have to permit same-sex marriage, then many of the states will be able to pass laws to reverse the current requirement to perform same sex marriage. The "once you have rights you can't take them away" is a very vulnerable position compared to a ruling that it's a constitutional right. It will be attacked immediately. The states could even allow the existing marriages and deny future ones or appeal stayed judgments.
Requiring same sex marriages is not ignoring the letter of the law. It's having the law declared unconstitutional which is paying attention to the letter of the superior law.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It will go on making rulings for many years to come, and if you start saying it's okay to ignore the letter of the law in a case where you like the outcome this will get you, sooner or later the Court will bite you with a ruling that you don't like, and you'll protest to no avail that the ruling isn't in accordance with the law.
In other words, confidence in the process is, in the longer term, more important than the a single outcome. You're so keen to win this battle that you're prepared to risk losing entire wars.
Weeeeell, the current US Supreme Court is regarded by many as the worst supreme court in US history, and it has given some god-awful decisions. So 'confidence in the process' isn't exactly in huge supply.
So given their utter incompetence, clear corruption, and god-awful rulings, I for one am prepared to cross my fingers for a ruling I agree with on moral grounds and not worry too much about the quality of the legal logic backing it.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Clear corruption?
Who do you think is paying them, then?
And why is it that these corrupting influences have somehow failed to get to the lower Federal judges?... Or have they?...
[ 30. January 2015, 09:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Who do you think is paying them, then?
It's primarily the Kochs, as it so often is nowadays in US politics.
Of course, with Supreme court appointments, you can't necessarily separate corruption after the fact from corruption before the fact: If the rich & powerful political donors tell the president, "hey, it would be nice if the next guy you appoint to the Supreme court is really, really supportive of our interests. We've searched the country high and low and found an extreme outlier who tends to rule in ways we like and holds views we like, his name is X." Then when the appointment is made, is the judge 'corrupt' already, give his appointment was the result of a corrupt process and he was selected due to his pre-existing favoritism of the powerful? Or is it only 'corruption' when the judge receives favors of monetary value after his appointment? In the US at the moment, both seem to happen.
quote:
And why is it that these corrupting influences have somehow failed to get to the lower Federal judges?... Or have they?...
Yes, there have certainly been some horrifying federal judge appointments recently that scream of political corruption. But there's just too many lower Federal judges, and they're not really important enough to be a primary target for corruption, and due to the ongoing nature of their appointments you'd have to have systematic corruption in place for decades to get all of them.
[ 30. January 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
PS. The Koch brothers use their money to influence even small judicial elections, as well as to ensure ultra-right-wing economists teach at universities (at last count I saw they had installed their cronies in a dozen or so universities they had bribed).
They run a network of about 26 political organisations and think-tanks that all work to push their agenda. The big news this week was their announcement that they will spend $1 billion to ensure favorable outcomes in the 2016 US elections. To put that in perspective, Obama and Romney each spent historic highs of $1 billion in their entire 2012 presidential campaigns. As one Republican sarcastically put it: "For that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president. Oh, right. That’s the point."
A small mercy is that publicly the Kochs claim to be libertarian and hence pro gay rights. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to have any impact on how they spend their bribes: The candidates that their organisations push are some of the most anti-gay ones. My assessment would be that they really don't care much one way or the other about social issues - they are focused primarily on ultra-free-market economics, deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and environmental destruction (they're oil barons and are paranoid at the possibility of environmental regulation hurting their profits). Their candidates opt for extremely conservative positions on social issues as a way to get votes. This allows them to brainwash / use propaganda on the uneducated masses and get them voting for the Koch candidates who can in turn give their rich masters everything they want.
(I personally think that the increasing corruption in US politics is one of the biggest threats to the world in the present day, and I think the US's allies should be actively intervening to try and decorrupt US politics. A billion dollars spent fighting corruption in the US would repay itself many times over in stopping the US pulling the West into corrupt oil wars and forcing corrupt trade agreements on the rest of us. The corruption in the US has been getting steadily worse since Reagan, and has gotten even worse since Bush Jr.)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If you're looking for corruption Bush v. Gore is a good example. The justices appointed by Bush did not recuse themselves. Can you detect a Quid Pro Quo? The ruling was sufficiently embarrassing that they added the caveat that their ruling was not to be considered a precedent.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This still strikes me as a fundamentally dangerous position. This ruling is not the end game of Supreme Court rulings.
It will go on making rulings for many years to come, and if you start saying it's okay to ignore the letter of the law in a case where you like the outcome this will get you, sooner or later the Court will bite you with a ruling that you don't like, and you'll protest to no avail that the ruling isn't in accordance with the law.
In other words, confidence in the process is, in the longer term, more important than the a single outcome. You're so keen to win this battle that you're prepared to risk losing entire wars.
As it happens, I'd agree with this in other circumstances. I could (with extreme reluctance) support the Australian High Court judgment that marriage has to be defined by the Commonwealth.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has long ceded this pass. It used the Fourth Amendment to invent a "right to privacy" in the 1960s; it conjured a right to abortion in the first trimester from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the abuses of the Commerce Clause aren't even a joke. (Somehow, it allows the feds to ban growing a pot plant in your own home.)
Given that creative line of jurisprudence, I think gay couples ought to benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your presumption is at tortured extrapolation of my saying that losing half a case on same sex marriage is a loss means that I think Brown is a loss. That's your defective thinking and not anything I said about Brown. So I'm glad we've cleared up another one of your erroneous claims as to what I said.
I know you don't think it, but it was a reasonable outcome of an anti-incrementalist position. I raised it precisely because I don't believe you hold it, in order to get you to rethink your position.
quote:
You've shifted your statement to be
quote:
My position's that it depends exactly what the Court orders. If states are free to ban equal marriage, I agree, it's a terrible loss, and said as much.
So when you were saying "a victory in all but name" you really meant "a terrible loss". depending on what the courts rule. Thanks for clarifying that.
I clearly haven't, because you've misunderstood: my position hasn't changed, it's always been 36 states + full faith and credit. I said, right up front, that it'd be a disaster if any equal marriage states were free to roll back.
quote:
If the court says that states have to give full faith and credit but don't have to permit same-sex marriage, then many of the states will be able to pass laws to reverse the current requirement to perform same sex marriage. The "once you have rights you can't take them away" is a very vulnerable position compared to a ruling that it's a constitutional right. It will be attacked immediately. The states could even allow the existing marriages and deny future ones or appeal stayed judgments.
Again, you've misunderstood my position. "Victory in all but name" applied only to states which already have marriage equality being unable to repeal it (the position taken in California). I don't see why this is more vulnerable than a declaration of a constitutional right to marriage, which is, remember, the outcome I want. Both hold unless the SCOTUS changes its mind.
quote:
Requiring same sex marriages is not ignoring the letter of the law. It's having the law declared unconstitutional which is paying attention to the letter of the superior law.
To clarify, by "letter of the law" I was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment. I was also applying an originalist POV (i.e., courts should, as much as possible, find and enforce the original intent of the authors). If you apply a living constitution POV, then the letter of the law isn't that important.
Do we even disagree on anything of substance? We both, I think, want to see marriage bans struck down by the Supreme Court, and would both, I think, consider 36 states + full faith and credit substantial progress. We disagreed on whether "victory in all but name" was appropriate, but I've accepted I was wrong about that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you're looking for corruption Bush v. Gore is a good example. The justices appointed by Bush did not recuse themselves. Can you detect a Quid Pro Quo? The ruling was sufficiently embarrassing that they added the caveat that their ruling was not to be considered a precedent.
Why on earth should they have recused themselves?
Judges ought to recuse themselves if they have a clear and direct conflict of interest in a case: being appointed by the daddy of one of the plaintiffs doesn't qualify. By the same token, the Clinton-appointed judges should've recused themselves, 'cause they'd (presumably) be biased in favor of his running mate.
Even if the Bush-appointed justices had recused themselves, it would've made no difference. Bush Sr. appointed two judges, David Souter and Clarence Thomas, who took opposing positions. Without 'em, the ruling would've been 4-3, instead of 5-4.
Heck, if party bias is in play, why shouldn't every federal judge have recused themselves? If only we had Harvey Dent to split the difference. Oh well. Election to be settled by rock, paper, scissors.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I could (with extreme reluctance) support the Australian High Court judgment that marriage has to be defined by the Commonwealth.
Good, because that judgment is one of the most vital wins for same-sex marriage this country has ever seen.
But the ruling was not that it "has to be" defined by the Commonwealth. The ruling was that it has been. There's a major difference. There's no obligation on the Commonwealth to do so, but the Commonwealth has done so.
Marriage is a matter on which the Commonwealth has power here. The constitutional arrangements are completely different to the USA.
[ 03. February 2015, 06:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
(I personally think that the increasing corruption in US politics is one of the biggest threats to the world in the present day, and I think the US's allies should be actively intervening to try and decorrupt US politics. A billion dollars spent fighting corruption in the US would repay itself many times over in stopping the US pulling the West into corrupt oil wars and forcing corrupt trade agreements on the rest of us. The corruption in the US has been getting steadily worse since Reagan, and has gotten even worse since Bush Jr.)
And how would you go about the decorruption?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I could (with extreme reluctance) support the Australian High Court judgment that marriage has to be defined by the Commonwealth.
Good, because that judgment is one of the most vital wins for same-sex marriage this country has ever seen.
But the ruling was not that it "has to be" defined by the Commonwealth. The ruling was that it has been. There's a major difference. There's no obligation on the Commonwealth to do so, but the Commonwealth has done so.
Marriage is a matter on which the Commonwealth has power here. The constitutional arrangements are completely different to the USA.
Thanks for the correction, I was going from memory.
If the federal parliament votes through marriage equality, then I'd agree it's a vital win. It's certainly progress to say they've the power to expand the Constitution's reference to "marriage" to include same-sex couples.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And how would you go about the decorruption?
The root cause of the problem is the amount of money allowed to be donated to politicians. Congress had placed limits on those donations. However in a series of US Supreme court decisions beginning in the 70s and turning particularly disastrous in the last 5 years with Citizens United and McCutcheon, the rules preventing bribery and corruption of politicians have been overturned (These have to be some of the most absurd decisions in the legal history of the world, with the court actually claiming that bribing politicians isn't corruption and doesn't even have the "appearance of corruption".) This in turn has led to the disastrous massive influx of bribery and corruption into the US political system.
So the primary thing that needs to happen to fix the situation, is that the US Supreme Court needs to be overruled. The way to do that is to pass a constitutional amendment. There are two ways of doing that: Either get Congress to pass it, or get the States themselves to pass it. Both methods need a fairly high proportion of votes to do it.
Most amendments have historically gone the Congress route, however Congress are currently the ones receiving most of the money from the now-corrupted system, so it becomes hard to inspire them to vote against their own financial interests. The Mayday PAC is working to pressure congresspeople to vote for the amendment, threatening to spend money against anyone who votes down the amendment and replace them with candidates who are willing to vote for it. The idea is that the blackmail of this ought to work in forcing reluctant congresspeople to vote the right way. The success thus far of the Mayday PAC has been very limited, but the basic idea seems sound.
Another possibility would be for voters across the country to vote Democrat in unprecedented numbers. On the whole, Democrats have shown themselves far more willing than Republicans to vote against financial corruption in politics (with a few obvious exceptions such as John McCain who has stood firmly against corruption). If the Democrats were to achieve a sufficient majority they could get an amendment passed with the help of those Republicans who are anti-corruption.
The route that currently looks the most promising, however, is to try and get the States themselves to pass a constitutional amendment. The State legislatures are currently largely uncorrupted and many State politicians across the country are absolutely horrified by the corruption occurring in the federal government. Wolf PAC is the organisation focused on getting the States to pass a constitutional amendment, and it seems to be having a very steady rate of success, with 3 states having passed it last year, and 18 in the process of doing so (They technically need 34, however historically, whenever the States have begun to near the necessary target, the Congress has panicked and passed the Constitutional amendment for them. So in practice this seems another good way of putting pressure on Congressional representatives.)
So what can people do?
- Encourage your State legislators to pass the Wolf PAC amendment.
- Support Wolf PAC & Mayday PAC with time or money or both.
- Encourage your Congresspeople to support an amendment to overturn Citizens United (usually Democrats), and encourage people to demand to know what their congressperson's position on that is, and encourage media sources to ask questions about it, and vote for the ones who want to and vote against the ones that don't.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Starlight--
I want a clean gov't, but I deeply doubt that any of that will work.
What makes you think that the states are "largely less corrupt"? There's *lots* of corruption at state level.
I was mostly interested in your idea about other countries getting involved in our internal politics. How would you go about it? That is likely to backfire spectacularly.
(And I say this, knowing that my country has a long-standing habit of meddling in other countries. I wish it wouldn't.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What makes you think that the states are "largely less corrupt"? There's *lots* of corruption at state level.
Key positions at the State level, such as governors etc are certainly subject to a lot of corruption. However, your run-of-the-mill average State politician has an order of magnitude less corruption happening than does the average member of Congress. The amount of money spent on the electoral races of most states is tiny by comparison, as is the amount of time that the politicians spend begging rich donors for donations. (By all reports, members of Congress now spend the majority of their work day calling potential donors and asking for money.)
quote:
I was mostly interested in your idea about other countries getting involved in our internal politics. How would you go about it? That is likely to backfire spectacularly.
Yeah, do it wrong and it could definitely backfire spectacularly.
Various ways of doing it that come to mind:
1. Talking & negotiations. In each and every diplomatic meeting, US's allies should emphasize to the US representatives how dissatisfied they are with the state of US corruption, and how they would like to see something done about it. If nothing else, this keeps the top people in US politics constantly thinking about the issue, and they will likely then start to mention in their own speeches at home. The more something is talked about, the more chance of something getting done. It doesn't have to be just talk either, eg in a diplomatic meeting a US ally could say "well, we'll agree to join you fighting ISIS if you do X, Y, or Z to combat corruption." The US's allies regularly give it support for it's wars and they are in a good position to demand something in return.
2. Trade agreements. All trade agreements (eg the TPP) these days tend to have a lot of clauses about local laws. If other countries keep shoveling anti-corruption clauses into their trade agreements in the US, that can be a back-door way of forcing laws onto them. Now, granted, a trade agreement can't directly overturn a Supreme Court decision, however you can work on it in tidbits by putting a few dozen minor anti-corruption provisions into the agreement that cumulatively have a significant effect. At the moment so many corporate lobbyists and consequently US politicians are salivating at the thought of passing the TPP that the other countries could stick a goat in there and it would still get passed. This plan would work better if the US corporate lobbyists weren't the one's writing the TPP, but that is theoretically something that other countries have a say in.
3. Money. US laws on money donation are so lax now, and transparency so non-existent, that other countries could easily funnel money through various off-shore companies, shell companies, 3rd parties and super-PACs with no one any the wiser. If the UK wanted to funnel $1 billion to a particular candidate in a US election without the candidate or anyone else knowing where that money had come from, they could do so easily if their lawyers, accountants, or spies, were even remotely competent. (Granted if they got caught out it would look bad and backfire, but the chances of getting caught out until years later would be remote.) When I mentioned in my post about spending a few billion to decorrupt the US, this is primarily what I was thinking of: Funnel the money through a few 3rd parties and into anti-corruption organisations in the US such as Mayday or Wolf PACs, or into your own PACs and use it to influence specific political races of your choice. I don't think anyone in the US has woken up to what a mammoth threat to national security that money-in-politics is, because a US enemy could exploit the lack of transparency and corruption there just as easily as a US ally. An alternative is to donate money openly: Embarrass the US public by saying openly "We, country X, are giving Y billion dollars to organisation Z in the US that fights corruption, because the US is embarrassingly corrupt and we want to help you guys out." There are plenty of anti-corruption organisations in the US that could be legitimate recipients of such money. And the very fact that the US is being deemed "too corrupt" by an ally can make for some embarrassing headlines within the US which might inspire people to talk about the issue and take action on it themselves.
Basically, if I was the leader of a US ally, I would use all three methods in all their forms. Because, to my mind, the issue of climate change alone justifies both open and secret political intervention in US politics: Due to the amount of money they receive from rich donors and the oil industry, the majority of Congresspeople in the US currently don't publicly accept that climate change is human-caused and actively impede laws to do anything about the subject, and this actively harms the rest of the world. The Koch brothers (oil barons) are about to put $1 billion in donations into the next US election cycle: Well I would like to see ten times that amount mysteriously materialize in anonymous donations to candidates supporting action on climate change (and even better: on candidates that support action in decorrupting US politics).
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Oooooooh, actually, I have an idea! A false-flag operation...
1. Siphon a couple of billion into the US secretly and make sure that no one can actually trace it.
2. Pick US-opponent of your choice (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, ISIS etc) and recruit frontmen in the US who then think they are working for that country as agents. And make sure they're loaded down with sufficiently incriminating evidence.
3. Get them to 'secretly' donate the money in a few elections to particular candidates in order to 'rig' the election.
4. Deliberately screw it up so they get caught.
Results: The entire US has a major heart attack because it thinks its enemies/opponents are using its corruption to attack it. The corruption within the system then becomes viewed as a threat to national security. Draconian anti-corruption legislation is passed immediately.
Possible undesirable side-effect: The US declares war on whoever you've falsely flagged.
Possible failures: You get caught rather than successfully pining it on your chosen false-flag. (This would be politically embarrassing, but it would have the same basic effect of demonstrating the existence of the threat to US national security) Or, the US responds with financial transparency laws better than any I can think of that are somehow sufficient to guard against foreign money, but does nothing to address the problem of corruption from internal US donors.
#ReasonsIShouldNeverBePutInChargeOfASpyAgencyOfAnyKind
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Is it a coincidence that this was your 666th post?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
