Dictator Judges

Powerful stuff. Let the barbs fly, but the man has a point.

Peaceful, non-violent resistance. Let the producers and achievers of the world go on strike.

for reasons you can feel free to ask me. But he's no constitutional scholar, nor is he a mind reader for the dead.

Someone needs to informa Ayn Rand's estate that the plot of Atlas Shrugged is being plagiarized...

I can fully understand enjoying the hell out of some of his writing without agreeing with him politically, but I think when when has established an obvious capacity for depth of thought, intelligence, and imagination, that his opinions should not be dismissed out of hand.

Agree or not, he makes some compelling points. Activist judges have helped push forward a so-called "progressive" agenda in ways that should not have happened within our system of government.

"In order to make such a radical change in human behavior and custom, the proponents of gay marriage should have followed constitutional, democratic process and persuaded people to support it until a majority was achieved.

That's what the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution require. And that has not happened anywhere in the U.S."

>>In addition to being a poor constitutional scholar or mind-reader, he's apparently not much of a historian either. In the middle of the last century a similar raedical cahnge in human behavior and custom took place with respect to inter-racial marriages. The 'constitutional democratic process' which resulted in this change--judicial rulings determining that prohibitions against inter-racial marraige were unconstitutional--is the exact same process now chipping away at unconstitutional prohibitons against the recognition of same sex marriages.

I don't think Card used "achievers and producers," but those are the people whom Obama wants to tax in order to "spread the wealth around."

Many of the producers and achievers of the U.S. of A. are not going to get terribly upset at "dictator judges" granting gays the right to marry. You might have noticed that there is a correlation between education and support for gay marriage, and a correlation between income and support for gay marriage. (If you're interested, I can provide citations; I really should be working.) Not all who are wealthy are "producers and achievers", and neither are all who are educated "producers and achievers", but we go to war with the metrics we have.

Boy, I'm glad Card tells us to put our guns away. I was worried about an armed uprising of strict constructionists.

There are plenty of so-called "constitutional scholars" who are dead wrong in the ideological conclusions they reach, but I find it interesting how instantaneously you leap to undermine the messenger.

Prohibiitons against same sex "marriage" are not unconstitutional because there is no such thing as same sex "marriage" unless the definition of words no longer counts in our world. As Card warns, if you think it is okay to simply let a judge redefine a word for a society, then you will likely reap what you sow, and you may find yourself saying, as the lady settling her head upon the pillow in Eliot's Prufrock:

“That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.”

Oh...my...god. That was the funniest thing I've read all day.

Tell you what. Keep your word "marriage". Let's call gay marriage "shmarriage". Does that make you happy now? Are you willing to let gay people get scmarried? Why not, you get to keep your sacred word?


That guy is totally right about not interpreting the constitution. I think what the founding fathers had to say about the internet and stem cell research and international terrorist cells and the use of nuclear weapons is perfectly clear. Damn those guys were good.

Ender's Game is a great book. The sequels are uneven, but worth reading.

more than likely based on the 14th and 1st Amendments, and the 1964 civil rights act...things that were voted on and make no reference to sexual orientation.

but she was a big deal my freshman year.

.... so much as the way "gay marriage" is being forced upon the nation.

It's a "be careful what you sow, and the way in which you sow it" kind of issue.

For example, I don't personally believe that President Bush has usurped powers to the executive branch that are properly held within the legislative, but some conservatives and tons of liberals do. Furthermore, many people do not like the way Republicans and many Democrats voted on issues such as the war and on homeland security measures. The solution? President Bush is term limited out and perhaps Democrat voters may hold their own politician's feet to the fire.

While I disagree with most Democrats on these issues, I believe in the power of the vote in these matters. However, when judges incrementally chip away, abusing powers not actually granted to them, we become like frogs not noticing the water temperature increasing slowly as it kills us.

Liberals claim, or at least once did, that they believe the ends do not justify the means. I think the response to Card's proposition is putting the lie to that claim.

Imagine if your average country-club McCainite found out that a pillar of the liberal establishment (parallel to Ayn Rand) had the real name Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum and that her consort and chief prophet (parallel to Nathaniel Branden) had the real name Nathan Blumenthal.