Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-04-27 at 1.58.13 PM
Your host at work.

***

  • ***

********


« Bubbles, Part II | Main | The politics of disunity »

April 29, 2015

Comments

Turgidson

They refer to Dred Scott because they, perhaps sincerely knowing Huck and Frothy's histories, believe that gay marriage will somehow lead down a slippery slope to the enslavement of conservative religious white folk.

Peter G

So don't respect it nitwits. You can refuse to recognize gay marriages. As long as governments do you can piss up a rope. That's all that matters. I wonder if SCOTUS judges are like regular human beings and resent nitwits telling them their job. I suspect they might be and the nitwits just might be helping their opponents more than their cause. Considering the fundraising opportunities this tilting at windmills represents that's probably what they really want.

shsavage

"The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, "blacks are inferior human beings." And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Two delicious points of irony here: First, declaring that the Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said "blacks are inferior human beings" -- because that's precisely what the authors of the letter are insisting on. To wit, that the right to marriage must be withheld from gays because they are inferior human beings.

Second, because they're being imbeciles, so clearly, three generations isn't enough in their view. No, to these folks, this issue calls for permanent imbecility.

Bob

The next president might have chances to pick up to four new members of the SCOTUS.

elisabeth

"Two delicious points of irony here: First, declaring that the Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said "blacks are inferior human beings" -- because that's precisely what the authors of the letter are insisting on. To wit, that the right to marriage must be withheld from gays because they are inferior human beings."

I had the same thought but I suppose to these cretins' minds Scott didn't have a choice whereas the gays do.

I do agree, though, with this: "Civil institutions do not create marriage..." so I simply suggest we remove the idea of a wedding license out of the equation and let anyone over the legal age find a clerk or minister to marry them and be done with it.

Marc McKenzie

@Bob: You're right of course--which is why we cannot afford the "not voting because both parties are the same" attitude next year.

People can hate Hillary Clinton all they want--but the bottom line is that if the chance comes up, she will pick judges that are liberal. We cannot expect that of the GOP Presidential candidates.

Back in 2000, I remember a guest on Amy Goodman's DEMOCRACY NOW! declaring that concerns about the Supreme Court were "scare tactics" from the Democrats. I personally hope that that SOB (pardon my language) ate a huge goddamned plate of crow during the Bush years.

RT

I remember when Dred Scott was code for Roe v. Wade.

Bob

Agreed. It's hard to watch Amy any more. She reminds me of the clueless radical chic of the past.

The comments to this entry are closed.