Justice Ginsburg's Curious Dual-Stance on Voters' Rights

[Skylar]

Ergo, while Ginsburg professes to fight for the power of minority voters, she simultaneously is stripping that power from tens of millions of minority voters across the US.

And...that's where your argument breaks. As you fallaciously assume that the people have the right to vote away the rights of others. They don't. Then even more ludicrously, you equate this non-existent power with the right to vote. Something that actually is a right. You keep fallaciously equating them, and you keep demonstrating the absurdity of your claims in the same breath. They are not the same. The former doesn't exist. The latter does.

You're so desperate for the tyranny of the majority. Where with a simple vote, the majority can strip away any right. But you don't think it through. As if the majority possess this power, then who is to say that your rightds won't be next? That's the problem with your reasoning, you stop at stripping those you despise of their rights. But never think of the implication of the tyranny of the majority to do the same to you. You're allowing your loathing of gay people to override your capacity for reason.

Thankfully, the courts aren't similarly crippled by your irrationality. They recognize that rights trump powers. That rights cannot be simply voted away with a 50% + 1 vote. That your rights are protected. And those of everyone else, including gay folks. The right to vote is real. The right to marriage is real. The right to strip away the rights of other people with a simple vote?

That's doesn't exist. And with it goes your imaginary 'dual standards'. There's just one standard: the protection of rights.

 

[Skylar]

Children also have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's how homosexualism impinges on the rights of others.

How are you rights or anyone else's harmed by gays being allowed to be married? Obviously, they aren't. Children have every right they did before gay marriage was legal as they do after. You have every right before gay marriage was legal as you do after.

The sky isn't falling. Our military allies aren't abandoning us. Society is not collapsing.

Relax, chicken little. Its gonna be okay.

This is what will gain legal access by lawsuit-force to adoptable orphans:

No orphan is going to be adopted against his or her will. And most gay parents will never adopt orphans. Ending yet another hysteric bout of melodramatic nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

And...that's where your argument breaks. As you fallaciously assume that the people have the right to vote away the rights of others. They don't...

You're so desperate for the tyranny of the majority.
.

Which category do 'LGBTs' fall into? Race or religion? How is it that a very limited set of deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority have special federal protection? Do those behaviors include polygamy? Why or why not? Because polygamy is repugnant to the majority? How about incest marriage of consenting adults? Also too icky, too repugnant to the majority?

And who decides which sexual behaviors are more repugnant to the majority so as to not qualify as LGBTs do? Where can we legally draw the line on behaviors repugnant to the majority? Who does polygamy marriage hurt? Who does incest marriage hurt? How do we tease them apart from LGBT, specifically?

 

[Skylar]

Democrats are against voter I'd because it makes it less likely for voter fraud.

What voter fraud? See that's the rub. In person voter fraud is the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws could prevent. And it almost never happened. In every conceivable way, its the rarest of the rare. In the entire US, the whole country.....there are about 100 cases of in person voter fraud per DECADE. You are literally 8 times more likely to be struck by lightening than you are to commit in person voter fraud.

When Pennsylvania was asked to cite the number of instances of voter fraud its new Voter ID law could have prevented, it couldn't name a single case. When Texas was asked, it could only find 2 cases in the last 10 years.

2. In 10 years.

Meanwhile, Texas Voter ID laws are poised to disenfranchise between 200,000 to 400,000 people. Stripping 200,000 people of their right to vote to prevent 0.5 instances of voter fraud is monumentally stupid. Well, if your goal was to improve the integrity of the elections.

 

[Skylar]

Which category do 'LGBTs' fall into? Race or religion?

Neither. Nor do they need to be a race or a religion in order to have their rights protected. As Romer V. Evans demonstrates when the rights of gays and lesbians were protected. You keep making up these pseudo-legal 'rules' that have absolutely nothing to do with the law. And are explicitly contradicted by USSC cases. Rendering them meaningless.

Your imagination doesn't trump the rights of gays and lesbians. Or anyone for that matter.

How is it that a very limited set of deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority have special federal protection.

We're not going to strip gays and lesbians of rights just because you don't like them. Your irrational loathing of gays and lesbians isn't the basis of our laws.

Get used to the idea.

And who decides which sexual behaviors are more repugnant to the majority so as to not qualify as LGBTs do?

Your 'repugnant' standard, isn't. Your hatred isn't a viable justification for stripping anyone of any right. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you're going to need a very good reason.

And you don't have one. This is why gay marriage opponents have failed again and again in courts. As their actual motivations aren't admissible. And the half-assed reasons they're left with don't hold up. So far the record in the federal courts is 50 to 2 in favor of gay marriage. With every circuit appeals court to hear the issue ruling against gay marriage bans and in favor of gay marriage.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Democrats are against voter I'd because it makes it less likely for voter fraud.

What voter fraud? See that's the rub. In person voter fraud is the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws could prevent. And it almost never happened. In every conceivable way, its the rarest of the rare. In the entire US, the whole country.....there are about 100 cases of in person voter fraud per DECADE. You are literally 8 times more likely to be struck by lightening than you are to commit in person voter fraud.

When Pennsylvania was asked to cite the number of instances of voter fraud its new Voter ID law could have prevented, it couldn't name a single case. When Texas was asked, it could only find 2 cases in the last 10 years.

2. In 10 years.

Meanwhile, Texas Voter ID laws are poised to disenfranchise between 200,000 to 400,000 people. Stripping 200,000 people of their right to vote to prevent 0.5 instances of voter fraud is monumentally stupid. Well, if your goal was to improve the integrity of the elections.

No one's vote is disenfranchised except those whose vote is negated because of voter fraud. And 400,000 people won't have their vote taken away. Show your ID. We know they have them. You can't function in this society without one. The liberal argument is so they can vote multiple times in elections. There is no other valid explanation for it.

 

[Silhouette]

Which category do 'LGBTs' fall into? Race or religion?

Neither. Nor do they need to be a race or a religion in order to have their rights protected.

Well, as it turns out you can't just do whatever you want whenever you want to when what you're doing is a behavior repugnant to the majority. Now if it was a religion or a race, we could talk about it. But since it's just merely an incomplete set of sexual fetishes that have decided to organize and declared/self-diagnosed "we were born that way", it's a bit different. Where are the rest of the fetishes you're leaving out that are repugnant to the majority's idea for itself of marriage? Are you leaving them out because you consider them "icky" or repugnant in some other way? Where is polygamy falling in this debate Justice Ginsburg? Where is incest falling in this debate Justice Ginsburg? What dual stance will you conjure up to deny these behaviors the majority finds repugnant to the idea of marriage when you have allowed others to mow over the Will of the People? Particularly hispanics and blacks who hold strong beliefs about the sanctity of preserving man/woman marriage for themselves in their discreet communities? Those are the questions I would ask her.

...you see where I'm going with this...you always have... This is how Justices have to think about this stuff. Not just blindly ignoring how others might take advantage of a very poorly thought-through precedent they just set...blindly whipped up in some rainbow passion parade. We would hope the Justices would use their brains and not their kneejerk sympathies to the surficial issues being argued before them.

It's why I brought up this topic on Ginsburg actually. It is to demonstrate how deeply this particular "judicial blindness" can go when a judge is operating on political-correctness and current fads vs logic and projecting how their decision will extrapolate via precedent into the future. She is all politically correct when it comes to minority votes in Texas. But she is an absolute fascist tyrant when it comes to California's minorities voting, and 30 some other state's minorities. She may not even realize what she's doing. No one may have ever pointed out the hypocrisy to her. Such is the illness when people [judges] discard logic for surficial trends of the day...especially when sitting on a Supreme Court bench!

It is incumbant upon a Supreme Court Justice more than any other judge in our legal system to CAREFULLY weigh how their Decision might affect future cases. They are the end of the line. As such, they have the power, duty and responsibility to make sure that fork in the road they're making is heading in the right direction with respect to the Constitution.

While swept up in her touchy-feely decisions for gay marriage in the disenfranchised states, she failed to notice these states were regulating BEHAVIORS. She bit the bait of the false premise LGBTs have hidden the hook in.

She failed to even explore WHY minority and other cultures find gay marriage repugnant. She bit the bait of the false premise that "all those opposed to gay marriage are bigots".

In so failing to explore the real and compelling issues, she failed to see how children would be affected by adult behaviors via what was already being done in front of her own eyes in public in front of kids [pride parades] and who this neo-cult appointed as their messiah [Harvey Milk]. She bit the bait of the tearful pleas of the LGBT "think of the children!"...without actually projecting in her mind what was already being done in front of the children courtesty of LGBTs, with 0% public dissent or protest to said actions in that subculture.

She is the Justice most susceptible to being manipulated by a kneejerk process, only seeing surficial issues while ignoring the iceberg underneath the water. In this particular case, she fails to see how being consistent even when it pains her [preserving the minority vote in the states rejecting the notion of "gay marriage"] she looks like a terrible hypocrite at best with regards to her Dissent on Texas. At worst she looks like an arbitrary, transient fascist....shooting from her hip from whichever direction the wind happens to be blowing that day.

She may have gay friends and as such be "thinking from her heart" when it comes to her dual stance. But we did not put her in the Supreme Court to preserve the natural boundaries of such an important document as the US Constitution "thinking with her heart with regards to her close personal associates". We put her there to be impartial, unbiased, logical, wise, THOROUGH in her deliberations and investigations of BOTH SIDES of the issues in front of her; even if personally she strongly disagrees with one side on an emotional level. A Supreme Court Justice should be making decisions where their best friends hate them when the decision is a logical one for the best of ALL society weighed against what is said in the Constitution.

I had to endure the studies of political science. Was she cutting class on the Supreme Court Justice lectures? I wonder if Gisburg is keeping current with what's goign on in Europe where certain countries blindly, kneejerk made gay marriage the law of their land? Is she keeping up on how now polygamists and incest couples are suing for marriage...how those judges over there are wincing at having to allow those marriages repugnant to their majorities and themselves....to marry via precedent? Apparently Ginsburgh has also bit the bait of the false premise "this won't lead to a legal slippery slope"..

The strategy of cults and their intent to mesmerize has always been a fascinating topic....particularly since the most bombastic example of this happened in Germany in the 1930s. Scholars always lament, "how could this happen to regular Germans...how could they have bit the bait?". Well, now you know. If a cult is organized with some very clever people in the control booth [GLAAD] and they have means to control information...watch out. When you find yourself getting sucked in, understand that they have mapped you better than you know yourself. That is a very vulnerable, and foolish position to be in.

In other words, explore why certain behaviors are repugnant to the majority. And watch out when they organize. Historically, it gets weird.

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder if it's ever occured to Ginsburg that 0% of LGBTs have spoken out against gay pride parades or Harvey Milk? Or even WHY anyone in their ranks should do so? I'll bet Ginsburg hasn't even read The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk.?

 

[Skylar]

Well, as it turns out you can't just do whatever you want whenever you want to when what you're doing is a behavior repugnant to the majority.

The USSC has long since ruled that consensual sexual activity between adults within their own home is none of the State's business. Sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since 2004. That you personally don't like homosexuality means nothing. As your opposition to someone's sexual activity has no relevance to their status under the law.

But since it's just merely an incomplete set of sexual fetishes that have decided to organize and declared/self-diagnosed "we were born that way", it's a bit different.

That's what you say. Citing yourself. But as Kennedy made ridiculously clear in the Romer V. Evans decision, the rights of gays can be protected. The issue of behavior or inheritance played no role in Kennedy's ruling. The criteria by which you insist gays can be discriminated against is legally irrelevant. You have no authority to regulate their sexual activity, criminalize it, or discriminate against gays because of it.

So says the USSC. You disagree. And? Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Your personal loathing of homosexuals has no bearing on their legal status or their rights.

It's why I brought up this topic on Ginsburg actually. It is to demonstrate how deeply this particular "judicial blindness" can go when a judge is operating on political-correctness and current fads vs logic and projecting how their decision will extrapolate via precedent into the future. She is all politically correct when it comes to minority votes in Texas.

Says you, pretending to be Ginsburg. You keep offering us these elaborate motivations for USSC justices. You give us roleplays, you tell us what motivates them, you tell us why they rule as they do. But you're not Ginsburg. You don't speak for her. You haven't met her. All of these verbose internal dialogues you've offered for the woman.....are your own imagination.

And like your personal animus toward homosexuals, has no relevance to anything we're discussing.

There is no 'dual stance'. Ginsburg's been remarkably consistent, having moved to protect rights. The right to vote. The right to marry. There is no right to strip other people of their rights. Ending your entire argument....and your anemic 'dual stance'.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, as it turns out you can't just do whatever you want whenever you want to when what you're doing is a behavior repugnant to the majority.

The USSC has long since ruled that consensual sexual activity between adults within their own home is none of the State's business. Sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since 2004...

It's a loooooooooonng way from decriminalizing sodomy to forcing gay marriage on an unwilling majority. What you do in your own home does not have to be stamped with approval by an unwilling society to usurp their common values.

In the interim while we wait to hear this case tested before SCOTUS, the default that has already been tested as to who gets to decide, is Windsor 2013. It was found in Windsor 2013 that states [for now at least] have "unquestioned authority" on regulating marriage with regards to sexual behaviors allowed to retool the definition of marriage. In Windsor it was found at the end that only "some states" had legal gay marriage.

Lower courts are purposefully misinterpreting Windsor. They would claim, no doubt, that greater harm to not allow gays to marry [and access orphans] would happen in the interim if they were denied. Yet an even larger harm to democracy is happening as a majority rule on [just some but not all...?] deviant behaviors repugnant to that majority are allowed to run roughshod over the democratic process.

What is worse, dissolving democracy and state-rule...the rights of, for example, hispanics to say "no, our culture, tradition and religion forbids the promotion of homosexuality as a value elevated in marriage" or some gays not being able to access adoptable orphan..er...I mean "get married". They most certainly can devote their lives to each other. Nobody is stopping that. But they're not satisfied with that because they want the ULTIMATE approval of what they do..they want it promoted in the minds of children as "perfectly healthy and normal". But it isn't. And the very children they're after to..adopt... are the ones most susceptible to the harms caused by blind thinking:

The case of the two lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones to "prepare him to be a girl if he wants" later on is the extreme example of a more subtle message of self-hatred. When you sanction with "marriage" two women or two men playing at "parents" [mom and dad] you are sending the deep and profound message to children in that situation that are the opposite gender of the "parents" that "your gender is disposable, unnecessary in a parenting situation". In a child's mind that would simply be rendered as "I am unnecessary/unwanted as my gender". That runs the gamut from just a hurtful self-esteem mind-warp all the way up to drugging a child to wire his brain to reject his own gender by the time he [or she] is old enough to get "doctors" to help him or her chop off healthy organs to play-act the opposite [allowed, appropriate, desireable] gender.

Justice Ginsburg should listen to both sides of the debate. OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE!!. Ask the hispanics and black cultures. They're pretty chill with stuff as a general rule. But it is extremely offensive to their cultures and just unwise in general to completely give a pass to forward-thinking and projecting "where all this is going". That's what people opposed to gay marraige are incense about: a complete refusal for the courts to hear their side of this. The children's side of this. Just because children cannot vote or afford expensive constitutional attorneys doesn't mean the Justices should ignore what is right in front of their faces: pride parades, Harvey Milk, the lesbians drugging their son to be a girl....on and on and on.

That goes beyond blind justice. That is NEGLIGENT justice. Criminally-negligent justice as it happens because it is putting children in danger when all the signs were there to not do so. Even if you have "gay friends who will be mad at you"...you DO NOT err on the side of pandering to adults at the expense of children when it's there so obvious and right in your face.