Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • By this argument, a classic example of the courts "pushing the people around" would be Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling that overthrew the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine was wildly unpopular, proved a catalyst for a lot of violence, but eventually led to a greater inclusion of non-white people in society. Are you suggesting the ruling was a bad thing or that the courts should not be involved?

    You've chosen deliberately loaded words such as "People got tired of the courts pushing

    • Are you suggesting the ruling was a bad thing or that the courts should not be involved?

      I think you're misunderstanding me. The third example I gave is one where I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling of the court, even though it overturned the expressed will of the people and was wildly unpopular.

      I was not making an argument that courts should not get involved. I was saying it seems silly to attack people for reacting to it when they do.

      Last night I went to a "town hall" meeting with the chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. He said absolutely, they plan to go ahead with a nominating convention if the blanket primary stands. Someone in the audience said, but this will anger people. One answer to that is, well, the Democrats will do the same thing, so at least it won't disproportinately hurt the Republicans. But the other answer is: sometimes people won't like it when you do the right thing, and there's not much you can do about it. You can try to educate them (this is a complex subject), but in the end, people will make up their own minds, and it's just not reasonable to attack them for reacting to a perceived threat, especially when we're the ones who pushed that threat on them in the first place.

      Who is right or wrong is irrelevant at this level of what I am talking about. People will react, and you need to find a way to deal with it, and attacking them back only makes it worse.

      I personally think that many of the states -- I don't know them all well -- whose courts have ruled that gay marriage must be allowed because of the Constitution are completely off-base. And I think the federal courts have little business getting involved in local school curriculum. But all that said, I am not talking about who is right and wrong, just about the fact that people will react.