LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Bacle]

I know my writing is bad so maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying it’s either that or you are willfully blind. The lgbt issue is not the end all be all. It’s literally a smoke screen. It’s liberal judicial ideology that is a threat to the republic. Saying that the constitution says something when it doesn’t well that’s not a far step from saying that something in the constitution that is there is not there actually. So sure be happy that the judges made gay marriage and trans rights. I wonder how happy you’ll be when they interpret the 2nd amendment not apply to weapons but instead revolutionary war era re-enactments or something like that.

Oh, I get it, that you are one of those people who see LGBT issues as a smoke screen for other issues, because you aren't affected by any rulings or laws that would strip them of the equality they now have with straight people.

But you don't seem to understand that even talking about trying to refight the battle on same-sex marriage causes LGBT folks to regard parts of the Right as a direct threat to thier rights and freedoms. This is part of why the Right keeps losing; it keeps trying to turn back the clock to more 'traditional' times, often via methods the Left can easily counter, instead of adapting and evolving to deal with modern realities.

There's a reason it took a former NY Dem, Trump, to bring people like me over to the Right, or at least away from the Dems. He knew what GOP positions could work with moderates and disaffected Dems, and what GOP positions needed to be jettisoned or muted for the GOP to have any chance in the modern social climate.

 

[JagerIV]

So, just to keep this straight barkle, your complaining the right cant keep a long term plan, while also complaining the right isnt just going to drop everything its ever believed based on the say so of 6 people less than 10 years ago and adopt as our founding principles those of the democrats of 5 years ago?

I'm sorry, but the right holding any effectiveness probably requires not pivotiing 180 on every issue as soon as.the left decrease it so.

If you don't like where the democrats are now, have you yet considered the democrats where wrong when you her part of it, and wrong yourself?

You seem to want your cake and eat it to.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled.

"Stare decisis" doesn't mean "courts must adhere to any and all precedents forever". It's a policy that's meant to encourage consistency with past rulings, but that has limits, it would be completely insane to have a judicial system that's forbidden from going back and admitting that previous decisions were wrong.

 

[JagerIV]

Yeah, I'm not sure why your bothing with all this Barcle if all you wanted to be was a liberal. Is it just that somewhere people disagree with you is just so offenssive you need to destroy them where you find them?

Everyone agrees with you but some powerless people on the internet, and for that you prefer communism?

 

[King Arts]

"Stare decisis" doesn't mean "courts must adhere to any and all precedents forever". It's a policy that's meant to encourage consistency with past rulings, but that has limits, it would be completely insane to have a judicial system that's forbidden from going back and admitting that previous decisions were wrong.

But then when is it ok to go back and ignore a wrong ruling? I mean if a judge has an opinion they can say the previous court was wrong and then change it. It makes stare decisis meaningless .

 

[DocSolarisReich]

But then when is it ok to go back and ignore a wrong ruling? I mean if a judge has an opinion they can say the previous court was wrong and then change it. It makes stare decisis meaningless .

The real answer is: 'when it is politically convenient for Progress!'

 

[LindyAF]

But then when is it ok to go back and ignore a wrong ruling? I mean if a judge has an opinion they can say the previous court was wrong and then change it. It makes stare decisis meaningless .

You could overturn stare decisis for another reason than policy. I am not a lawyer, but at a guess an originalist might overturn a prior court ruling because he has determined that the prior ruling was not in comport with the original public meaning of the law.

 

[S'task]

Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?

"Stare decisis" doesn't mean "courts must adhere to any and all precedents forever". It's a policy that's meant to encourage consistency with past rulings, but that has limits, it would be completely insane to have a judicial system that's forbidden from going back and admitting that previous decisions were wrong.

But then when is it ok to go back and ignore a wrong ruling? I mean if a judge has an opinion they can say the previous court was wrong and then change it. It makes stare decisis meaningless .

You could overturn stare decisis for another reason than policy. I am not a lawyer, but at a guess an originalist might overturn a prior court ruling because he has determined that the prior ruling was not in comport with the original public meaning of the law.

^
This.

And one should always bear in mind that Plessy v Furguson was very much in the venue of "judicial activism" in that it created a new law ("separate but equal") where there was no such requirement in the original text of the 14th Amendment. As such, Brown V. Board was rightly decided, even if the logic was not in proper originalist format, and I have trouble calling it "judicial activism" when it was overturning an already existing case of "judicial activism" and returning the law to what was closer to the original intent.

We see this somewhat frequently in the courts since the 80s when the Republicans finally managed to put together a bloc of more Originalist / Conservative justices, former judicial activism being undone by going back to originalism. The present issue with the USSC isn't judicial Conservatives, even the more Conservative judges want to push back more on a bunch of things, but are held back by Roberts because he's more concerned with the court's optics and who is overly fond of stare decisis.

I would also note that "stare decisis" is meant to be a binding idea more for the LOWER courts, not the Supreme Court. It's meant as a principle to establish judicial regularity throughout the country and not force judges to keep relitigating the same issues over and over. The Supreme Court while it gives weight to prior precedent, is not bound by it in the way the lower courts are, since they are the final arbiter* and can thus shift things when they feel it is nessesary.

----------------
* OK, strictly speaking Congress and the States can do things to overturn the Supreme Court when and if they want to. From the most obvious and explicit of passing a Constitutional Amendment, to other things like creating laws (which gets the President involved) that bind the rest of the Federal Government to certain legal understandings (see, most famously, to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act where the Legislative and Executive branches basically told the Court they decided a Free Exercise case wrong and bound the Federal government to use a higher and more stringent standard than what the Court had decided was required after they demoted Free Exercise from Strict to Intermediate Scrutiny like it was some kind of second class right), to stripping the Court of secondary jurisdictions and making it illegal for the court to hear and rule on cases in regards to certain things.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Bi, not gay; but not like I expect it to matter to people who want to shove us back in the metaphorical closet.

So the guy utterly incapable of honest debate who @sir_fire calls a Whitehall cuck is a bottom? Color me surprised.

I know my writing is bad so maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying it’s either that or you are willfully blind. The lgbt issue is not the end all be all. It’s literally a smoke screen. It’s liberal judicial ideology that is a threat to the republic. Saying that the constitution says something when it doesn’t well that’s not a far step from saying that something in the constitution that is there is not there actually. So sure be happy that the judges made gay marriage and trans rights. I wonder how happy you’ll be when they interpret the 2nd amendment not apply to weapons but instead revolutionary war era re-enactments or something like that.

What this guy said. You people are too into being victims and forcing yourselves into a superior class above normies to recognize the damage that ruling did in terms of the alarming precedent it set.

 

[LindyAF]

Eh, disagree that Plessy v. Ferguson was judicial activism. At least my understanding is that the court did not require segregation, it merely ruled that the 14th amendment allowed it, which would not require a new law. If there's textual evidence that the original public meaning at the time it was enacted was that it outlawed segregation, then it would be, but otherwise there's nothing in the text to suggest it specifically does and no evidence that the original public meaning was contrary to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Edit: Looking into it a bit more, the republicans who enacted the 14th amendment also set up a system of public schools in the South which were segregated in the late 1860s, shortly after it's passage. IMO that makes it clear that the original public meaning cannot have forbid segregation.

 

[King Arts]

^
This.

And one should always bear in mind that Plessy v Furguson was very much in the venue of "judicial activism" in that it created a new law ("separate but equal") where there was no such requirement in the original text of the 14th Amendment. As such, Brown V. Board was rightly decided, even if the logic was not in proper originalist format, and I have trouble calling it "judicial activism" when it was overturning an already existing case of "judicial activism" and returning the law to what was closer to the original intent.

We see this somewhat frequently in the courts since the 80s when the Republicans finally managed to put together a bloc of more Originalist / Conservative justices, former judicial activism being undone by going back to originalism. The present issue with the USSC isn't judicial Conservatives, even the more Conservative judges want to push back more on a bunch of things, but are held back by Roberts because he's more concerned with the court's optics and who is overly fond of stare decisis.

I would also note that "stare decisis" is meant to be a binding idea more for the LOWER courts, not the Supreme Court. It's meant as a principle to establish judicial regularity throughout the country and not force judges to keep relitigating the same issues over and over. The Supreme Court while it gives weight to prior precedent, is not bound by it in the way the lower courts are, since they are the final arbiter* and can thus shift things when they feel it is nessesary.

----------------
* OK, strictly speaking Congress and the States can do things to overturn the Supreme Court when and if they want to. From the most obvious and explicit of passing a Constitutional Amendment, to other things like creating laws (which gets the President involved) that bind the rest of the Federal Government to certain legal understandings (see, most famously, to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act where the Legislative and Executive branches basically told the Court they decided a Free Exercise case wrong and bound the Federal government to use a higher and more stringent standard than what the Court had decided was required after they demoted Free Exercise from Strict to Intermediate Scrutiny like it was some kind of second class right), to stripping the Court of secondary jurisdictions and making it illegal for the court to hear and rule on cases in regards to certain things.

If Plessy v. Fergusson really was judicial activism then I feel much better. But Lindy did say it wasen't, but whatever the thing I want to bring up is the bolded part.
I don't think that is what stare decisis is, I mean stare decisis is a legal concept found in common law the legal system descended from the British so America, Canada, Australia, etc. This is in contrast to Civil law which is found in France and most of Europe. Anyway stare decisis is suppose to bind future lower courts, and EQUAL courts so a future court of appeals can't decide fuck what a previous court of appeals did and change it. And ideally the supreme court is suppose to do the same since only superior courts can reverse decision of lower courts the supreme court is suppose to obey the precedent of previous supreme courts. Saying that it stare decisis only binds LOWER courts makes it a pointless concept, because EVERY court system demands that lower courts obey the higher courts. A French trial court can't say fuck you to the French Supreme Court and rule against the new standard.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The Supreme Court is different, though, in that there is no superior court. So it makes sense for precedent to be less binding on the one level that doesn't have any alternate route for people to take within the court system when a decision needs reversing.

 

[LindyAF]

I don't think that is what stare decisis is, I mean stare decisis is a legal concept found in common law the legal system descended from the British so America, Canada, Australia, etc. This is in contrast to Civil law which is found in France and most of Europe. Anyway stare decisis is suppose to bind future lower courts, and EQUAL courts so a future court of appeals can't decide fuck what a previous court of appeals did and change it. And ideally the supreme court is suppose to do the same since only superior courts can reverse decision of lower courts the supreme court is suppose to obey the precedent of previous supreme courts.

Stare decisis isn't a hard an fast rule, it's a general principle. The idea (as I understand it, not a lawyer) is that for a variety of reasons the court should err strongly on the side of precedent. But I think few judges consider themselves to be totally bound by it. For example, courts of appeals can actually say fuck what another court of appeals said. When this happens then one court's decision stands in it's jurisdiction, and the others stands in it's jurisdiction. This is considered to be undesirable, and means that the supreme court will generally hear the case in order to overrule one or the other so that the law is interpreted the same across the whole country, but it does happen.

In fact, I'm pretty sure a lower court can even rule contrary to what a superior court has ruled- it's just that if they do so it will almost certainly be appealed until it reaches a higher court which overrules them or it reaches a superior court which overturns it's original ruling.

 

[sir_fire]

So the guy utterly incapable of honest debate who @sir_fire calls a Whitehall cuck is a bottom? Color me surprised.



What this guy said. You people are too into being victims and forcing yourselves into a superior class above normies to recognize the damage that ruling did in terms of the alarming precedent it set.

Actually, he's a Whitehall Talking Head; literal controlled opposition.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Actually, he's a Whitehall Talking Head; literal controlled opposition.

Wonderful

 

[Abhorsen]

What this guy said. You people are too into being victims and forcing yourselves into a superior class above normies to recognize the damage that ruling did in terms of the alarming precedent it set.

If people here think the ruling is the problem, they have a lot to learn. The ruling on gay marriage only applies to gay marriage, and in no way enabled craziness. The ruling is multiple steps removed from the source of the problem, and actually part of a solution to the problem.

What enabled craziness is the long march through colleges. This was going to blow up even if gay wasn't a thing, just in another way. Trans craziness is a symptom of the problem, not the actual problem. The problem is that the colleges teach critical theory when they don't teach all out marxism to non-STEM focused students. And thus the next generation gets very radical. That's why almost all the craziness is starting on colleges and leaking out from there. But these still only form a small percentage of society, approximately 8% last I remember. This is way too big a number, but it gets worse as it is concentrated in places of power.

Now what makes the crazies get power? When they can convince other normal, default liberals that something is very wrong, get mass protests going of any sort, then sneak in and claim it's about capitalism/western society. Most of the George Floyd protestors? Honestly just horrified that someone, especially a cop, would do something so horrible to another person. The things we heard from the protests? ACAB, down with capitalism, etc. All of this served as a probably acceptable attempt to shift the Overton Window.

How do they do this? Things that most people see as injustices. This includes: any cop on civilian shooting that can be made to be seen as racial, big hate crimes, Not having gay marriage once most people were in favor of it, civil rights, etc. For evidence, I provide black Americans being poor. Socialists love this, as it lets them constantly point to that as oppression, and the more they 'help' the poorer black America becomes, making a bigger problem.

Priority 0 is find a defensible line. Fortunately, the left is rapidly running out of real issues since Bostock, so this isn't horribly difficult. Keys to a defensible line: It puts all Americans as equal in opportunity (no one actually being oppressed cuts off socialist tactics at there knees). This means yes gay rights, but no need for kids transitioning. Yes to more police accountability, no to defunding. And importantly, steal the socialists ideas by claiming that only you are helping the oppressed.

Priority 1: stop funding Marxists. Get rid of student loans if possible, and never forgive them, but make an exception for STEM, which is actually useful. Try to get schools to earn a share of income instead.

Priority 2 is fix welfare so poor people don't stay poor. Prosperity is how socialism is fought successfully.

 

[Wargamer08]

@Abhorsen I’m a fan of just forgiving all student loans by making the banks eat it then inform the banks that they can have it happen again if they keep giving loans to people for stupid shit with no future way to pay.

Now note, I don’t owe a dime in student loans. This would likely harm me in some small way. However the way it’s run now can not continue. Yes this does mean that some moron shitters that took 60k for an art degree get saved. That’s unfortunate, but all that bad debt and loaning tactics are worse.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen I’m a fan of just forgiving all student loans by making the banks eat it then inform the banks that they can have it happen again if they keep giving loans to people for stupid shit with no future way to pay.

Now note, I don’t owe a dime in student loans. This would likely harm me in some small way. However the way it’s run now can not continue. Yes this does mean that some moron shitters that took 60k for an art degree get saved. That’s unfortunate, but all that bad debt and loaning tactics are worse.

Wrong thread for a long discussion about this, but I disagree. Open another one and @me/quote me?

 

[King Arts]

So what's your opinion on being born gay? To me it seems like a weak and baseless excuse but is there actually any evidence for it that isn't tainted by bias?

For me it's a choice to be straight. Logically I think like this, I want to continue my bloodline and the only way to do that is smash someone from the opposite gender. It's biologically useless putting your dick in a guys asshole. It's like having a key to the wrong door and putting the key in anyway. "Haha look at me putting a key in a door that doesn't do anything".

You could say the same thing about putting a dick in a woman's mouth or licking a woman's clit but the act isn't useless because it contributes to your relationship which strengthens your bond. A good relationship leads to a strong family and increases the chance of continuation of your bloodline. This is what true sexual attraction is all about.

 

[Captain X]

So what's your opinion on being born gay? To me it seems like a weak and baseless excuse but is there actually any evidence for it that isn't tainted by bias?

Nature is full of examples in everything from fruit flies on up to the great apes.

For me it's a choice to be straight.

Really, so when did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? For me it just happened - I never consciously started becoming attracted to women, I just was.