Quote of the Day for June 26, 2016: Justice Kennedy’s Beautiful Closing Paragraph of the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Anthony Kennedy Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Anthony Kennedy
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Posted by Elaine Magliaro

Jordan Weissmann of Slate said that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, “is sometimes made fun of for his notoriously purple prose.” He said that today, however,  Kennedy “managed to close his opinion with one of the most beautiful passages you’ll likely read in a court case.” Weismann said he teared up when reading it–as did a few other Slate staffers.

kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge

 

777px-Gay_flag.svg

SOURCE

The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy’s Gay Marriage Ruling (Slate)

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law, Courts, Democracy, Equal Rights, Government, Homosexual Rights, Jurisprudence, Justice, SCOTUS, Society, United States and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Quote of the Day for June 26, 2016: Justice Kennedy’s Beautiful Closing Paragraph of the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

  1. Elaine M. says:

    Antonin Scalia Is Living Proof That You Don’t Have To Have A Big Prick To Be One
    By Juanita Jean
    http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/antonin-scalia-living-proof-you-don-t-have

    Sorry, Momma, but I strained and strained to find another way to say this but it just wasn’t there.In Scalia’s dissenting opinion, he doesn’t slam marriage equality but choses instead to be a prissy little snot about Justice Kennedy’s opinion. His attack on Kennedy personally was beneath the dignity of the court and shows how this little man has deteriorated into some manner of totally smug insanity.

    Get this —

    “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he writes. “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

    I am certain that Justice Kennedy is not offended by crap like that but it’s just embarrassing.And then he seems to forget the court overturning the will of the people in Bush v. Gore.

    “And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

    Ya think Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg are having coffee this morning and giggling their butts off at this old fool? I know I am.

  2. Mike Spindell says:

    It was a beautiful statement that is no doubt exploding some heads including Scalia’s.

  3. blouise17 says:

    Scalia has gone too far. Roberts needs to reign him in

  4. Mike Spindell says:

    As Andrew Sullivan wrote today with a truth that is irrefutable: “We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil – at least no more than our fellow humans in this vale of tears. We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die. No civil institution is related to these deep human experiences more than civil marriage and the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings. It took courage to embrace this fact the way the Supreme Court did today.”

  5. blouise17 says:

    Well, based on all his posturing and machismo, the one thing we know about Scalia is that the man has no courage.

  6. Oro Lee says:

    Kennedy’s opinion affirms the Constitution as a document crafted by men holding dear the precepts of the Age of Enlightenment; as such it rebukes Scalia’s originalism. Whether viewed as a living document or one whose provisions are continually construed in light of the then current understanding of the human condition, the Constitution is not dead, dead, dead no matter how oft Scalia chants his mantra.

  7. mespo727272 says:

    Oro:

    Screed-lia’s philosophy is not originalism; it’s contrarianism. He is determined to be the Court’s Angry Man calling names and declaring the sky is falling with every ruling. On a happier note, I see our former host at RIL has come out for the decision today advancing the rights of all to marry. Maybe Roberts isn’t the only one easing back from the brink of neo-confederatism.

  8. Oro Lee says:

    M72

    Maybe it just me, but somehow I think Scalia channels Limbaugh. And you’re right, I wouldn’t be surprised if Scalia ignores originalism more than he touts it.

  9. blouise17 says:

    mespo,

    You know him better than I do and thus may be correct about pulling back from the brink but I suspect it was something far less thoughtful/intellectual. I suspect that it is nothing more than following orders. He was told to step back, so he did.

  10. I need not elaborate on my thoughts on that matter.

  11. pete says:

    “Well, based on all his posturing and machismo, the one thing we know about Scalia is that the man has no courage.”
    ===================
    Also no heart or brain. Follow the yellow slick toad.

    I noticed one of the twins admonished a commenter on their language. Said their host was trying to dress up for future employment. First time I’d seen anyone admit that.

  12. randyjet says:

    He does not answer Roberts point that the same can be said of plural marriages, and that they have as much RIGHT to marriage as gays. In fact, plural marriage has a long tradition and history in religions and law in this country. It is hypocritical to restrict it to only TWO people, and that reflects religious establishment and bigotry on Kennedy’s part.

  13. That’s also bullshit, Randy, but I addressed it here.

  14. Bob Kauten says:

    Elaine,
    ““But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”
    In his self-description, he misspelled “Putz.”

  15. Oro,

    I like to think of Scalia’s originalism as “selective originalism”.

  16. Randy,
    What Gene said about plural marriage. See his comment on the other thread, but the short version is that bigamy is a crime, and has been going back at least four centuries to English Common Law. There are multiple legal and social reasons for outlawing bigamy; whereas, there is no logical or social reason for making interracial or same sex marriage illegal. Other than it makes some folks uncomfortable, which is no reason to outlaw it.

    • randyjet says:

      OS It is rather silly to refer back to Old English law in this instance since homosexuality was illegal back then, and they most certainly did NOT allow for gay marriage.What is the point then? Bigamy is only a crime because the state prohibits plural marriages. When the SCOTUS decides to agree with the ACLU and is consistent, bigamy will NOT be illegal any more just as we have progressed from making homosexuality a crime as it was at the time of the Loving decision.

      As for your arguement that there are many reasons against allowing plural marriage, they all fail since many folks ALREADY have that arrangement in promient persons throughout the world I recall that in France, it is a traditon to have a mistress or two, and former President Mitterand even had his mistress participate in his funeral. France did not fall because of that. I am reading a bio of WWIIs greatest generals, Zhukov, and he like most generals then had a mistress in addition to his official wife.We still won the war. Plual marriage is like gay marriage and it is banned simply because it makes some folks like Gene uncomfortable. I can care less who marries who and how many since it will not affect my marriage at all. I AM uncomfortable with HOW this was done. So what was good for the gays is certainly good for Muslims and others if you think the SCOTUS got this one right

  17. pete says:

    Should make for some interesting custody battles. Kramers vs Kramers.

    If the biological parents are killed who would get custody of a child, a parent who wasn’t married to the family at the time of the child’s birth or a biological grandparent? Now add a large inheritance.

    I know state legislatures must be lining up to get ahead of this.

  18. pete says:

    Damn I type slow

  19. I just made the mistake of going to the other place to take a look. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Anyone got any spare brain bleach? I won’t be making that mistake again.

  20. pete says:

    No posts of the Charleston shootings. As if it never happened. One about the flag. Keeps the place from sounding like a klan meeting.

  21. randyjet says:

    I was just thinking that after WWII, polygamy would have been a BENEFIT to Germany and the Soviet Union since they lost so many men. They got around that by simply ignoring legal norms though and not bothering to call their arrangements marriage.

  22. Also, still bullshit.

    The 14th guarantees “the equal protection of the laws.” Since marriage is at law a specialty contract, why is it equal to deny same sex the same rights, duties and benefits as heterosexual couples have under the law so long as they are not engaged in an otherwise illegal relationship (bigamy, issues of capacity, fraud in inducement, etc.)? The only rational answer is “it isn’t equal to deny them those rights, duties and benefits.”

    The legal foundation and reasoning for this decision in the majority is a solid exercise of both logic and legal reasoning as well as established Constitutional principle.

    • randyjet says:

      The states have the right to decide what and who can get legal contracts, as decided by the legislatures within certain bounds of equality. Millions of gay before this ruling have gotten married to those of the opposite sex and they are NOT denied their right to get married.What they seek is to change the definition of marriage to benefit themselves without any nod to any state interest in defining marriage. You start with the assumption that gay marriage is what is meant in the Loving decision which is ludicrous,then move on to say, what harm does it do if gays do marry? That avoids the question as to the right of the people to decide what marriage laws they want and voids any state interest or standing to make its own laws on the matter of contract. Loving set the parameters on marriage laws that the states can enact. It did not allow for gay marriage to be decided by court decree and it is a tortuous means to that end.

  23. FWIW . . .

    “The legal foundation and reasoning for this decision in the majority is a solid exercise of both logic and legal reasoning as well as established Constitutional principle.”

    This is not always the case. Sometimes SCOTUS produces decisions that are veritable contortionist acts to get a desired result. Buckley v. Valeo or Citizens United v. FEC for some fine examples of cases that as a matter of sound legal theory raise the question “What?”

    • randyjet says:

      Gene, The answer to your question about why is it legal to deny same sex couples the right to marry as others of opposite sex. The answer is because within our legal sytem the states can do it. Just as it is your contention that it is the right of the state to ban plural marriage. There is no legal reason other than the state can do it. Say a state like Utah wishes to legalize plural marriage, what do you think will happen? Will the SCOTUS fail to enforce the full faith and credit rule in regards to this in other states? Can a state legalize plural marriage? I think that they can. How about you?

  24. “Can a state legalize plural marriage? I think that they can.”

    Let me make something clear, Randy. I don’t think plural marriages are a good idea for a variety of reasons. They make a mess out of divorce, custody, probate, etc. and Elaine once showed me some studies about the negative impact such practices have both on the wives, the children and the communities where plural marriage is practiced. Before Elaine showed me those studies, I was of a different mind about plural marriages. I thought they should be allowed as a matter of free association and contract law. Now I don’t have a strong predisposition for allowing it, however, were it legalized?

    I would not give a rat’s ass if a state legalized plural marriage and then the very same legal mechanisms were put in play to make it legal nationwide. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. So long as the cascade of related laws based on the specialty contract that is marriage were properly adjusted to look toward the best interests of minor children in the case of divorce, allow people to freely exit the relationships, recognition of foreign plural marriages was constrained by our laws and not those of foreign jurisdictions (some jurisdictions treat women like property) and the matters required to clearly differentiate the voluntary practice of polygamy from the crime (and tort) of bigamy were addressed to afford protection for those entered into a plural relationship without their knowledge and/or consent? I look at it as a matter of liberty. Although our friendship is no more, this is one area where Turley and I agree.

    If people want the kinds of complications and hassles that come with such arrangements? Let ’em have it. I know it is not against the law to be stupid. But since I don’t approve of the practice, I’d never engage in it. That is my choice and my choice alone. Just so it would be their choice to enter into a plural marriage. It is their business. My approval isn’t required.

    Just so, if same sex couple want to marry, it’s none of your business – indeed, anyone’s business – how and whom with they form their families with so long as no other crime is being committed. However, polygamy is a practice most people have absolutely no interest in participating in. It is, similar to homosexual marriage, a minority practice. Being married to one person at a time is challenge enough – even the best marriages are usually work – and when shit goes sideways it can get plenty ugly enough with just two people who have decided they no longer love each other going to court.

    By all means, feel free to clutch your pearls some more about this issue, Randy. That doesn’t change that you are simply wrong about the jurisprudence around this matter, both in its foundations and how the 14th was applied to homosexual marriage. But don’t assume that legally I’d have a problem with plural marriages as you seem to have with homosexual marriages. I say let ’em have at it . . . just so long as I’m not legally compelled to enjoin in the practice. See, their rights end where mine begin. Just like mine end where theirs begin.

  25. bettykath says:

    http://www.youngcons.com/texas-governor-defends-religious-liberties-and-its-hardcore/%5D

    “Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government,” Governor Abbott wrote in the memorandum obtained by Breitbart Texas. “Renewing and reinforcing that promise is all the more important in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage. That sort of religious coercion will never be a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and it will never be ‘the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.’”

    “With these obligations in mind,” Abbott continued, “I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.”

  26. Gene & Randy,
    I agree that a political jurisdiction can legalize plural marriage, just as 36 states had already legalized gay marriage. The ONLY reason for the SCOTUS to become involved was the 6th Circuit being out of step with the logical progression of legalizing gay marriage. Three other circuits had overruled challenges.

    The 14 remaining states who had not legalized same sex marriage would have eventually caved if the Federal Circuits had continued to topple their laws one by one. The holdout states were making life difficult for married gay and lesbian couples to do business there, including get divorces, win custody battles, have rights of inheritance and have powers of attorney for medical care. And oh yes, have some dignity in being recognized as full citizens.

    All yesterday’s ruling did was remove the obstacle the 6th Circuit had thrown up, and it only affected 14 states. The other 36 states had already mooted the point.

    As for plural marriages, I am of a like mind with Gene about it being a Bad Idea. In addition to the reasons Gene mentions, I am concerned about just how voluntary some of those marriages truly are. From the social psychology literature I read, there is often an element of coercion, and they also don’t have the best track record when it comes to abusing children, both sexually and physically.

  27. On a related theme. Two or three years ago, a guy in either Pakistan or Bangladesh with plural wives came out the worse for wear. Seems he managed to piss off his wives for some reason. They dealt with him by demanding he perform his husbandly duties. For all of them. Repeatedly, taking turns.

    He died of heart failure. Screwed himself to death. Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing.

  28. Mike Spindell says:

    “The states have the right to decide what and who can get legal contracts, as decided by the legislatures within certain bounds of equality.”

    “That avoids the question as to the right of the people to decide what marriage laws they want and voids any state interest or standing to make its own laws on the matter of contract.”

    Randyjet,

    I’m not a lawyer, but Gene is and I think his arguments win the legal debate. However, I’ve long since stopped looking at America from a legalistic position, because as I’ve written before, I think our legal system has become but a sad joke and our Constitution has mainly been subsumed by a wealthy elite. So I’d like to dispute you on the two propositions you make in the comment above.

    The system of individual States, having the right to make individual laws as been the bane of American freedom since the inception of our Constitution and is the main thing wrong with our system of government. The idea that the preferences of the people are best protected by the individual States was fallacious from its inception because of the States back then that approved, protected and lived off the inhumanity of slavery. No one can ever rationally justify slavery, which is among the most vicious and vile things humans have perpetrated on other humans since time immemorial. Yet there it is, embalmed in our Constitution at its start because certain States were following the “wishes of their people”, “their people” being slaveholders.

    The issue of “States Rights” was what allowed “Jim Crow” to turn the victory in the Civil War upside down and for the most part reduce the “former” slaves to “chattel” once again. The system of giving States an equal number of Senators, regardless of their population, allowed Southern States to control the Senate for many years, even against the popular will of the majority of Americans. I’m just painting the picture of “States Rights” in broad strokes because the instances of abridging citizens personal freedoms are too many to include in a short comment.

    As to your second proposition you realize don’t you that your argument about:

    “That avoids the question as to the right of the people to decide what marriage laws they want and voids any state interest or standing to make its own laws on the matter of contract.”

    It is the same argument used to justify slavery and “Jim Crow” and behind it is the same anti-democratic proposition that majorities are allowed to impose their will upon minorities just because of some rampant personal prejudice, or economic need? Is that the kind of country you really want to live in Randy. We’re pretty much of the same age so I know you remember the “witch-hunts” against homosexuals that regularly existed all over this country just because of moralistic prejudice and having no relationship to the good of the community. You were once a radical leftist and yet you seem to forget what that meant in the “McCarthy Era” where people’s lives were destroyed because of their legal political beliefs.

    Let’s go beyond that even further and look at the institution of marriage itself and why those who talk of its destruction are literally nonsensical. Throughout human history marriage has always been a financial contract. It has been a contract that has recognized women as chattel, first to her family and then to her husband. The rights of women to person-hood and equality as a citizen wasn’t recognized by our vaunted Constitution until the amendment in 1920. Unfortunately, our “States” marriage laws took a long time catching up to them, or Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s would have had to go to Nevada to get a divorces, since at that time divorces was illegal in New York State.

    Finally, the public’s interest in marriage is not a religious one, but an economic one. Marriage is a legal contract and please don’t quote selected biblical passages to me because Christians are ignorant of Jewish marriage laws and always have been

    • randyjet says:

      Mike, You are wrong on a number of points one of which is that majorities DO have the right to impose their will on minorities. I and millions of young men had our LIVES taken away from us by the military draft. Also elections have results, which means that the majority rules. It is libertarians who are the ones who say that the state exists to benefit the individual and that the individual owes nothing back. I rather like JFKs quote, Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country. That is straight out of the experience of WWII. I agreed with that and indeed, I liked Kerry’s idea of mandatory national service for kids coming out of high school. ALL individual rights have to conform with societies needs at a particular time. For example, I am all in favor of choice for women, but in the aftermath of WWII, I can understand why the Soviet Union basically banned abortion. In the other direction, I agree that China has the proper right to restrict child bearing, and virtually ANY government that seeks to advance would have had NO other choice.Thus individual rights have to take a back seat in certain times and places.

      As for the history of Jim Crow laws, that was caused by a number of things, one of which was the ILLEGAL Plesy, vs Ferguson ruling in which the SCOTUS threw out the 14 Amendment for all intents and purposes by subterfuge.It also was NOT imposed by a majority, but a terrorist minority. The whole reason for the terror was to prevent the majority which was black in many of the Southern states from execising their legal power and rights. The rubric of “states rights” was the attempt to get around the legal force of the post war amendments. I have to laugh at the idea that states rights were used ONLY by the rightwing. In FACT, I recall gay marriage proponents before this ruling using states rights to uphold gay marriage in those states that had it.

      I am still way on the left, but I do not wish to wind up in the situation that the Bolsheviks found themselves when they basically dissolved the Tsarist Army and had nothing left to fight the Germans with at Brest Litovsk. I refuse to bow to the libertarian streak that is dominant in US politics now on all sides. We and the state have obligations to each other in any society, and it is up to the people to decide what those standards are. I will not go into a long analysis of US capitalism and the state as it exists now.

  29. Mike Spindell says:

    For some reason that last comment got posted before I finished:

    A Jewish marriage is finalized by the signing of a legal contract called a Ketubah, from Wiki:

    “The content of the ketubah is in essence a one-way contract that formalizes the various requirements by Halakha (Jewish law) of a Jewish husband vis à vis his wife. The Jewish husband takes upon himself in the ketubah the obligation that he will provide to his wife three major things: clothing, food and conjugal relations,[7] and also that he will pay her a pre-specified amount of cash in the case of a divorce.”

    What’s unsaid is that in the Torah, among the 613 commandment is one that a husband must satisfy his wife’s sexual needs, the understanding being that women are entitled to sexual pleasure.

    Now of course Jesus one statement on marriage seemed to preclude divorce, which the Torah recognized. That was part of Paul’s theory (you know Paul, the “disciple” who never met Jesus) that Jesus abrogated the Torah, which Christian’s never seem to get as they misinterpret it for their own prejudicial needs.

    The reality is that marriage is the province of the Nation as a whole because it needs to provide certain regulations to look after people and especially children to prevent their exploitation. Marriage should never have been left in the hands of the individual States because American history shows that in our system true tyranny has always existed on a local level.

    • randyjet says:

      Mike, New York did not bar divorce. They had very restrictive grounds for it, unlike Nevada which had less restrictions. Also your understanding of US history is seriously flawed since from the outset the national government was instituted to combat local insurrections such as Shays Rebellion. In WWI, it was the national government under Wilson who shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even after the war was over. There is no blanket statement one can make about local vs national politics. Indeed the McCathy era was directed from the top down with the states having little input on it, except for the Soiuth where freedom had not existed for a century or more.

  30. Mike Spindell says:

    “Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government,”

    Bettykath,

    Governor Abbott makes a bold but meaningless statement which is the mindless argument of Christian Fundamentalists. No one is has been urging Christians to become homosexual, or even approve of it. They are free to personally shun their Gay children if they wish. What they are not free to do, as you understand, is to impose their religious beliefs on other in terms of commerce. Yet there is a certain stupidity and ignorance in this train of thought because taken seriously we could hardly then condemn ISIS from beheading what it considers to be infidels from the standpoint of their faith. How many of these “good” Christians would behave in the same way as ISIS if they gained power, we can only speculate upon?

  31. Bob Kauten says:

    States’ Rights? States’ Wrongs.
    Couching your bigotry in legal terms, and arguing incessantly, attempting to rationalize your hatred, simply further humiliates you, and advertises what you are. We catch your drift.
    Reminds me of a phrase we used to rename Spiro Agnew, when he was vice-presidential hatchet man: “Spiral Agony.”
    You lost. Learn why you were wrong, accept it, and move on. Get over it. Do something useful.

    This weekend’s Gay Pride Parade was already scheduled for San Francisco, months ago.
    What do you suppose that will be like? Driving in SF would be “interesting.”
    I’ll just watch it from across the Bay, thanks.

  32. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mike, You are wrong on a number of points one of which is that majorities DO have the right to impose their will on minorities. I and millions of young men had our LIVES taken away from us by the military draft. Also elections have results, which means that the majority rules.”

    Randyjet,

    You misquote me. Which I will show in this paragraph from above:

    “It is the same argument used to justify slavery and “Jim Crow” and behind it is the same anti-democratic proposition that majorities are allowed to impose their will upon minorities just because of some rampant personal prejudice, or economic need? Is that the kind of country you really want to live in Randy?”

    Human history has shown that majorities are indeed capable of imposing their will on minorities, that is indisputable. My point, is it just when the majority imposes evils like slavery and “Jim Crow” on minorities and whether that is the type of country you want to live in? You further avoid the issue I was raising with that statement, which was the imposition of prejudice driven evils such as slavery: “Jim Crow”: persecution of homosexuals: and denial of equality for women in this country has almost always occurred at the State level, rather than the Federal level. This is in response to your contention that it is for the individual States to decide the question of whether the marriage of homosexuals should be allowed. I pointed out, in a rather lengthy comment, why this concept is one that historically has made the United States more un-democratic. The true test of a democratic state is whether the rights of minorities, not majorities are protected.

    “I rather like JFKs quote, Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country.”

    Back in 1960, when JFK made his inaugural speech, I was 16 years old with a naive belief in the ideals of the United States and our beloved Constitution. Here was this youthful President, a hero of World War II, taking the helm to defend our Country from the evils of Communism and protect us from the fear of nuclear terror that was the propaganda staple of the “Cold War”. So that phrase sounded good to me. Then came the CIA backed “Bay of Pigs” fiasco, as the U.S. moved to make Cuba safe for the Mafia and the United Fruit Company. Soon after the major news magazines began to talk of the “domino theory” of communist victory and this small country in Southeast Asia called Vietnam and the need to defeat the communists there. “Ask what you could do for your country” became fighting, being maimed, dying, or getting PTSD for putting down a popular revolution against an imperial power that had been going on for at least 20 years before the U.s. showed up. As I aged my cynicism about JFK’S phrase grew. In retrospect it was merely a bit of patriotic fluff, whose real meaning was send Americans to fight and die to protect the interests of our Corporate/Military/Intelligence Complex.

    “As for the history of Jim Crow laws, that was caused by a number of things, one of which was the ILLEGAL Plesy, vs Ferguson ruling in which the SCOTUS threw out the 14 Amendment for all intents and purposes by subterfuge.It also was NOT imposed by a majority, but a terrorist minority.”

    Plessy v. Ferguson wasn’t “illegal” it was just wrong. SCOTUS rulings are by definition “legal”, yet was the “Law of the Land” for 58 years until “Brown v. Bd. of Ed.”. As for being opposed by a “terrorist minority” that is simply not true. The overwhelming majority of White people in “Jim Crow” States were supportive of “Plessy” and “Jim Crow”. That is again my point about “States Rights”.

    “I have to laugh at the idea that states rights were used ONLY by the rightwing.”

    Randy, you may laugh at it, but history is on my side.

    “We and the state have obligations to each other in any society, and it is up to the people to decide what those standards are.”

    Yes Randy that is true, but it depends on how you define the word “state”. You see it as the 50 disparate localities that have an unequal impact on ALL of the American people. I see it as our Federal Government, because on the “State” level is where a good part of the corruption and evil in the U.S. lies.

    “Mike, New York did not bar divorce. They had very restrictive grounds for it”

    Randyjet I grew up in New York the “grounds” were proven or admitted adultery. The reason the Governor’s wife had to go to Nevada was because the admission of adultery would have been politically impossible. However, the effect of these restrictions were such that in New York State only the wealthy were able to obtain divorce. The divorce laws were written to assuage the feelings of NY States Catholic vote, which is another example of how on the State level corruption abounds.

    • randyjet says:

      Mike, I do think the draft and voiding individual rights under some circumstances is right and legal as even the MA Supreme Court ruled when they ordered the MA legislature to make a new law granting gay marriage. THAT was gross judicial overreach. Jim Crow came about because the Federal government refused to enforce the 14th Amendment. Had the SCOTUS ruled the right way, it never would have come about probably. So the Federal government was the origin, and the states the instrument. As for the voting rights, many of the southern states had a majority black population which were subdued only by terrorism plus the Federal rulings. Women first got the vote on a state level and to say that the states were the source of oppression is a blanket statement that does not bear up. It is more complex than simple phrases The Federal government was the source of the Red Scare not the states too.

      As for JFKs phrase, it was and is still good for any society despite its being abused by corrupt leaders. I know that it would be a guiding principle in any socialist nation and would be true. One does not throw out the baby with the bath water, or denounce all cops because there are lots of them who are corrupt and who abuse the legal system. During WWII there were plenty of corrupt bargins made by capitalists with Nazi Germany, yet I am damned glad that most men decided to do their duty and fight for the USA.

  33. I was living in Little Rock in 1953 when Winthrop Rockefeller bought property on top of Petit Jean Mountain. He built a fine home there with a priceless view. However, the real reason he moved was to establish residence in Arkansas in order to get a divorce. His divorce from “Bobo” Rockefeller was finalized in 1954.

    He came to love the state and his home, so after the divorce he never left. Later, he ran for governor of Arkansas and won. First Republican Governor since Reconstruction. Made a pretty good governor compared to his predecessor, Orval Faubus.

    • randyjet says:

      As I recall, Faubus was supported by all the liberals of the time. I quite agree that Rockefeller was far superior to him of course, this was back when the GOP was still influenced by WWII and the New Deal.

  34. mespo727272 says:

    Pete:
    “No posts of the Charleston shootings. As if it never happened. One about the flag. Keeps the place from sounding like a klan meeting.”
    ******************

    I’m still laughing at this one from this morning.

  35. Chuck Stanley and Gene Howington, I am in favor of same sex marriage being legal. The only thing I oppose is Churches being mandated to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Comments are closed.