re: #297 dog philosopher

is that bork, the well known pliable nixon tool and generator of dyspeptic bloviation?

The one and only. Here’s a summary of Bork’s essay:

Supreme Court cannot rightly choose “fundamental values” because that implies some decision-making authority that is independent of the court’s constitutional underpinning. For cases where textual/structural arguments don’t apply, Bork argues against virtually any decision grounded in ethical or natural law concepts.

The only problem Josh has is that SSM has been decided on a clear and unambiguous textual issue, that the 14th Amendment Section 1 clearly applies to the States and explicitly says that they cannot “… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Josh will now reiterate that I’m retarded and that the intent of the old white bigoted windbags who created the 14th Amendment should hold, that they never, ever intended it to apply to same sex marriage. While I’m fairly certain that they didn’t intend for it to cover it, nonetheless they wrote a rule in plain, unambiguous English that clear does cover it. So fuck them.

Also, they’re all dead now, so it’s way past time time that their unstated irrational bigotry died with them. If they wanted to enshrine it into the Constitution they had plenty of opportunity, and missed it.