re: #771 Aceofwhat?

Well, I’m not black. But i’m comfortable going on record as saying that blanket discrimination on the basis of an obvious physical, racial characteristic towers - absolutely towers - over a question of whether certain marital relationships have any grounds on which go retain certain contractual benefits

Sure. If you look at outcomes and not at the objective justness of it. I thought that’s what you were arguing against.

You don’t mean ‘marriage’.

Oh please. You know what I meant. Don’t be silly.

I wholly disagree. Denying the obvious progress that has been made seems to have elevated, in your mind, smaller opportunities for improvement into the monster that was pre-CRA discrimination

Okay. So other than child labor, slavery, voting rights, racial discrimination, worker safety, and the litany of other times the Supreme Court ruled in a way that required the law to catch up, we should never use it.

You’re not getting my point at all. Your argument now has dwindled to “Doing what was right and letting the law catch up used to be a good thing, but now things are peachy enough that it’s not”. It’s not even an argument. You don’t feel there are any grave injustices left for the Supreme Court to deal with. I understand that. That is not the basis for an argument.

I am trying to strike a balance, and that does not include equating any of the items you mention with structured, sanctioned racial and gender discrimination.

We still have structured and sanctioned racial and gender discrimination.

I used the words on purpose. “Right” has a connotation of what is “reasonable” or “fitting” or “desirable” that is lacking in the term “correct”. I have not split hairs. I am, on the contrary, choosing my words carefully and the dictionary appears to agree with me.

Oh Jesus. I can’t deal with that level of nitpicking, I’m sorry. I’d give you more credence on the importance you’re attaching to his words if you didn’t keep changing them.

Because i am trying to sum up his philosophy!!! “All his writings” ≠ a summation! So i used HIS words. Why are you hounding me for allowing this great man to speak for himself? If you think you can sum up his philosophy better than him, by all means, let it rip.

I don’t think his philosophy can be summed up like that. I’m ‘hounding’ you for insisting on judging him simply by that one phrase. It’s stupid.

It’s not the only thing. It is the thesis statement. I do not want a justice to do what they think is right. I want them to apply law, even if they personally think the law is “wrong” in some moral sense.

Except when you don’t, as in “Seperate But Equal”, and assumedly, a large number of other decisions.

And what is “do what you think is right” even if the law has not yet “caught up” but legislating to create a particular outcome?

That you are changing his words in order to interpret them as you want and no longer care that you’re changing his words to interpret them as you want ends my interest in discussing this with you at all.

Disappointing.