Reply #262: "Aristotle was not Belgian.

[msanthrope]

The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself. The London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes. I looked 'em up."


Rational basis is not a legal term of art. It is a level of scrutiny. A standard by judging laws that infringe on the liberty and privacy of citizens.

Since you are familiar with Wikipedia, I will assume that you can find a scrutiny chart that will explain to you the levels, and their significance vis-a-vis governmental deference and plaintiff burden.

What you have completely missed, Depakid, is the point of rational basis scrutiny in this decision. What Judge Walker has done, with deftness, and utter fucking brilliance, is make the case that even with rational basis--giving the government the benefit of the doubt, and placing the burden on the Plaintiff---EVEN WITH THAT....Prop 8 fails.

What he's saying, Depakid, is that this right is so fucking fundamental, so goddamn self-evident, when you strip away all the religious hysteria, well-ordered liberty fucking demands that the State do the right thing. He's foreclosed the winger argument that gays are asking for special rights and special protections, and special recognitions....

Further, you missed the point of my reference of Romer....as in, HAD YOU READ THE DECISION, you might have noticed that Judge Walker repeatedly, and unambiguously hearkened back to Kennedy's invocation of the rational basis standard, how Romer FAILED that...and how animus, clearly shown in Romer and in Perry undeniably changes the tenor.

This is not accidental. If you cannot figure out what Romer has to say in 2010, then I suggest you read what Judge Walker wrote, as he explains it with more patience than I have.


Now, I'm going to tell you a little secret they teach us in law school.

Lawyers (good ones) never ask you a question they don't know the answer to. They merely ask questions in order to invite the opposing side to continue digging.



****FYI--You bitch that people don't know that Roe isn't good law, and then opine on Casey? Sadly, your failure to recognize the eclipse of Casey by Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) renders you liable to the same fault. Try reading that Kennedy monstrosity to understand just why Judge Walker did not hesitate to repeatedly remind Kennedy of his words in Romer and Lawrence.