You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #37: Oy. Look up the definition of "strawman" and get back to me. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Oy. Look up the definition of "strawman" and get back to me.
The ACLU worked in favor of the Klan rally not because they support the Klan, but because their rally was legal.

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the gag rule not because she supported the gag rule, but because it was legal.

If a Sotomayor court ruled in favor of the Klan rally, would she then be supporting the Klan?

I am making an analogy. It is imperfect. It is not, however, a strawman. Your "if don't protect women, who will?" question gets perilously close to strawman territory, though.

My point being: Judges are in a difficult position. They are asked to rule on something's legality, under the existing Constitution and existing legal structure we have. Many crappy things are still constitutional, and judges are duty-bound to uphold their legality. They're not allowed to overturn a law simply because it's stupid or counter-productive. In the gag rule case, Sotomayor was relying, in part, on Supreme Court precedent--something an appellate judge is also duty-bound to do.

(This is why some LGBT groups are wary of a Supreme Court battle over marriage right now, and would prefer to wait for a more sympathetic Court--if the Court says it is perfectly constitutional and not violative of Equal Protection or Due Process for states to ban same-sex marriage--that gay and lesbian people aren't barred from marriage because they're free to marry members of the opposite sex, and no there's no parallel between this and interracial marriage-- then that's that, and the federal courts are bound by that precedent.)

**The devil, as always, is in the details, and that's where experience and, yes, empathy, and, yes, politics come in. (For instance: Murder is illegal, period, and nobody argues otherwise. The details, however, complicate things--is abortion murder? Is the death penalty? For that matter...is there a parallel between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage? Is sexual orientation a protected class, like race? If we had easy, consensus answers to those questions, we'd have clear policy, but we don't.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Is it not odd that Obama never asked Sotomayor about Roe v Wade? Bluebear  May-28-09 12:39 AM   #0 
  - Perhaps he is.  snowdays   May-28-09 12:42 AM   #1 
  - It will be ok.  rwheeler31   May-28-09 12:42 AM   #2 
  - What about her views  tan guera   May-28-09 12:45 AM   #3 
     - 'goes along with'  elleng   May-28-09 12:51 AM   #5 
     - Important:  elleng   May-28-09 12:58 AM   #9 
  - I'm not going to take the word of officials who dare not speak their names.  rocktivity   May-28-09 12:49 AM   #4 
  - So your contention is the reporter is lying about the interview?  Bluebear   May-28-09 12:51 AM   #6 
  - My contention is that the officials might be lying to the reporter about the interview.  rocktivity   May-28-09 01:00 AM   #10 
     - pssst Roe v Wade, not Rove v Wade :)  Bluebear   May-28-09 01:01 AM   #11 
        - LOL! A Freudian slip--or a Rovian one?  rocktivity   May-28-09 01:04 AM   #12 
  - Exactly...  polmaven   May-28-09 06:55 AM   #23 
     - The New Haven case has been argued by SCOTUS already.  CTyankee   May-28-09 08:39 AM   #27 
        - Has it been argued?  polmaven   May-28-09 11:30 AM   #39 
  - If Obama doesn't ask her about Roe, then he can throw up his hands  EFerrari   May-28-09 12:54 AM   #7 
  - Ah...  Bluebear   May-28-09 12:55 AM   #8 
  - does she have to pray also? or just the pregnant women?  snowdays   May-28-09 01:15 AM   #13 
  - I didn't hear a lot of god talk from her at the announcement.  EFerrari   May-28-09 01:19 AM   #16 
     - good.  snowdays   May-28-09 09:19 AM   #32 
  - I would like to KNOW.  bvar22   May-28-09 11:59 AM   #43 
     - I think that would be suicide for the Catholic Church  WeDidIt   May-28-09 12:12 PM   #45 
     - Of course!  EFerrari   May-28-09 03:19 PM   #48 
  - No, it's not odd. The Rethugs are likely to specifically ask her if Obama or his people  pnwmom   May-28-09 01:18 AM   #14 
  - If the question comes up, she should play like Clarence Thomas and claim she discussed the issue...  devilgrrl   May-28-09 01:19 AM   #15 
  - I just realized that I don't have a single memory of Thomas after those  EFerrari   May-28-09 01:21 AM   #17 
  - Roe is already the law- the SC does not go back and re-try  old mark   May-28-09 01:49 AM   #18 
  - Wrong.  Lasher   May-28-09 02:15 AM   #19 
  - WRONG, back at ya - read the decision not the right wing bullshit  old mark   May-28-09 07:18 AM   #25 
     - Right wing bullshit at Raw Story? LOL!  Lasher   May-28-09 11:40 AM   #41 
  - Oh, my.  Bluebear   May-28-09 03:25 AM   #20 
  - Old Mark  AndyfromNC   May-28-09 07:47 AM   #26 
  - I think its common practice to ask but not really directly ask.  stray cat   May-28-09 06:29 AM   #21 
  - Maybe he already knows she doesn't. I mean, she supported the gag rule.  solstice   May-28-09 06:44 AM   #22 
  - She affirmed the legality of the gag rule. There's a big difference between that and support.  eyesroll   May-28-09 09:39 AM   #34 
     - What a lame strawman. The ACLU does not make or uphold censorship laws affecting women's health &  solstice   May-28-09 09:59 AM   #35 
        - Oy. Look up the definition of "strawman" and get back to me.  eyesroll   May-28-09 10:49 AM   #37 
        - Look up 'non sequitur' while you're at it.  Richardo   May-28-09 11:11 AM   #38 
  - Maybe because it's a no-brainer?  HamdenRice   May-28-09 07:01 AM   #24 
  - So you'd leave it up to chance, eh?  ruggerson   May-28-09 09:03 AM   #31 
  - i am going to trust obama on this one, largely because unlike his stances on gay people he doesnt  La Lioness Priyanka   May-28-09 08:45 AM   #28 
  - My take is that they didn't want it to come up during the confirmation hearings that she was  Liberal In Texas   May-28-09 09:01 AM   #29 
  - I'd find it odd if she wasn't asked.  babylonsister   May-28-09 09:02 AM   #30 
  - Minority women and democrat....he didn't have to ask.  deaniac21   May-28-09 09:35 AM   #33 
  - Not the slam dunk you would suppose.  bvar22   May-28-09 04:21 PM   #49 
  - Why would he ask her about Roe v Wade? She wasn't on that case.  cbdo2007   May-28-09 10:24 AM   #36 
  - ha ha ha ha I get it  Bluebear   May-28-09 02:21 PM   #47 
  - obama knows enough to let a staffer ask that question.  unblock   May-28-09 11:40 AM   #40 
  - No.  Boomerang Diddle   May-28-09 11:59 AM   #42 
  - If you think about it  Stargazer09   May-28-09 12:08 PM   #44 
  - Somebody had better ask her in the confirmation hearings.  MzNov   May-28-09 12:50 PM   #46 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC