Social conservatives
Volokh, Eugene
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Sat Oct 29 11:41:23 PDT 2005
Seems to me that the second line of the post below is roughly
equivalent to "yesterday's left-wingers were yesterday's Communists."
Broad generalizations (especially across centuries) about groups as
vaguely defined as "social conservatives" or "liberals" are likely to be
of little help to reasoned debate.
The rest of the post only makes matters worse, it seems to me.
Suggestions that other groups' philosophy is to "screw your brother," or
that certain groups need an "emetic," might be apt in partisan
diatribes, but not in thoughtful academic discourse. It seems to me
best if people calmed down, and focused more on concrete constitutional
law questions rather than broad condemnations of political movements.
The list custodian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Sheridan
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 11:16 AM
> To: Rick Duncan
> Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Miers
>
>
> Why do social conservatives have such difficulty allowing the
> recognition of the claims of people not exactly like them to equal
> rights, I wonder. Yesterday's social conservatives were yesterday's
> slave owners and northern opponents of abolitionists. Abolitionists
> were Quakers and people like Garrison, who took years to go from
> anathema, to tolerated, to right. Do social conservatives
> ever learn?
> Or does God only smile on today's conservatives today? Today
> it's the
> gays; yesterday it was blacks, Jews, Indians, you name it.
>
> What is the golden rule of social conservatism?
>
> Screw your brother for as long as you can?
>
> How do social conservatives finally know when God has stopped
> smiling on
> them?
>
> Why do social conservatives really care whether it was
> activist judges
> who went so far as to lift the burden of Jim Crow (originally
> placed by
> activist socially conservative judges) from the shoulders of
> blacks, as
> opposed to the Congress, constipated as it was against civil rights
> bills by the Southern bloc and the filibuster threat, and
> actuality, of
> the Senate until 1957, when LBJ succeeded in ramming through
> a toothless
> bill in order to get a wedge in the door. See Caro's "Master of the
> Senate" for the details.
>
> Perhaps social conservatives need an emetic.
>
> rs
> sfls
>
> Rick Duncan wrote:
>
> > I agree with Mark that the Court is not likely to move quickly to
> > create a new right to homosexual marriage. But the time to
> build the
> > walls is before the enemy is at the gate.
> >
> > I spend a lot of time with social conservatives, and I can tell you
> > that for them (for us) the "next /Roe/," the next
> unthinkable Supreme
> > Court act of tyranny, concerns the marriage issue. If you
> > stop it before the Court forces states to recognize "domestic
> > partnershipships," you won't have to worry about the Court
> radically
> > redefining marriage.
> >
> > I really believe that defending marriage is the number one issue for
> > the social conservatives I spend time with. The pro-life
> principle is
> > still at the center of their hearts, but the legal and
> political focus
> > is on protecting marriage.
> >
> > Rick Duncan
> >
> > */Mark Tushnet <tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>/* wrote:
> >
> > I too am surprised at the prominence of tha gay
> marriage issue in
> > Rick Duncan's post. I regard it as a fantasy to believe that the
> > Supreme Court would move relatively quickly from Lawrence to
> > gay marriage [I reserve judgment on what the time line
> is likely to
> > be, but I'd say at least a decade and probably more].
> My guess is
> > that we'll see a few "domestic partnership" cases first -- for
> > example, Romer-like challenges to state-law exclusions of gay
> > partners from benefits available to straight
> (non-marital) partners).
> > I don't follow the issues closely, but the history of litigation
> > campaigns is one in which there are intermediate stages before
> > "the big one." I would expect the same to be true as to gay
> > marriage.
> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> > boundary="============_-1081522692==_ma============"
> >
> >
> > --============_-1081522692==_ma============
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> >
> > For most pro-CHOICE Republicans, however many there
> are, the issue
> > obviously doesn't drive their vote. For many pro-LIFE
> Republicans, on
> > the other hand, it is why they are Republicans. There are almost
> > certainly enough of the latter to have made the
> difference in the
> > last two national elections. A cynic might suppose that some
> > Republicans opposed to reversing Roe v. Wade realize
> that it would
> > release the pro-life constituency to vote their
> pocketbook instead of
> > their conscience in federal elections. A President more
> cynical (or
> > astute) than George Bush might calculate that the party
> cannot afford
> > either to abandon its nominal commitment to reversing Roe or to
> > fulfill it.
> >
> > I find myself surprised by the tone of resignation in ! Rick's
> > assessment of the prospects for reversing Roe; and more
> surprised by
> > the elevation of gay marriage, even if it does mean the end of
> > democracy, to a level of importance that even approaches what
> > pro-life advocates characterize as the violent
> slaughter of thousands
> > of unborn children. There are seven Republican appointees on the
> > Court. If they haven't reversed Roe, maybe it's because
> they're not
> > serious. If social conservatives are re-drawing the battle-lines
> > against the ramifications of Lawrence, maybe they
> should consider
> > whether they're being used by the Republican
> establishment to advance
> > a different agenda.
> >
> > The author of Roe was a Nixon appointee. The author of
> Lawrence was a
> > Reagan appointee. How come Republican appointees are so good at
> > mobilizing social conservatives to vote Republican?
> >
> > John Noble
> >
> > At 8:26 PM -0400 10/28/05, Hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
> > >On the points about the ability (or inabilit! y) for
> Republicans or
> > >conservatives to get a constitutional amendment, and
> the comments
> > >about Roe/Casey, does anyone have any hard data about
> the opposition
> > >to Roe (or lack thereof), in the Republican Party? Among all
> > >voters, a significant majority are opposed to
> reversing Roe, but
> > >what about within the Republican Party? I have been
> told that even
> > >within the Party, a majority is not opposed to Roe. That is
> > >something the President would know and that would affect his
> > >calculations for his next appointment.
> > >
> > >
> > >Marci
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:38:18 P.M. Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > >nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:
> > >
> > >Frankly, I think social conservatives are more concerned with
> > >stopping the Court from imposing same-sex marriage and
> > >anti-religious hostility on the country than they are
> about getting
> > >Roe reversed.
> > >
> > >Roe will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. I
> think most
> > >conservatives understand that.
> > >
> > >But Lawrence could easily grow to include a right to homosexual
> > >marriage. And that would be the final "end of
> democracy" for social
> > >conservatives.
> > >
> > >Social conservatives also want a Court that will
> respect religious
> > >liberty (including the liberty to not have religion completely
> > >banished from public schools and the public square).
> They want more
> > >free exercise, strong free speech rights, and equal access to
> > >government benefit programs (including school choice).
> > >
> > >Frankly, it is the far left that is obsessed with Roe and which
> > >keeps shouting the "sky will fall" if a conservative nominee is
> > >confirmed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > >To s! ubscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> password, see
> > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > >
> > >Please note that messages sent to this large list
> cannot be viewed
> > >as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that
> > >are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> members can
> > >(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> > --============_-1081522692==_ma============
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >
> >
> > For most pro-CHOICE Republicans, however many there are, the
> > issue obviously doesn't drive their vote. For many pro-LIFE
> > Republicans, on the other hand, it is why they are
> Republicans. There
> > are almost certainly enough of the latter to have made
> the difference
> > in the last two national elections. A cynic might
> suppose that some
> > Republicans opposed to reversing Roe v. Wade realize
> that it would
> > release the pro-life constituency to vote their
> pocketbook instead of
> > their conscience in federal elections. A President more
> cynical (or
> > astute) than George Bush might calculate that the party
> cannot afford
> > either to abandon its nominal commitment to reversing Roe or to
> > fulfill it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I find myself surprised by the tone of resignation in Rick's
> > assessment of the prospects for reversing Roe; and more
> surprised by
> > the elevation of gay marriage, even if it does mean the end of
> > democracy, to a level of importance that even
> approaches what pro-life
> > advocates characterize as the violent slaughter of
> thousands of unborn
> > children. There are seven Republican appointees on the
> Court. If they
> > haven't reversed Roe, maybe it's because they're not serious. If
> > social conservatives are re-drawing the battle-lines against the
> > ramifications of Lawrence, maybe they should consider
> whether they're
> > being used by the Republican establishment to advance a
> different
> > agenda.
> >
> >
> >
> > The author of Roe was a Nixon appointee. The author of Lawrence
> > was a Reagan appointee. How come Republican appointees
> are so good at
> > mobilizing social conservatives to vote Republican?
> >
> >
> >
> > John Noble
> >
> >
> >
> > At 8:26 PM -0400 10/28/05, Hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">On the points about the ability (or
> inability) for
> >> Republicans or conservatives to get a constitutional
> amendment, and
> >> the comments about Roe/Casey, does anyone have any hard data
> >> about the
> >> opposition to Roe (or lack thereof), in the Republican Party?
> >> Among all voters, a significant majority are opposed
> to reversing
> >> Roe,
> >> but what about within the Republican Party? I have been told
> >> that even within the Party, a majority is not opposed
> >> to Roe. That is something the President would know and
> that would
> >> affect his calculations for his next appointment.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">Marci
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">In a message dated 10/28/2005 2:38:18
> P.M. Eastern
> >> Standard Time, nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:
> >>
> >> Frankly, I
> >> think social conservatives are more concerned with
> stopping the
> >> Court from imposing same-sex marriage and anti-religious
> >> hostility on the country than they are about getting/ Roe/
> >> reversed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >>
> >>
> >> /Roe/
> >> will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. I
> think most
> >> conservatives understand that.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >>
> >>
> >> But/
> >> Lawrence/ could easily grow to include a right to
> homosexual
> >> marriage. And that would be the final "end of
> democracy" for
> >> social conservatives.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >>
> >>
> >> Social
> >> conservatives also want a Court that will respect religious
> >> liberty
> >> (including the liberty to not have religion completely
> >> banished from
> >> public schools and the public square). They want more free
> >> exercise,
> >> strong free speech rights, and equal access to
> government benefit
> >> programs (including school choice).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >>
> >>
> >> Frankly, it
> >> is the far left that is obsessed with Roe and which keeps
> >> shouting the "sky will fall" if a
> >> conservative nominee is confirmed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> color="#000000">
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>
> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list
> cannot be viewed as
> >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that
> >> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> members can
> >> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --============_-1081522692==_ma============--
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list
> cannot be viewed
> > as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> > members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > begin:vcard
> > n:Tushnet;Mark
> > fn:Mark Tushnet,tushnet
> > tel;fax:202-662-9497
> > tel;work:202-662-1906
> > org:Georgetown University Law Center;
> > adr:;;600 New Jersey Ave. NW;Washington;DC;20001;
> > version:2.1
> > email;internet:tushnet at law.georgetown.edu
> > end:vcard
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick Duncan
> > Welpton Professor of Law
> > University of Nebraska College of Law
> > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
> >
> > "Wh! en the Round Table is broken every man must follow
> either Galahad
> > or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
> >
> > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
> debriefed, or
> > numbered." --The Prisoner
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> >
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIE
X3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/*
*http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list