Miers
Earl Maltz
emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu
Sat Oct 29 12:00:38 PDT 2005
This post is an outrage. I hope list members of all political persuasions
will join me in publicly condemning Bob Sheridan for his vicious personal
attack on other members of this list.
At 11:16 AM 10/29/2005 -0700, Bob Sheridan wrote:
>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=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/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.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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