It was more than a little annoying to hear James mention the "60% overturned!!!1!" canard that has been one of the key wingnut talking points against Judge Sotomayor, but when I heard Matt say it, too, I figured we ought to supply a little FactCheck on the claim (emph. orig.):

Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?

A: Three of her opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of her appellate opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.

But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the

Quoting bjkeefe: It was more than a little annoying to hear James mention the "60% overturned!!!1!" canard that has been one of the key wingnut talking points against Judge Sotomayor, but when I heard Matt say it, too, I figured we ought to supply a little FactCheck on the claim (emph. orig.):

The rest.

To be clear, I'm not saying Matt or James is completely in the dark about this, or at least I do them the courtesy of so assuming. Sometimes, though, fellas, it's best to be a little more explicit and not speak in insider shorthand so much.

I think you give them to much credit, or are being your usual kind self.
Here it is:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/201...8:07&out=28:45
There is no evidence that he is aware of his mistake. He is using his incorrect talking point as a contrast for her transposing aspiration for inspiration. After acknowledging that Sotomayor, on the biggest stage of her life, naturally nervous makes the mistake... Poulos finds reason for pause.
He restates her miscue as a tic or quirky faux pas... more troubling than the sort of 60% rate of overruling. Talk about reading tea leaves... well he didn't actually do any reading. He divined from hearing the transposition

Forum participants talked about the legal slippery slope of same-sex marriage a week or so ago. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3065 Bejesus, polygamy is coming back. Caligula wasn't such a freak.

Quoting graz: I think you give them to much credit, or are being your usual kind self. [...]

Heh. You make a good case. I was basing my perhaps unfounded generosity on what I've read by James -- he's usually pretty damned savvy, not to mention honest (which is why I've been hoping that he'd come on for so long). But, in this case, it's possible you might be right that he just repeated an overheard talking point. Could be that he's never been particularly interested in following this story. He'd hardly be unique in that regard.

Quoting Lyle: Forum participants talked about the legal slippery slope of same-sex marriage a week or so ago.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3065

Bejesus, polygamy is coming back. Caligula wasn't such a freak.

I still say that the polygamy issue is a red herring. Do you really think there are that many people looking to get involved in this sort of arrangement on a formal basis? (Apart from the wish of a few old cult-leading coots who want harems filled with naive young women, I mean.) I really don't, and I see the "slippery slope to polygamy" argument as about as realistic as the Santorum/O'Reilly talk about bestiality.

I agree about his writing. This medium forces you to offer opinion whether prepared or otherwise.

no kidding......uh, excuse me right wing RETARDS.....Mass. has been doing this for, like, five years and so have a couple of other states. "oh, no, the world is going to end."

Of course not, but freedom is freedom. The logic applied by lawyers and judges to the law would be the exact same for polygamy, polyandry or whatever. This is fact. The same argumentation is already being used in courts in Utah with regards to polygamists there. It is no red herring. Why the heck do you think Matthew Yglesias is making the same point if there wasn't something to the argument?

This has nothing to do with "the world ending" or even same sex marriage, it has everything to do with the law, legal argumentation, and how high courts create new law over time. Please read the linked Volokh article from the comments section on Triad marriage.

Quoting Lyle: Of course not, but freedom is freedom. The logic applied by lawyers and judges to the law would be the exact same for polygamy, polyandry or whatever. This is fact. The same argumentation is already being used in courts in Utah with regards to polygamists there. It is no red herring. Why the heck do you think Matthew Yglesias is making the same point if there wasn't something to the argument?

To your question: my impression was that this (part of the) diavlog existed mostly on the theoretical plane. It struck me as akin to an academic exercise, like moot court, for example. I don't know that I buy your "exact same" and "that is fact" foot-stomping. Two people is two people, and more than two people is not the same thing as two people. Seems to me you're trying to make a case by vehemence alone, and it does not convince me. Show me some examples of large organized groups agitating for recognition of polygamy (something other than a story about one fringe Mormon in court, I mean) and maybe I'll start to think you have something. Until then, I continue to think this is, practically speaking, a non-issue.

i'll let you summarize it for me cuz i don't want to make myself dumber by reading an ideologue the law is whatever we say it is. you could draw the same arbitrary line in between sanctioning nothing and regular marriage. "if we make it legal to get married then what's stopping gay people from getting married....or dogs getting married?" it's retarded bullshit spouted by cowardly right-wing apologists. it stops where ever we say it stops and even if it's legalized it probably won't change anything anyway. once you let go a little bit you start to realize conservatism is not evidence based....it's an ideology...and therefore is most often completely wrong.

No, judges can make law. They've always done so and will continue to do so, particularly when Congress passes the buck on to them. My argument is not a conservative argument, it is what it is. Matthew Yglesias even understands this.

I said that aren't large groups of people advocating for polygamy. I'm not claiming this is an argument that will prevent same sex marriage or should. However, that doesn't mean it is not a legitimate or real argument, or a future legal quandary to worry about. There are in fact polygamists who are making the same exact argument and using gay rights success' in court to further their own cause. They have due process just like everyone else and courts will hear them out over time. European countries are also beginning to recognize polyandrous arrangements. I support same sex marriage rights. However, I think it is better to change the law in the State legislatures or even through a Federal Constitutional amendment. Doing it through the legislative branch avoids the courts and therefore avoids the slippery slope problem.

To your question: my impression was that this (part of the) diavlog existed mostly on the theoretical plane. It struck me as akin to an academic exercise, like moot court, for example.

Yes, it was a totally academic discussion that missed the whole point of same-sex marriage, I thought, although I agree with Matt's ultimate views on the issue. No one in her right mind cares about triads or the "sanctity" of the civil institution of marriage. We are talking about the unions of monogamous couples, who are already provided for in the law in hundreds of ways. Gay people want the same rights. That's all there is to it. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, incest or bestiality, and it's moronic to claim that it does. Same-sex unions are a very pragmatic issue for virtually everyone who is a victim of the double standard. Example: John meets Jane in France. Immigration law allows her to become a US citizen. Jane meets Joan in France. Immigration law allows for her deportation. Not fair. Very simple. I choose this example because it is a glaring one that affects people today in ALL states. State courts and legislatures can do nothing to address

Quoting Wonderment: We are talking about the unions of monogamous couples, who are already provided for in the law in hundreds of ways.

Enh... some gay couples have open relationships or marriages. Some straight people do to I guess.

Quoting Wonderment: That's all there is to it. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, incest or bestiality, and it's moronic to claim that it does.

The legal arguments being used to constitutionalize same-sex marriage do have something to do with other possible matrimonial arrangements. It is all intertwined. Perhaps not to the laymen, but it is. Better to legalize through the legislature and not the court, in my opinion.

Quoting Lyle: I said that aren't large groups of people advocating for polygamy. I'm not claiming this is an argument that will prevent same sex marriage or should.

Sure didn't sound that way a couple of posts ago.

However, that doesn't mean it is not a legitimate or real argument, or a future legal quandary to worry about.

I'm not worried. Nor is anyone else who is sane. As I said, it's going to take more than your mentioning some court cases to convince me otherwise, even if I believe you about the existence of them.*

There are in fact polygamists who are making the same exact argument and using gay rights success' in court to further their own cause. They have due process just like everyone else and courts will hear them out over time. European countries are also beginning to recognize polyandrous arrangements.

Wonderment's response says it all.

I support same sex marriage rights. However, I think it is better to change the law in the State legislatures or even through a Federal Constitutional amendment. Doing it through the legislative branch avoids the courts and therefore avoids the slippery slope problem.

What this has to

Yeah, I'm happy for the State of New Hampshire, because I support same-sex marriage. What exactly do you think I mean when I say that? If I support same-sex marriage why would I be against what has happened in New Hampshire? Ann Althouse supports gay marriage as much as you do bj. It says something about you that you do not have the integrity or humanity to compliment her or respect her views on the subject. It's pretty awful in fact. You're simply less of a person for it. You also didn't read my first comment very well because I said there aren't many polygamists. That really goes without saying. It doesn't matter how many polygamists or polyandrists there are, it just matters that they exist. They have due process rights just like you do.

How NOT to develop policy I guess that's a no? That's one word for it, I guess

Quoting Lyle: [...]

It's hard to believe someone could be (act?) as obtuse as you and yet say anything about anyone else's reading comprehension, Lial. I blame myself for once again bothering to take your initial comments seriously. I should have guessed they'd be as substance-free as your earlier accusations. Someday I'll learn.

Read first. Think. Then make your argument. It's not my problem your can't handle myself, Althouse, and others who aren't progressives that support same-sex marriage. Your problem.

this is disgraceful. the name "ricci" was not uttered even once when they discussed Sotomayor? what kind of conservtive is this? i know some conservtives and liberals within the ultra-PC yuppie orbit of bh.tv and the ny times probably don't want to be condemned like the brilliant and brave Steve Sailer to a writing career stuck at the equally brilliant vdare.com blog by telling it like it is on the Ricci case, but can someone please stand up for the overwhelming majority of americans (left and right) who find the plight of Ricci outragous and make liberals like Matt Y. squirm by actually challendging them to stand up for there absurd disprate impact/"the test is racist!" convictions and exsplain why Ricci shouldn't get promoted and how the test he took was racist? This guy says that there's nothing really remarkable about her? It's not noteworth that she put race ahead of merit when it comes to selecting who will save you from your bedroom when your house is burning down?
irefighter has gets one of the best scores on the test to

Oh goodness, another grievance peddler with a tale of woe regarding the downtrodden white men of the world.

Oh goodness, another grievance peddler with a tale of woe regarding the downtrodden white men of the world.

Be advised DKSchwartz, when AemJ is bothered by a bit of truth and/or common sense presented here he is apt to ignore substance and project racism onto the speaker. It is illustrative that the result of the Ricci case basically echoes Aem's sentiments. How dare a white man complain about anything? I would love to hear someone ask Sotomayor (or Obama) that if someone professed that a person of one race would make better decisions than a person of another race, should a person stating that opinion automatically be excluded from jury duty. If so, it would be nice if our Supreme Court had standards at least equal to any US court of law. And to the 'poor choice of words' crew, Sotomayor's words were formulated as a refreshing of Justice O'Connor's opinion regarding the ability of both men and women to judge impartially. There was no 'poor choice' about it. She chose her words carefully, allowed them to be published without complaint and let herself be celebrated for saying so by

Quoting Lyle: Of course not, but freedom is freedom. The logic applied by lawyers and judges to the law would be the exact same for polygamy, polyandry or whatever.

You don't need gay marriage to make this argument; you just need marriage. The logic applied by lawyers and judges, by society in general, to support the idea of marriage between a man and a woman is also the "same for polygamy, polyandry, or whatever".

Quoting harkin: Be advised DKSchwartz, when AemJ is bothered by a bit of truth and/or common sense presented here he is apt to ignore substance and project racism onto the speaker.

It is illustrative that the result of the Ricci case basically echoes Aem's sentiments. How dare a white man complain about anything?

I would love to hear someone ask Sotomayor (or Obama) that if someone professed that a person of one race would make better decisions than a person of another race, should a person stating that opinion automatically be excluded from jury duty. If so, it would be nice if our Supreme Court had standards at least equal to any US court of law.

And to the 'poor choice of words' crew, Sotomayor's words were formulated as a refreshing of Justice O'Connor's opinion regarding the ability of both men and women to judge impartially. There was no 'poor choice' about it. She chose her words carefully, allowed them to be published without complaint and let herself be celebrated for saying so by an hispanic organization whose very name celebrates race. That this (her inevitable appointment) is a step back for

I agree and that's been my point, except that traditional marriage in the United States has been historically statutorized by States and was not created through judge made law. It's not a law based on precedent, but on statute. Setting a new legal precedent by constitutionalizing gay marriage will just make it harder to tell polygamists, polyandrists, or whomever that their arrangements are not priviliged too.

I thought it was clear that Matt understood the implications of the 60% number. When he talked about it, he pointed out why it wasn't meaningful (you'd expect a high number of reversals from a set of cases that were taken by the SC for review) and compared it with a 70% reversal rate for cases taken generally. Poulus seemed to not disagree, although by that point they'd moved away from the Sotomayor specific discussion. It was all somewhat in passing, though, and I don't recall if the total number of cases involved (3 of 5 only) was mentioned, so I definitely think your pointing it out is worthwhile. My issue with many of the references to the 60% number (like much of the discussion about Ricci) is that I can't imagine that most of those who claim to be "troubled" by it (assuming a higher quality of conservative commentator, not a Rush or Beck) really are, as they must understand the context. If Poulus (who I generally enjoy reading) is troubled, really, I'd be interested in why.

bill oreilly used to have this on his show every other day back in '03-'04....does that tell you anything? it's made up right wing propaganda. it doesn't matter. you've been duped by alarmist right wing propaganda based on money and the bible. please save yourself and don't be a shill.

The interesting point that was generally agreed on about this in the diavlog was that the slippery slope argument is backward. The reason the constitutional gay marriage is catching on is because society already sees marriage as just an arrangement, a way that people choose to structure their lives for a time. I don't agree that the fact it's often raised by people who make otherwise objectionable arguments means that there's no connection between the legal argument for gay marriage and that for plural marriage. Unless there's a hard focus on the equal protection argument, including a recognition of heightened scrutiny for distinctions based on sexuality (which the state courts have tended to have), then the logic in these cases does apply to polygamy, and I think that's bad. It's not at all surprising that many supporters of gay marriage (which I also am) disagree and say what's wrong with polygamy?, why should we limit how people want to structure their lives? It's not at all a stretch from some of the arguments used for gay marriage and polygamy is reasonably common in human

Something else I wondered about during the diavlog, though (sorry to post so much right away -- breaking the ice, I guess) was Poulos' statement that conservatives would rather go with the civil unions route, if state by state, then gay marriage. Of course, that seems to be factually true, but it seems that conservatives ought to be far more troubled by civil unions than gay marriage, due to the kinds of extensions of that argument made by Matt. Basically, just recognize marriage as a kind of contract or private union entered into by anyone who wants, get rid of civil marriage, and let churches have it or not. This would far more rapidly get rid of any remaining social force that marriage has, and any widespread creation of civil unions as an alternative to marriage seems a major step toward this situation. (This is why I think the conservative position should be that gay marriage is fine, but ought to be passed in the legislatures.)

Quoting dkschwartz: this is disgraceful.

the name "ricci" was not uttered even once when they discussed Sotomayor?

what kind of conservtive is this?

i know some conservtives and liberals within the ultra-PC yuppie orbit of bh.tv and the ny times probably don't want to be condemned like the brilliant and brave Steve Sailer to a writing career stuck at the equally brilliant vdare.com blog ...

Somewhere, Mr. Poe is waggling his eyebrows.

The legality of gay marriage train is on track and is moving at a slow but prosperous speed. I predict that the next time it's on the ballot in my state of California it will pass. The legal mumbo jumbo is whether is should be a state or federal issue is out of my league. Also, the squishy stances taken by both presidents' Clinton and Obamna concerns me little. Both are professioanl pols who can't be trusted on these type of controversial issues. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gay marrige is approved in the majority of states in the next 10 years as it should be. John

Quoting harkin: Be advised DKSchwartz, when AemJ is bothered by a bit of truth and/or common sense presented here he is apt to ignore substance and project racism onto the speaker.

Yeah. He's such a typical white man, isn't he?

Quoting AemJeff: Whinging by members of the class who have ruled in this country for 400 years, after that long period, during which slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, "separate but equal," etc... were the defacto (and often de jure) conditions suffered by those who weren't members of that class, because the legal conditions in this country have been adjusted in an attempt to level the playing field is pathetic and unseemly. Man up and quit crying.

Is racial equality a goal in itself for you? For me, it is not. I do not care if different races are represented equally in some job. If blacks are overrepresented in sports because they are more likely to carry the ACTN3 gene, so be it. I have no urge to try and alter regulations to give the other ethnicities higher representation in sports. Envioremental factors did not keep someone from being good at whatever sport, and that is good enough for me. I do not care if some ethnicity is underepresented in some job, if race X doesn't bear as many professional mathematicions as race Y, that does not bother me. These reasons are why regulations that take into account someone's race/gender seem so stupid

Quoting bkjazfan: The legality of gay marriage train is on track and is moving at a slow but prosperous speed.

Interesting choice of adjective. I like.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Is racial equality a goal in itself for you?

For me, it is not. I do not care if different races are represented equally in some job. If blacks are overrepresented in sports because they are more likely to carry the ACTN3 gene, so be it. I have no urge to try and alter regulations to give the other ethnicities higher representation in sports. Envioremental factors did not keep someone from being good at whatever sport, and that is good enough for me.

I do not care if some ethnicity is underepresented in some job, if race X doesn't bear as many professional mathematicions as race Y, that does not bother me.

These reasons are why regulations that take into account someone's race/gender seem so stupid to me. They should all ignore that stuff and take into account other more important factors, like economic disparity for one.

The quality of someone's education is not something that should be decided by an accident of birth.

If these things seem stupid to you, then I'm guessing you're pretty young and lack a degree of perspective on how badly nonwhites fared in this country, even relatively

Quoting stephanie: The interesting point that was generally agreed on about this in the diavlog was that the slippery slope argument is backward. The reason the constitutional gay marriage is catching on is because society already sees marriage as just an arrangement, a way that people choose to structure their lives for a time.

That is an interesting point.

I don't agree that the fact it's often raised by people who make otherwise objectionable arguments means that there's no connection between the legal argument for gay marriage and that for plural marriage. Unless there's a hard focus on the equal protection argument, including a recognition of heightened scrutiny for distinctions based on sexuality (which the state courts have tended to have), then the logic in these cases does apply to polygamy, and I think that's bad.

Why? I mean, any reason apart from the stories we've heard of a few cult leaders trying to justify their possession of young women?

It's not at all surprising that many supporters of gay marriage (which I also am) disagree and say what's wrong with polygamy?, why should we limit how people want to

AemJeff wrote: "Whinging by members of the class who have ruled in this country for 400 years, after that long period, during which slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, "separate but equal," etc... were the defacto (and often de jure) conditions suffered by those who weren't members of that class, because the legal conditions in this country have been adjusted in an attempt to level the playing field is pathetic and unseemly. Man up and quit crying." ME TO AemJeff :
are you kidding? "level the playing field"? being judged by your merit and not your race/religion/etc is a "level playing field". to think you could write those words with no idea what a fool you sound like is astonishing.

TO ALL FANS OF LEGALIZED RACISM (THE GOOD KIND OF RACISM THAT ONLY EFFECTS US WRETCHED MARGINAL WHITES LIKE RICCI): All you commenters who are deluded enough to call math test racist, who think it should be illegal for black people to not get high enough scores, who attack people like me that think people should be judged on merit and not race (e.g. Ricci) like to make your obscure mocking jabs at me attacking as if the case of Mr.Ricci is such a joke you don't even need to argue with it. But the fact is that you don't want to engage pro-Ricci arguments cause you are too ashamed to come out and say what support in straight forward langauge, which is as follows: You support putting race before merit when it comes to hiring and promoting the people that will have to save you if your house ever burns down-god forbid. it's that simple and you guys will never say that because you are ashamed and you will ofcourse resort to either 1.ad hominem or 2. going on a tirade about "slavery, jim crowe...." and other things long gone pretending that you're actually making a argument about why Ricci

BETTER SPELLING TO ALL FANS OF LEGALIZED RACISM (THE GOOD KIND OF RACISM THAT ONLY EFFECTS US WRETCHED MARGINAL WHITES LIKE RICCI): All you commenters who are deluded enough to call math tests racist, who think it should be illegal for black people to not get high enough scores on tests, who attack people like me that think people should be judged on merit and not race (e.g. Ricci) like to make your obscure mocking jabs at me. Laughing at me rather than arguing with me as if the case of Mr.Ricci is such a joke you don't even need to argue with it. But the fact is that you don't want to engage pro-Ricci arguments cause you are too ashamed to come out and say-in straight forward langauge- what you support, which is as follows: You support putting race before merit when it comes to hiring and promoting the people that will have to save you if your house ever burns down-god forbid. it's that simple and you guys will never say that because you are too ashamed and you will ofcourse resort to either 1.ad hominem or 2. going on a tirade about "slavery, jim crowe...." and other things long gone pretending that

Quoting dkschwartz: are you kidding? "level the playing field"? being judged by your merit and not your race/religion/etc is a "level playing field".

to think you could write those words with no idea what a fool you sound like is astonishing.

When people with white-sounding names and black-sounding names have equal merit then the white-sounding name gets hired. I guess given that fact and your stated view on a level playing field you must be in favor of some kind government oversight for private enterprise HR. I'm not as far left as you, though, so I think just having the government and government-sponsored universities correct for their racial discrimination is good enough.

I like how a test is proven to be an accurate judge of merit if it shows that black people are inferior. Maybe if a new test gives systemically biased results that the firefighters think is irrelevant to firefighting, it should be legal for them to not adopt that test? I know it's important to have an Aryan firefighting force, but OTOH maybe the people running the show actually have more insight to their situation than retarded partisans desperately groping for something to whine about.

You support putting race before merit when it comes to hiring and promoting the people that will have to save you if your house ever burns down-god forbid.

Nonesense. The point of the decision was that the test did not reflect abilities necessary to be a good firefighter. For example, in jobs that truly require enormous physical strength, no one argues that tests of such strength discriminate against women, and that women should get half the jobs anyway.

Quoting AemJeff: If these things seem stupid to you, then I'm guessing you're pretty young and lack a degree of perspective on how badly nonwhites fared in this country, even relatively recently.

Affirmative Action is the most popular among the youngest generation: So says Zogby We can speculate why it is so. Youth lacking a degree of perspective how the world works would be an obvious answer. I wonder what the more recent polls look like. Everybody's basic sense of fairness seems to be offended when presented with individual cases of discrimination against members of the supposedly privileged group (e.g. Ricci).

Quoting AemJeff: Even still if you look at statistics regarding health, income, etc... across the board, there's still a lot of evidence for the damage done to people.

There are non-white minorities that were discriminated in a relatively recent past for which there is no evidence of any ongoing damage. The same for women; women are doing better than men according to many statistics.

Quoting AemJeff: Regulations take into account race and gender because for hundreds of years race and gender were used to the advantage of one group against all others, often brutally.

So what? That's

Quoting dkschwartz: Laughing at me rather than arguing with me as if the case of Mr.Ricci is such a joke you don't even need to argue with it.

Got it in one. The frenzy with which people like you have seized on this case as though it all by itself explains all the disappointments in your shitty lives is just hilarious.

Quoting dkschwartz: p.s.
and tell me affirmtive action boosters why it would have been a tragedy if Michelle Obama had gone to Wesleyan rather than Princeton?

Because this has so much relevance to the hiring practices of fire fighters? Ah, you're just another racist troll, venting the grievances you'd rather wallow in because it's easier than admitting that you're unable to succeed on your own and that there really isn't anyone else to blame for your sorry-ass lot in life. Nobody here wants to engage you in "debate." Go back to Stormfront or VDARE or wherever it is you usually hang out.

Quoting pampl: I like how a test is proven to be an accurate judge of merit if it shows that black people are inferior. Maybe if a new test gives systemically biased results that the firefighters think is irrelevant to firefighting, it should be legal for them to not adopt that test?

No one made a serious argument that the test was unfair. At least, people you argue with assume the test was fair. You should have been aware of it.

Quoting Wonderment: Nonesense. The point of the decision was that the test did not reflect abilities necessary to be a good firefighter.

That's made up.

Quoting dkschwartz: AemJeff wrote:

"Whinging by members of the class who have ruled in this country for 400 years, after that long period, during which slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, "separate but equal," etc... were the defacto (and often de jure) conditions suffered by those who weren't members of that class, because the legal conditions in this country have been adjusted in an attempt to level the playing field is pathetic and unseemly. Man up and quit crying."

ME TO AemJeff :

are you kidding? "level the playing field"? being judged by your merit and not your race/religion/etc is a "level playing field".

to think you could write those words with no idea what a fool you sound like is astonishing.

My goodness, all that vitriol. Too bad you don't seem to be able to read what's plainly written down in simple words for you. A "level playing field" in the sense that you seem to understand the metaphor would require ignoring the centuries of bias toward a single group, and all the inequities that implies.

Quoting AemJeff: Even now, forty or so years since the Civil Rights Act, it's far better, on the average, to be a white guy, than it is to be anything else

how much of that is due to the Bill gates effect? (i.e bill gates walks into a bar and the average income goes up by $20 billion) Looking back on the history of the white working class or poor in the U.S. is not a very pretty picture either. Its true that the ruling elite has been white men, but you are talking about a couple percent of the population who were exploiting everyone else (including poor, white men) for their own advantage.

Quoting JoeK: Affirmative Action is the most popular among the youngest generation: So says Zogby

We can speculate why it is so. Youth lacking a degree of perspective how the world works would be an obvious answer.

I wonder what the more recent polls look like. Everybody's basic sense of fairness seems to be offended when presented with individual cases of discrimination against members of the supposedly privileged group (e.g. Ricci).

There are non-white minorities that were discriminated in a relatively recent past for which there is no evidence of any ongoing damage. The same for women; women are doing better than men according to many statistics.

So what? That's a non sequitur. Why would society owe anything to the current generation of women just because previous generations were discriminated against? It only matters if there is an ongoing discrimination. The past does not matter. The same is true for ethnic minorities, even if the claim is not as obviously absurd as for women.

The liberal arrogance shows when history is “taken into account” as if it is possible to calculate and counterbalance fairness of the cards people have been dealt

Quoting AemJeff: Whinging by members of the class who have ruled in this country for 400 years,

I am a white man. I am not a member of "the class that has been ruling this country for the last 400 years". I come from the underclass that has been exploited by capitalists - the people in upton sinclair's "the jungle". try reading Howard Zinn if you want to get a perspective on who has been exploited and how in the U.S. over the last 400 years. this "all white men = the elite" idea is so intellectually lazy, i'm stunned that you keep repeating it.

Quoting popcorn_karate: how much of that is due to the Bill gates effect? (i.e bill gates walks into a bar and the average income goes up by $20 billion) Looking back on the history of the white working class or poor in the U.S. is not a very pretty picture either. Its true that the ruling elite has been white men, but you are talking about a couple percent of the population who were exploiting everyone else (including poor, white men) for their own advantage.

It's all true. But whites have been overwhelmingly on the receiving end, and have done much better overall, than any other other group. You didn't get lynched for being white. A poor white guy still got the job if he was competing with a black guy. Etc...

Quoting popcorn_karate: I am a white man. I am not a member of "the class that has been ruling this country for the last 400 years". I come from the underclass that has been exploited by capitalists - the people in upton sinclair's "the jungle". try reading Howard Zinn if you want to get a perspective on who has been exploited and how in the U.S. over the last 400 years.

this "all white men = the elite" idea is so intellectually lazy, i'm stunned that you keep repeating it.

You are a member of that class, by definition, pk. My background is likely similar to yours and I'm ignoring nothing here. Being a member of a class doesn't guarantee that you will be the recipient of whatever benefits tend to come to members of that class, but it does raise the odds considerably in your favor.

Quoting JoeK: No one made a serious argument that the test was unfair. At least, people you argue with assume the test was fair. You should have been aware of it.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I am aware that he assumes the test is fair. I think this assumption is made for bad reasons. I'm not sure why I should care what you think constitutes a "serious argument"

Here is one of dozens of basic explanations of the case you can find if you're interested:

In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven's black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like granting a driver's

Quoting Lyle: Setting a new legal precedent by constitutionalizing gay marriage will just make it harder to tell polygamists, polyandrists, or whomever that their arrangements are not priviliged too.

1) No; it won't. 2) Even if it did, what do you mean by 'harder'? That we'll break a sweat keeping polygamy and polyandry illegal? What actual practical consequence do you fear?

Quoting Lyle: Read first. Think. Then make your argument.

Nice (and by "nice," I mean "hilarious") to see that you've adopted your Mom's writing style. Surprised you didn't say "sharpen up."

I can't believe anybody's debating gay marriage. While we're at it, let's debate whether women should vote and whether or not left-handed people should burn at the stake for being witches. I can't engage on this stuff at all due to the absolute stupidity of it. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Quoting bjkeefe: The frenzy with which people like you have seized on this case as though it all by itself explains all the disappointments in your shitty lives is just hilarious.

Interesting how lefties view supporting Affirmative action as sign of success. The "Cool" liberal kids support preferences and quotas. Only the rednecks and the losers (those without trust funds) support a color-blind society. Sounds like something out of "Stuff White People Like."

Just curious as to why this diavlog was not obviously titled: Matching Glasses Edition?

Quoting rcocean: Interesting how lefties view supporting Affirmative action as sign of success. The "Cool" liberal kids support preferences and quotas.

My mockery of racists like DumKopf Schwartz has nothing to do with my views on Affirmative Action, which, you might recall from past discussions on this very site, are considerably more complicated than you would like to pretend they are. Ditto most people on the left. But keep comforting yourself with simplistic explanations of the sort you learn at Rush Limbaugh's flabby knee. Easier than dealing with the harsh truths of life, isn't it?

Only the rednecks and the losers (those without trust funds) ...

Yeah, that's some real awareness of how life actually works, rc. 'Course the losers with trust funds go by a different name, don't they?

... support a color-blind society.

Yeah, I know all about this "color-blind society" you wingnuts love to talk about. It means, "We'll have no problems as long as we don't have to see any non-white skin."

I think the point was raised in the recent Sci Sat diavlog about Chimps. It was pointed out how exponentially, human population has grown in past whatever hundred years compared to all other species. In light of this, I'm confused as to why "flourishing" is such a concern in regards to promoting marriage. Flourishing seems to be something we have no problem achieving regardless of our matrimonial law. As Bill Hicks said: "Can you calm down a little on your rutting until we figure out the whole food/air deal?!!"

Just curious as to why this diavlog was not obviously titled: Matching Glasses Edition?

Because James bought his in Paris for 800 Euros* and Matt got his on sale at Target for $29.95.*
*Made in the People's Republic of China

No, it's actually how lawyers argue out the law before judges. Please turn your attention to all the lawyer blogs that have addressed the 'slipper slope issue'. Definitely not an 'O'Reilly' kind of discussion. In the triad marriage discussion I link to a Eugene Volokh blog post where he talks about the validity of the 'slipper slope' argument. Even Yglesisas recognizes the legitimacy of the argument.

I think that's the coming mainstream conservative view. I've already seen the likes of Tony Perkins say that civil unions would be acceptable if passed in State legislatures. They know it can't be stopped. The problem is you have so many older voters who just don't and won't ever care for same-sex marriage. They're not really hate mongers, but they're not used to the idea enough. It's just a matter of time before same-sex civil unions and marriage win out. Your equal protection point (I've forgotten some of my constitutional law) has been exactly my point. If same-sex marriage or even traditional marriage, why not polygamy and/or whatever else? Whatever anybody wants to do should all be protected under an equal protection argument.

Yes, it will... and if same sex marriage is constitutionally provided through an equal protection argument, I can definitely see polygamy, polyandry, or some other kind of arrangement being legalized somewhere down the road. Who knows how people will feel about polygamy or polyandry 50 - 100 years from now. I'm not fearful of any of the consequences. I'm a proponent of same-sex marriage. I don't really care if people are polygamists or polyandrists. What I've been saying is that the slippery slope argument is a real argument, i.e., it's not bogus. People who don't want to see polygamy or polyandry legalized have a point that same-sex marriage shouldn't be read into a State Constitution, but provided for through an act by the legislative branch or through a Constitutional amendment.

Quoting Lyle: ... Please turn your attention to all the lawyer blogs that have addressed the 'slipper slope issue'. Definitely not an 'O'Reilly' kind of discussion.

In the triad marriage discussion I link to a Eugene Volokh blog post where he talks about the validity of the 'slipper slope' argument. ...

Are we concerned about bedroom footwear now, too?

Quoting Lyle: Who knows how people will feel about polygamy or polyandry 50 - 100 years from now.

People who don't want to see polygamy or polyandry legalized have a point...

You're arguing against a constitutional amendment protecting gay marriage, because it may lead anti-poly activists to argue that the country may legalize polygamy and polyandry in fifty to a hundred years. I myself am quite ready to accept this outcome as the price of federal legalization of gay marriage. You want to try another one?

....it may lead anti-poly activists to argue that the country may legalize polygamy and polyandry in fifty to a hundred years.

This is a very serious issue! Thanks for alerting us to it. The irrendentist Aztlán Liberation Movement, led by Sonia "I hate white men" Sotomayor, is already plotting for Hispanics to marry 1000 spouses each and bring them across the border legally. This will result in the Reconquista of the Southwest, as prophesied by Mickey Kaus:

The more historically valid the Mexican claim that 'vast portions' of the Southwest constitute their 'homeland,' the more dicey it is to allow such a large chunk of immigration to come from Mexico. True, the fabled 'Reconquista' is hardly a real threat now. But who can guarantee what future generations will think? Irredentism is the source of conflict and killing around the globe. Why should the U.S. be permanently immune? ("Irridentism," Mickey Kaus, Kausfiles , Slate.com , April 8, 2006)

There is a lot of chatter here about the test and while I have not seen the written test or heard the oral questions one can get a sense of it from reading the plaintiffs petition; search for "RESPONDENTS STROVE TO ENSURE" or start around page 18 of the 81 page pdf. For the counter argument see the respondent brief search for "Evidence that the tests were not job-related" or start around page 39 of the 68 page pdf. Or for those anal enough read both and the ruling of the District Court. At that point a real discussion can take place instead of this he said she said bantering of ones favorite opinion makers.

Did you not read what I wrote clearly? A constitutional amendment legalizing gay marriage would only legalize gay marriage. Polygamists and polyandrists would have to get their own amendment passed. The whole "slippery slope" argument has to do with equal protection under the constitution. A constitutional amendment would obviate this argument with regards to same sex marriage. Therefore polygamists and others would have less of an equal protection ground to stand on based on a lack of precedent.

Quoting Lyle: I'm not fearful of any of the consequences. I'm a proponent of same-sex marriage. I don't really care if people are polygamists or polyandrists.

How is my position different from your position again?

Quoting Wonderment: This is a very serious issue! Thanks for alerting us to it.

The irrendentist Aztlán Liberation Movement, led by Sonia "I hate white men" Sotomayor, is already plotting for Hispanics to marry 1000 spouses each and bring them across the border legally. This will result in the Reconquista of the Southwest, as prophesied by Mickey Kaus:

Shhhhhh... don't reveal the plot!

Quoting bjkeefe: I still say that the polygamy issue is a red herring. Do you really think there are that many people looking to get involved in this sort of arrangement on a formal basis?

As the gay rights issue proves, it's not whether a majority are looking for it -- it's whether the state can give a good answer as to why it should be providing unequal treatment in the romantic and religious affairs of its citizens. I've heard people say there's rampant child abuse on polygamist compounds, but that seems to me to be a function of making these people live 'off the grid' more than it's a function of polygamy. Anyway, count me as someone who believes in this particular slippery slope but doesn't find the outcome to be particularly bad. Outlawing polygamy hasn't improved anyone's life as far as I can see. Why not let people make up their own family units?

Quoting piscivorous: There is a lot of chatter here about the test and while I have not seen the written test or heard the oral questions one can get a sense of it from reading the plaintiffs petition; search for "RESPONDENTS STROVE TO ENSURE" or start around page 18 of the 81 page pdf. For the counter argument see the respondent brief search for "Evidence that the tests were not job-related" or start around page 39 of the 68 page pdf. Or for those anal enough read both and the ruling of the District Court. At that point a real discussion can take place instead of this he said she said bantering of ones favorite opinion makers.

Thanks for the links. I'd give a detailed response but it isn't very different from my he said she said bantering so I dunno if there's much interest. I guess I was convinced of the good faith on the part of the test designers, but was also a little surprised that they didn't just fall short of my nebulous subjective criteria for being relevant to firefighting but apparently didn't even meet the CYA legalese criteria the government uses.

bj-- On why oppose polygamy, no unusual reason. Concern about the potential effect on society, unintended consequences. Plus, a belief that the state need not privilege relationships that we see as pernicious, and a concern about the costs thereof. I'm also just reasonably risk-adverse when it comes to unintended consequences. Granted that in many ways these are similar arguments to those who worry about gay marriage, so the question becomes whether I can in good faith differentiate my argument for gay marriage from that for polygamy or do I need to grant some right to polygamy. Naturally, I think so, and I don't think the argument for gay marriage needs for proponents to say that if any kind of marriage is allowed all possible forms must be, absence some proveable, concrete harm. That's the right-wing scare argument, and the answer isn't for liberals to say "yes, you are right, that's how it needs to be," but to acknowledge and address the differences. (Of course, this assumes that you don't buy the more extreme left-wing view that there is no basis to limit the kinds of privileged relationships granted by the state, but most people don't, so it's not

Quoting Lyle: I think that's the coming mainstream conservative view. I've already seen the likes of Tony Perkins say that civil unions would be acceptable if passed in State legislatures. They know it can't be stopped. The problem is you have so many older voters who just don't and won't ever care for same-sex marriage. They're not really hate mongers, but they're not used to the idea enough.

Lyle, but don't you think it's a little inconsistent to oppose gay marriage from a conservative POV (because of the threat to the traditional idea of marriage and straight marriages) and be more open to civil unions, which actually do seem to pose a potential threat that is far more realistic. (When lots of straight people decide they'd rather be civil unioned, analogous to how businesses which have allowed gay partners as a beneficiary of employee benefits typically have also allowed straight employees to designate someone, if not married.) I find it a little weird, that's all. On the EP argument, I tried to set my position out in more detail in another post.

Quoting DoctorMoney: As the gay rights issue proves, it's not whether a majority are looking for it -- it's whether the state can give a good answer as to why it should be providing unequal treatment in the romantic and religious affairs of its citizens.

Agreed, but there has to be some critical mass (including a chunk of the population who aren't gay, or interested in polygamy, as the case may be) to get the issue to the point where it's on the political radar. I just don't think this is the case, at least not right now. That's why I say it's a red herring, or to put it another way, only of interest in a theoretical legal scholar sort of way.

I've heard people say there's rampant child abuse on polygamist compounds, but that seems to me to be a function of making these people live 'off the grid' more than it's a function of polygamy.

Anyway, count me as someone who believes in this particular slippery slope but doesn't find the outcome to be particularly bad. Outlawing polygamy hasn't improved anyone's life as far as I can see. Why not let people make up their own family units?

Agreed.

Quoting stephanie: All that said -- and I'm sorry to write a treatise ...

Not at all. You know more about the legal ramifications than I do, and I was interested to hear about them. I don't have much to add. I'll just note that I agree with you that I don't see the desirability for modifying the Constitution (for or against). I also agree that working through the state legislators is the best way to go, although I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that you go through the courts when you have to because the whole point of protecting civil rights for a minority group is that sometimes the majority of the population is what's denying them. You mentioned a concern about costs, as far as polygamy goes, and that probably does open up a can of worms. How does one define partner benefits, for example? Maybe the way around potentially paying insurance to multiple survivors in the event of the death of a spouse would be to require that a "senior spouse" have been designated? I think another concern would be deciding how to handle children, particularly if the group marriage breaks

Quoting dkschwartz:
But the fact is that you don't want to engage pro-Ricci arguments cause you are too ashamed to come out and say-in straight forward langauge- what you support, which is as follows:

You support putting race before merit when it comes to hiring and promoting the people that will have to save you if your house ever burns down-god forbid.

I suspect you already know this (others have said it), but of course you are twisting the argument. The Second Circuit's opinion in Ricci was not about whether affirmative action should have been applied by the City of New Haven. It was about whether the law, as currently existing, meant that the City of New Haven had to use the results of a particular test as the basis for promotions, even when the City feared that it would be sued for race discrimination if it did. My sympathy is partially with the fire fighters who studied for the test thinking it would be used, but also with the City, who seems screwed whatever it does. I really don't think it would be fair to punish the

Why are you against two people who love each get married just because one is already married? How intolerant.
As for dividing of assets, the legal system handles multiple heirs. Or before allowing the marriage of more than two people, a agreement of the division of the assets must be approved to by all persons.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/201...9:20&out=29:31 Just curious as to whether this area of James' concern only applies to potential SC judges or whether he was equally concerned by Presidents making prime time speeches using incendiary labels like "Axis of Evil."

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/201...9:20&out=29:31

Just curious as to whether this area of James' concern only applies to potential SC judges or whether he was equally concerned by Presidents making prime time speeches using incendiary labels like "Axis of Evil."

I give that a zing. This was a very poor moment for James, and quite disappointing to me. He does not usually write such stupid things. Maybe he, too, should think more carefully before he speaks?

when exactly do we stop affirmtive action? when exactly do people stop saying "we had slavery and jim crowe and blacks are poorer than whites so therefore blacks need to be judged by a lower standarded"? cause my feeling is that liberals will just keep on saying this forever thinking there saints helping the black community when the best thing to be saying today in regard to helping the black community advance is "stop blaming the white man and start taking accountability for yourself" IF YOU SAY THAT THE BIGGEST THING HOLDING THE BLACK COMMUNITY DOWN TODAY IS WHITE RACISM, RATHER THAN BROKEN HOMES AND HIP HOP CULTURE YOU ARE A LIAR OR A FOOL WHO HASN'T SPENT MUCH TIME IN BLACK NEIGBORHOODS.

I think conservatives generally have a losing argument no matter what happens with regards to same-sex marriage or civil unions. They're being forced to contort themselves into different positions because homosexuality is legitimate now and being on the bigoted side is bad politics. Social conservatism isn't even real conservatism, and there are plenty of people in the Republican party who are not same-sex marriage averse and to keep them in the line the Republican party will have to keep shifting itself until it totally supports same-sex marriage or unions. The Democrats haven't gotten behind same-sex marriage completely either, just look at President Obama. He's a homophobe in some peoples' eyes because he doesn't fully support same-sex marriage.

Quoting Lyle: .... just look at President Obama. He's a homophobe in some peoples' eyes because he doesn't fully support same-sex marriage.

No. He is labeled a "homophobe" by lying wingnuts wanking to false equivalencies. That is all.

obviously, we could work out the details but it's because we're afraid we'd be sanctioning the enslavement of women. it's hard to tell how widespread the abuse is because they're so secretive about it and that's why we're skeptical.

Quoting sirfith: Why are you against two people who love each get married just because one is already married? How intolerant.
As for dividing of assets, the legal system handles multiple heirs. Or before allowing the marriage of more than two people, a agreement of the division of the assets must be approved to by all persons.

Don't worry, sirfith. You'll learn how to read one of these years.

Matt starts out with Cheney's remark that people should be able to enter into any mutually agreeable "arrangement" they want. As Matt points out, that case for gay marriage does open itself up to a slippery slope.
James points to a different concept (that of a "union", which does not so clearly open itself up to the slippery slope, but for some reason he assumes (and Matt seems to follow him in assuming) that a union would have to possess all the features of what we are calling "traditional" marriage -- i.e., marriage as we understood it in the 1950s PLUS some kind of religious content which would not be available to the non-religious.
I don't see why the notion of a union has to be so rigidly and religiously defined. Without any sacred mumbo jumbo, the notion of a union looks like a public commitment between two people that they will be "as one." How do you cash out "being as one"? I'd say that it amounts at least to a commitment on the part of each that they
a) identify with each other, as all friends do (identification)
b) give

Another way of looking at it is to recognize that marriage is a ancient pre-democratic institution that is steeped in irrational religious belief and folklore no matter how you look at it. The modern state has been generous enough to accommodate marriages (because they are so widely popular), despite the institution's primitive features. Sort of like accommodating religious people by making everyone wear head coverings. For example, the secular state recognizes as valid the mumbo jumbo of a marriage ceremony (religious vows) no matter how deranged or ridiculous the church may be. A crackpot preacher is suddenly giving magical standing with the Social Security Administration, the Pentagon and every judge in the land. From a democratic point of view, however, the advocates of marriage are the ones who should be on the legal defensive, not those who want to extend its benefits to others. Example: a lesbian couple (Mary and Jane) should not have to mention the word "marriage" in order to apply for and be granted all the benefits a hetero couple has. The question is simply, "Why can Tom bring his friend from Guatemala into the states

Quoting bjkeefe: I give that a zing.

This was a very poor moment for James, and quite disappointing to me. He does not usually write such stupid things. Maybe he, too, should think more carefully before he speaks?

I'd never heard of James Poulos before. He made a poor first impression, what with all the concern trolling.

Quoting claymisher: I'd never heard of James Poulos before. He made a poor first impression, what with all the concern trolling.

It's been awhile, but I used to read PoMoCo regularly. One of those rare finds of someone you don't often agree with, but like to read anyway. I see he's moved since I fell out of the habit. Maybe everything changed!

Quoting dkschwartz: when exactly do we stop affirmtive action?

Congress could stop certain aspects of it now, easily enough, and it's reasonably limited already. Of course, one of the problems is that the term is rarely defined when people discuss it, and it has lots of different applications (i.e., taking extra efforts to seek out a diverse group of applicants for a position or to attract qualified minorities). Your question doesn't really have anything to do with Judge Sotomayor, though.

You're a lying wingnut bj? Cause you've labeld him a homophobe.

Quoting Lyle: I think conservatives generally have a losing argument no matter what happens with regards to same-sex marriage or civil unions. They're being forced to contort themselves into different positions because homosexuality is legitimate now and being on the bigoted side is bad politics.

I agree with you about the political ramifications. However, I think conservatives should stop quibbling about civil unions but not marriage. Civil unions are less of a conservative option, and conservatives have already lost the real battle on marriage for the reasons Poulos stated in the diavlog (about the slippery slope argument being backwards). I've got some sympathy for conservatism as a philosophy, but I'd argue that at this point the most conservative position you can get is just to accept that a few marriages (in the overall scheme of things) will be gay marriages and continue talking up your view of what marriage is (permanent, for children, blah, blah). Creating the category of civil unions is either just a pretense (marriage but we won't call it that) or some alternative category which by existing weakens marriage (being more like shacking up and with

Quoting stephanie: I agree with you about the political ramifications. However, I think conservatives should stop quibbling about civil unions but not marriage. Civil unions are less of a conservative option, and conservatives have already lost the real battle on marriage for the reasons Poulos stated in the diavlog (about the slippery slope argument being backwards).

I've got some sympathy for conservatism as a philosophy, but I'd argue that at this point the most conservative position you can get is just to accept that a few marriages (in the overall scheme of things) will be gay marriages and continue talking up your view of what marriage is (permanent, for children, blah, blah). Creating the category of civil unions is either just a pretense (marriage but we won't call it that) or some alternative category which by existing weakens marriage (being more like shacking up and with even less baggage in terms of supposed to be permanent than marriage has today, creating less of a sense that children should be born in wedlock). Plus, it helps set the stage for Matt's argument that the state should get out of the

Quoting Lyle: You're a lying wingnut bj? Cause you've labeld him a homophobe.

Prove it. Standing by for another iteration of:

Quoting Lyle: bj,

i'm too lazy to do it, but ...

bj, Haha... you made the argument, way back when, that anybody who didn't support gay marriage was a "homophobe". You went on and on about it. Then Wonderment called you out on it, because it also meant that you were calling President Obama and all the Democrats that don't support gay marriage "homophobes". We all know what you said. Haha.

Quoting Lyle: bj,

Haha... you made the argument, way back when, that anybody who didn't support gay marriage was a "homophobe". You went on and on about it. Then Wonderment called you out on it, because it also meant that you were calling President Obama and all the Democrats that don't support gay marriage "homophobes".

We all know what you said. Haha.

Again with your empty assertions. Show us some links, Lial.

Nope... cause you know it and I know it. Memory, ain't it wonderful?

Quoting Lyle: Nope... cause you know it and I know it. Memory, ain't it wonderful?

No, I don't "know" it. What I know is that, once again, you've made a false accusation that you can't back up. Lial.

Quoting Lyle: Social conservatism is a relatively new phenomenon, I think. America has had several different religous awakenings, but not one as political as the religious right movement has been over the last 30-40 years. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat and an evangelical too.

I don't think social conservatism needs to be equated with evangelicalism (and agree it would not have been until recently). But it's been part of what went under the states rights umbrella, as well as the opposition to activist judges and all such rhetoric. If conservatism means anything, it gives some pride of place to tradition. The modern conservative movement would not have occurred without social conservatism. I think this fits better over in the discussion over Matt Lewis' recent comments, though, so I'll post something in that thread on it.

Quoting stephanie: I don't think social conservatism needs to be equated with evangelicalism (and agree it would not have been until recently). But it's been part of what went under the states rights umbrella, as well as the opposition to activist judges and all such rhetoric. If conservatism means anything, it gives some pride of place to tradition. The modern conservative movement would not have occurred without social conservatism.

I think this fits better over in the discussion over Matt Lewis' recent comments, though, so I'll post something in that thread on it.

You might very well be right. I'm not a serious student of political philosophy, however. How far back in U.S. history are we talking about though?

Not far, as the parties have morphed so much I don't think it makes sense to go back too far. I'm thinking the success of the current-day Republicans, from Nixon's win on. The conservative side has had important elements of social conservatism in it. I asked a question in the other thread (Brian Beutler/Matt Lewis) which I'm hoping will lead to a discussion about what "conservative" means.