TorgoX writes to criticize people who are reacting against evolution teaching. I can criticize them well too, but really, what's the point? The reason they react is because for so long they've had people criticizing their views. This is what happens: they push back.
For years, instead of saying, we don't know what happened, yes, there are many ways to reconcile the Genesis account with evolution and even the theory of natural selection, the establishment has instead ridiculed them backward-thinking crazy creationists. And guess what? Now they're pushing back.
That's how it works.
It's like the proposed gay marriage amendments to state constitutions we saw in November, all of which passed. People got tired of the courts pushing them around, so they voted for a bad law.
Same thing happened with the election primary here in WA. The courts -- rightfully, but no matter -- threw out the blanket primary, and instituted a primary in which you could only vote for the candidates of a single party, not pick and choose candidates. You know, like every other state, the point being that *parties* have a Constitutional right to pick their own candidate, and if you don't identify with the party, you have no business picking their candidate for them.
Well, the people didn't like being pushed around, so they pushed back, and voted for an initiative which results in LESS choice for the voter. Basically, it restores the blanket primary, and then the top two candidates, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election. This destroys choice in the general election (they say it is "better" choice), but at least they get to vote for multiple parties' candidates in the far less meaningful primary!
Except that the two major parties will exercise *their* right to hold a nominating convention, meaning that there will only be one candidate from each party on the primary, which gives the voters far less choice than any of them have ever had.
Now, you can argue that it is the right thing to have courts enforce gay marriage against the will of the people as expressed by their legislatures. And you can argue it is the right thing to say that creationism is stupid. And I can argue it is the right thing to abolish the blanket primary. But to bitch about the people when they react to your dissing them is just stupid. When you push at someone's views, realize that they might react negatively, and deal with it. Bashing them for it just makes them push back even more.
I could also note that in all of these cases, it's the use of the courts that causes most of the problem: the courts tell us we have to have gay marriage, or can't have creationism, or can't have a blanket primary. The voice of the people is ignored. The courts take over. People don't like it. Again, maybe the answer is "so what, it's the right thing." But bashing the people won't make matters any better; it probably won't even make you feel better about it, except briefly.
By this argument, a classic example of the courts "pushing the people around" would be Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling that overthrew the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine was wildly unpopular, proved a catalyst for a lot of violence, but eventually led to a greater inclusion of non-white people in society. Are you suggesting the ruling was a bad thing or that the courts should not be involved?
You've chosen deliberately loaded words such as "People got tired of the courts pushing them around", "it's the use of the courts that causes most of the problem" and "the courts take over." Now I agree there is a lot of belittling of people for their beliefs, but I'm not quite certain what you're actually getting at here. You say pretty strong things about the courts, but I don't see a proposed solution to the "problem" (which I put in quotes because I'm not sure what problem you're trying to shed light on.)
Re:Loves me that judicial activism
chromatic on 2005-03-30T18:52:29
It's a problem when the courts are wrong. You say Brown v. Board of Education, I say Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Re:Loves me that judicial activism
pudge on 2005-03-30T18:54:38
Are you suggesting the ruling was a bad thing or that the courts should not be involved?
I think you're misunderstanding me. The third example I gave is one where I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling of the court, even though it overturned the expressed will of the people and was wildly unpopular.
I was not making an argument that courts should not get involved. I was saying it seems silly to attack people for reacting to it when they do.
Last night I went to a "town hall" meeting with the chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. He said absolutely, they plan to go ahead with a nominating convention if the blanket primary stands. Someone in the audience said, but this will anger people. One answer to that is, well, the Democrats will do the same thing, so at least it won't disproportinately hurt the Republicans. But the other answer is: sometimes people won't like it when you do the right thing, and there's not much you can do about it. You can try to educate them (this is a complex subject), but in the end, people will make up their own minds, and it's just not reasonable to attack them for reacting to a perceived threat, especially when we're the ones who pushed that threat on them in the first place.
Who is right or wrong is irrelevant at this level of what I am talking about. People will react, and you need to find a way to deal with it, and attacking them back only makes it worse.
I personally think that many of the states -- I don't know them all well -- whose courts have ruled that gay marriage must be allowed because of the Constitution are completely off-base. And I think the federal courts have little business getting involved in local school curriculum. But all that said, I am not talking about who is right and wrong, just about the fact that people will react.
The courts only make such rulings because the people who bring such cases to court are pushing back themselves: against being told they can't marry if they are gay, or that their children must be taught creationism even if they regard creationism as mythological claptrap, or, presumably something to do with the blanket primary.
Courts never create situations. They don't decide on their own to make an arbitrary ruling. They have a responsibility to rule upon cases that are brought before them because the parties involved could not resolve their differences on their own.
Re:I pushed back to see if you pushed back...
pudge on 2005-03-30T20:07:26
The courts only make such rulings because the people who bring such cases to court are pushing back themselves: against being told they can't marry if they are gay, or that their children must be taught creationism even if they regard creationism as mythological claptrap, or, presumably something to do with the blanket primary.
Sure. The courts is where grievances are aired, and the courts attempt to resolve them one way or another. That's a given.
Courts never create situations. They don't decide on their own to make an arbitrary ruling. They have a responsibility to rule upon cases that are brought before them because the parties involved could not resolve their differences on their own.
That's not true. Courts -- especially the Supreme Court, which is involved in all three of these disputes in one way or another -- refuse to hear cases all the time.
Re:I pushed back to see if you pushed back...
jmm on 2005-03-30T21:17:27
If supreme court refuses to hear a case it is simply stating that the lower court has already heard the case adequately, that a court has already accepted and fulfilled the responsibility of ruling upon the case. There is no inherent right to keep having additional courts hear the same case. (You can have your day in court, but the supreme court gets to decide whether you can have *another* day in court.) I was referring to the court system in general, not to specific courts in particular.Re:I pushed back to see if you pushed back...
pudge on 2005-03-30T21:29:20
I was referring to the court system in general
The Supreme Court has some limited original jurisdiction, explicitly noted in the Constitution. Most cases it hears on appeal, but not all. And the court can refuse to hear those cases, if it chooses.
Regardless, most any court can refuse to hear a case if it thinks it lacks merit. Filing a lawsuit does not grant you the right to have your case heard.
Re:I pushed back to see if you pushed back...
jmm on 2005-03-30T22:43:24
OK, I'll let you partly off the hook there. The counter argument, only partly a quibble, is that a court can't claim a case lacks merit until it has heard enough details to make that decision; that in itself can be called "hearing" the case. If a court declares a case to be without merit, and an appeal to a higher court decided that the case really did have merit, the judge of the lower court would be seriously embarassed professionally (and the higher court would send the case back to the lower court to be heard properly). So, there is a right to have a case heard to the extent necessary to rule on the case, but not necessarily to the full extent of legally "hearing" the case (i.e. completing a full trial) that the participants might like.Re:I pushed back to see if you pushed back...
pudge on 2005-03-30T22:59:03
a court can't claim a case lacks merit until it has heard enough details to make that decision
That is usually what happens, but it is not entirely true. Sometimes the court will throw it out if an appelant has a history of abuse of the system, without so much as a hearing. Of course, that's rare.
that in itself can be called "hearing" the case
A pretrial hearing, yes. But such a hearing is usually distinct from "hearing" the case.
Anyway, this is way off the topic from the original post.:-)
