Male Bag: ‘Puter’s Juvenile Puns, Gratuitous Gay Pride Pictures Are Relevant For Once!
 |
| These are either the ugliest lesbians ‘Puter’s ever seen or Czar and Dat Ho are trolling for sailors during Fleet Week again. Better make sure Czar hasn’t drunk his bail fund. |
‘Puter received this missive from Island Dweller (by way of Czar who never misses the opportunity to shirk, unlike Johnnie-too-good), cleverly scrawled on individual kernels of corn affixed to a preschooler’s Thanksgiving turkey collage project. ‘Puter did wonder why Island Dweller decided on a Thanksgiving theme in early July, but the corn was yummy, so he let it ride.
Island Dweller writes:
I have not had the (dubious) pleasure of reading the complete decision of SCOTUS re: homosexual marriage [United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) — ‘Puter], but the writing of the dissenting opinion by Justice Alito mentions some language allowed into the written opinion of the majority that, at the least, could be considered inflammatory if not downright dangerous.
Here’s a sample:
“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition
There’s more:
“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.”
“In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.”
I’m wondering why this language regarding opposition to this measure was allowed into the majority written opinion to begin with; but with that done, it somehow gives its use by proponents of this measure – and everything coming down the twisted pike behind it – the air of legitimacy, since it was allowed into the SCOTUS majority opinion. And, rest assured, quoted it will be. Can you give me one good reason why such inflammatory language was allowed to make its way into the majority opinion, rather than a simple statement regarding a reasoned difference of opinion between two sides over this matter? I realize repeated shrill hyperbole is a tactic frequently and effectively used by advocates for the causes of the minority who came out on top in this opinion; but does SCOTUS have to give this language some sort of legitimacy by including it in its written majority opinion?
Island Dweller
Well, Island Dweller, you wrote to Czar but you get ‘Puter instead. Partly because Czar’s a lazy, angry, frequently incontinent drunk, but mostly because ‘Puter actually is schooled in the insanity that masquerades as law.
Nice work, loyal minion! Your question is a good one, thoughtful and thought provoking. ‘Puter read and re-read your question a couple of times to make certain he understood it. ‘Puter thinks you’re getting at two different issues: (1) why did the majority behave like uncouth asshats instead of being gracious in victory; and (2) what precedential effect will the inflammatory language have on marriage jurisprudence going forward. Here goes.
The majority behaved like uncouth asshats because there’s no there there in the majority’s Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment) argument and also because a supermajority of the majority frequently behave like uncouth asshats.
There is, strictly speaking, no Equal Protection guarantee applicable to the federal government. However, the Warren court in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) found emanating from the penumbras of the Fifth Amendment an Equal Protection Clause in some ways similar to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but in some important ways very different, mostly because the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause doesn’t exist.
You cite to Justice Alito’s dissent (it’s at the end of the Windsor link, supra) regarding the majority’s temper tantrum, and Justice Alito’s dissent also shows us why the majority threw a temper tantrum.
The Court has sometimes found the Due Process Clauses to have a substantive component that guarantees liberties beyond the absence of physical restraint. And the Court’s holding that “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” ante, at 25, suggests that substantive due process may partially underlie the Court’s decision today. But it is well established that any “substantive” component to the Due Process Clause protects only “those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” Washingtonv. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720–721 (1997); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934) (referring to fundamental rights as those that are so “rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”), as well as “ ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’ ” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325–326 (1937)).
Justice Alito then proceeds to run the substantive due process analysis that the Court’s majority should have run were it to rely on substantive due process analysis as the basis of its decision., determining that there is no “right to same sex marriage … deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” which pretty much ends any substantive due process argument right there.
The only discussion of “this Nation’s history and tradition” in the majority opinion relates to states’ role in defining marriage. The majority does not argue there’s a great, big, rainbow-tastic tradition of gay marriage in the world, much less in the United States, because it cannot make the argument. Up until 2003, in the immortal words of that asinine 1980s Metro commercial, there was no such thing of gay marriage (a/k/a “Super Car”). Hence, the blustering, sputtering, ad hominem and incoherent majority opinion.
As the legal maxim goes, “When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.” And, boy howdy did the majority pound the table.
As for precedential value, ‘Puter’s view is that the majority’s holding is so flawed as to be exceptionally limited. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent goes to great lengths to show the painfully limited nature of the majority’s holding, damning the majority opinion’s precedential value with the majority’s own words, as slightly edited by Chief Justice Roberts:
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages — referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized as a result of the local community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.
Chief Justice Roberts then concludes that “the majority goes off course … but it is undeniable that its judgment is based solely on federalism.” That is, any thought gay marriage advocates may harbor that the Court’s majority has announced a rule of general applicability is sadly mistaken. At best, gay marriage advocates can hope that the Court continues down the federalism path until such time as gay marriage becomes acceptable in all 50 states.
So, there you have it, good and faithful Island Dweller. An answer to your question. Hopefully, ‘Puter got somewhere close to answering your question(s). If not, too bad. ‘Puter’s tired, cranky and in dire need of a vodka-rocks-olives.
Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.
’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.
The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.
His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.
He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.
Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.
‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.