Jesus Wept

[rolanni]

YES ON ONE claims a victory for the "little guy," according to Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.

The rest of the story here. (That's here: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html)

Comments

Re: the people spoke

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The thing about minorities is that, well, they're minorities. Which means majority rule can trample on them any time it wants . . .

Like if you'd put school desegregation to vote in Alabama in the 1950s.

Where did I put my boots?

[muehe.livejournal.com]

You are right; the minorities always get trampled on. I personally believe everyone does it to a degree – the cynic that I am.

By the way, in the case you cited a local majority got themselves stomped by a notional majority. I am sure the good people of Alabama were not too happy about that. After all, a belief is only wrong if the majority feel that it is wrong.

By the way, we just happen to be living in a time of flux for this particular issue. Jump ahead fifty years and only the grey beards will even care. I wonder who will be Rosa Parks? Or, if this issue will be significant enough to merit one?

Re: Where did I put my boots?

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Actually, the school integration thing came from the US Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education.

Re: Where did I put my boots?

[muehe.livejournal.com]

the Supreme Court, is ruled by politics and public opinion.

Re: Where did I put my boots?

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I suspect you weren't around then. The decision was not popular, even in areas where segregated schools weren't mandated by law. I refer you to South Boston, for one example.

"Impeach Earl Warren" became a common bumper sticker.

Re: Where did I put my boots?

[aspidites.livejournal.com]

No, SCOTUS is either applying or interpreting the US Constitution, not bowing to the whims of the people. When interpreting the Constitution, especially in cases the Founders never even considered, they can sometimes stretch it pretty far, but given their lifetime appointments they are free from outside pressure. In the decisions that affect the direction of social law and policy, they seem to be looking at trends in case law and perhaps social mores, but I don't think you could call that "public opinion".

And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and its add-on in 1968) were DEEPLY unpopular with a lot of US citizens, and were passed with much horse-wrangling by LBJ.

Re: Where did I put my boots?

[muehe.livejournal.com]

Before my time and I am not well read in the subject.
As always take my opinions/statements with a grain of salt.

But I have to say.
Social mores is just another way of saying public opinion.

I better shut up on the subject before Sharon bans me.

Brown vs. Board of Education

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I remember almost the exact same language, word for word, as we're hearing now on same-sex marriage. "Activist judges forcing social change down the people's throats." "Judges *making* law."