Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Activist!

WASHINGTON - The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills' value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling upholds a decision by a lower court in 2006. It could force the Treasury Department to redesign its money. Suggested changes have ranged from making bills different sizes to printing them with raised markings.

The U.S. acknowledges that the design hinders blind people but it argued they had adapted _some relied on store clerks for help, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish the bills.
...
The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.
This is directly analogous to the current thread I'm arguing in, about marriage.

"Big Dog" wrote, in part;
My contention is that the federal government may overturn if the issue is clearly enumerated in the federal Constitution but has no jurisdiction on matters that are not clearly enumerated.
And yet he does not demonstrate how marriage laws are not "enumerated" by the 14th ammendment to the US Constitution.

It's pretty simple, and I'm still having a hard time understanding why people can think as he does.

The marriage laws in California made designations about which citizens of California are entitled to the benefits of the law, and which are not. The Equal Protection Clause states;

"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How is it even remotely possible that a rational human being could think that laws that exclude an entire class of people are beyond jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court? He's not arguing what the court's ruling should be.. he's actually arguing that the court should not hear the case at all as they have no jurisdiction.

That is simply amazing.

We all know it's crazy on it's face.. but here's the thing. It's not about the "law". It's not about the Supreme Court, or the form of government we have in the United States. It's all about religion, and the weird condemnation of gay people that are foremost in their minds.

They are revolted by the idea that gay people would share the same institution as they do.. as if it would create an equivalence between their "godly" morality, and the icky icky icky.. ewwwww. homos.

They really do fixate more on gay sex than I do.. as if the only thing keeping them from joining the South Park man-pile is a few scriptures in Leviticus.

Bizarre.

/update

I just read "Big Dog's" original post again.. and I realize I got side-tracked by the nuances of law, when his argument is much more simple.

The court overturned the will of the people. Californians voted not to allow gay marriage. The people of the state voted on a referendum and the people determined they did not want to allow gay marriage and yet, a court has overturned this. The courts are in place to rule on matters of law. By overturning a law voted on by the people, the court overstepped its bounds and went counter to the people’s will.
He got upset with me for my style.. but holy shit.. have you ever heard anything as breath-takingly stupid as that?

He is arguing that if a majority of people in a jurisdiction support a policy, that automatically places it beyond any court in the land.

Imagine what that would have meant for slavery, and civil rights, segregation... Imagine women's rights (just the simple right to vote). Imagine what that would have meant for inter-racial marriage...

Imagine what that would do to the religious freaks if one day, we mustered up enough votes to out-law religion entirely. He sure as fuck would be hoping for a judicial review of that fucking law, don't you think?

The insanity it takes to come to the conclusion that "mob rule" not just should be.. but IS the form of government we have in the United States is the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.

Sorry Big Dog.. I'm really sorry your religious nutbaggery has caused you to lose your mind.. but that is quite simply incredibly stupid.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are assuming I said things that I did not. I do not think mob rule is right. The majority does rule here otherwise Hillary is the nominee.

The law in CA defined marriage and that definition did not include people of the same sex. Many definitions exclude certain groups. The military does not allow females to be in combat and it excludes gays from openly serving. How is it that has stood up to judicial review if you are correct?

There are many things that the majority has decided here. Not all of them were good. The courts are designed to look at things and see if they violate the Constitution. Gays were not denied equal protection of the law because they did not meet the definition.

Maybe 10 year olds can petition to be allowed to drive since age is arbitrary and they are not getting equal protection...

I guess you gay folks always get in a snit when they think they have been wronged. FWIW my religion only plays a part in what I believe. As for laws banning it, that is one that is clearly defined in the US Constitution so good luck with that one.

Anonymous said...

Christians apparently don't like blind people either Tom, if Leviticus is to be believed:

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

I'm sure we could whip up a convincing conspiracy about Christians running the US treasury and making all your bills the same size so they can laugh when blind people pay $20 for milk.

And that's without even addressing how mention of 'God' got on your currency in the first place.

I don't know if you give a shit, but Australia has just about the coolest money in the world. To the point that a lot of smaller countries like it so much they get us to print theirs (customised for them). Google it if you feel inclined.