Justice Ginsburg's Curious Dual-Stance on Voters' Rights

[Silhouette]

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC you have the right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to exchange your votefor the right to have the government force me to make you happy.

.

Laws, customs and cultures [like hispanic/catholic] be damned right? We are talking about behaviors and not all of them have "specially protected rights". Millions of hispanics and blacks feel like I do, that children are not just involved in marriage, they ARE the essence of marriage. That special environment we incentivize for their welfare mainly. Any adults involved are second to that. Always in that order.

That strong belief held by hispanics, blacks and conservative whites in California was systematically stripped away by Ginsburg and her leftie buddies in the Court. I'm just finding it extraordinarily difficult to take her seriously when it comes to Texas' minority cultures wanting to make their voices heard. She epitomizes the far left blind "politically-correct-first-logic-and-consistancy-second" myopia. They cannot even see themselves in their mania. It's like watching Rachael Maddow foam at the mouth about taking away voter rights and then proclaiming with glee how tens of millions of people can no longer regulate the LGBT cult in the various states...which means legal loopholes for them suing adoption agencies there...and polygamists etc. being able to marry alongside them with the majority's hands in shackles!

"Free the slaves and let the vote!" she screeches. Then: "But when they vote it won't count if they do so to preserve their strong beliefs in culture and children!!" What the hell would she or Ginsburg have them vote FOR? Only the right to vote as long as that vote supports gay marriage in spite of their deeply held beliefs and culture and reasonable fears for children? [want me to post the gay pride parade pictures again?]..

Ginsburg's dissent is embarassing hypocrisy. She doesn't even understand why people vote. She wants the right to strip the power of their vote without any deliberation in her own Court even. At least the Supremes sat on the Texas case. They ignored the pleas of registered voters and their advocates from 32 states as to Ginsburg et al's pet cause that the majority doesn't want. She lifts her skirt a little and her fascism shows quite plainly just under the frilly hem.

 

[Syriusly]

And which rights are dominant, children's rights to safety or adults rights to unfettered access to them?

I pick children. And so do large numbers of blacks and hispanics.

We have laws to protect children. Laws to protect children's rights. Adults do not have 'unfettered access' to children.

But we don't have laws intended to discriminate against minorities using children as the excuse.

Therefore- whether the bigots want to claim its Blacks or Jews or Homosexuals or Chinese or Muslims or Catholics that are a danger to children- we don't pass laws criminalizing those minorities just because some idiot calls out "Protect the Children"- and if laws are passed that are clearly discriminatory- and don't protect children- they get slapped down by the courts.

Voters don't get to decide to illegally discriminate against minorities. Not in the U.S. at least.

 

[Syriusly]

It was NEVER intended that Americans would acquire rights by voting.

In a CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC the rights to life, property , Liberty and to pursue happiness are secured by the document.

In an ARISTOCRACY OF PULL, ie, a democracy, people acquire rights through gangsterism, majority rule, etc.

Rights as to behaviors? Behaviors repugnant to the majority? Why do we have penal and civil codes then? Are they not limiting people's liberties? .

As I have pointed out before- religion is a behavior- and one often repugnant to the majority- look at both Jews and Mormons to see minorities that were at one time both persecuted and despised by the majority.

But you will say- those are religions- and protected by the Constitution.

Yes they are- and religion is a behavior- therefore behavior can be protected under the Constitution.

The majority does not have a 'right' to discriminate against a minority- just because they disapprove of their behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC you have the right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to exchange your votefor the right to have the government force me to make you happy.

.

Laws, customs and cultures [like hispanic/catholic] be damned right? We are talking about behaviors and not all of them have "specially protected rights". Millions of hispanics and blacks feel like I do, .

I doubt any hispanic or black feels like you do.

About anything.

This thread just demonstrates once again that your anti-homosexual zealotry is exceeded only by your ignorance of the law.

 

[Silhouette]

...Therefore- whether the bigots want to claim its Blacks or Jews or Homosexuals or Chinese or Muslims or Catholics that are a danger to children- we don't pass laws criminalizing those minorities just because some idiot calls out "Protect the Children"- and if laws are passed that are clearly discriminatory- and don't protect children- they get slapped down by the courts.

Voters don't get to decide to illegally discriminate against minorities. Not in the U.S. at least.

Gays are not a race of people. So you cannot compare "blacks or chinese" to them.

Gays are not a religion [officially, yet] so you cannot compare muslims, catholics or jews to them.

Gays are a deviant sex CULTure. As such they do not have special federal protection to get at children through the legal-loophole of marriage. It would be discriminatory to tell a pedophile he cannot adopt. Yet we do tell him that don't we? And how do we identify pedophiles? Well, one way would be if they were doing lewd sex acts in front of kids by or on a public thoroughfare.

See, we DO discriminate when it comes to the protection of children. This question will come down to one thing: children's rights to protection from society vs gays wishes to get at them via the loophole of marriage. And you'd think if Ginsburg was so in support of minorities' rights, she'd be willing to accept what they said at the polls with regards to this very important question of their beliefs with respect to the environment society [which they are part of] incentivizes for its children as "married".

I guess the little brown people can only vote when it supports a deviant sex cult accessing children. Otherwise perhaps Ginsburg feels they should just stay home? Or revoke their votes after they're cast. That's not really a person into voters' rights FYI. A vote means someone is not going to be happy at the end of it. We just place our priorities where they belong...who we want happy in the end...children or adults? A pervert or demented person would argue adults at the expense of children. A sane and benevolent person would argue children at the expense of adults.

 

[Syriusly]

...Therefore- whether the bigots want to claim its Blacks or Jews or Homosexuals or Chinese or Muslims or Catholics that are a danger to children- we don't pass laws criminalizing those minorities just because some idiot calls out "Protect the Children"- and if laws are passed that are clearly discriminatory- and don't protect children- they get slapped down by the courts.

Voters don't get to decide to illegally discriminate against minorities. Not in the U.S. at least.

Gays are not a race of people. So you cannot compare "blacks or chinese" to them.

Gays are not a religion [officially, yet] so you cannot compare muslims, catholics or jews to them.

Gays are a deviant sex CULTure.

And that is all they are to you.

Which is why you promote discrimination against Gays.

Just like American bigots used to promote discrimination against Jews and Mormons. And Americans used to promoted discrimination against blacks and Chinese.

Yes- homosexuals are not part of a religious group. Yes homosexuals do not constitute an ethnic group. It doesn't make discrimination and bigotry any more justifiable, or any less Un-American.

..Therefore- whether the bigots want to claim its Blacks or Jews or Homosexuals or Chinese or Muslims or Catholics that are a danger to children- we don't pass laws criminalizing those minorities just because some idiot calls out "Protect the Children"- and if laws are passed that are clearly discriminatory- and don't protect children- they get slapped down by the courts.

Voters don't get to decide to illegally discriminate against minorities. Not in the U.S. at least.

Because in the United States we are all protected by the Constitution and the guarantee of Due Process and equal treatment under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

I guess the little brown people.

And who are these 'little brown people' you so quaintly mention?

 

[Silhouette]

I guess the little brown people.

And who are these 'little brown people' you so quaintly mention?

Oh, I was role-playing Ginsburg, as you know. She believes they only have the right to vote when she agrees with how they're voting. Yet if they don't, watch out. Because she and the liberal reicht in SCOTUS will do all they can to revoke the results of that vote if they disagree with it. It takes a LOT of balls to revoke the cast and spoken Will of tens of millions on a topic of manifest-suspect behaviors ultimately permitted to be around children, when that Will disagrees with your minority personal philosophy.

What do we call that moxy again? Oh, yes, that would be at best "hypocrisy". At worst, tyranny..

 

[Skylar]

Laws, customs and cultures [like hispanic/catholic] be damned right? We are talking about behaviors and not all of them have "specially protected rights". Millions of hispanics and blacks feel like I do, that children are not just involved in marriage, they ARE the essence of marriage. That special environment we incentivize for their welfare mainly. Any adults involved are second to that. Always in that order.

We've been through this. Your 'behaviors aren't protected' nonsense isn't actually a thing. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. And they're all protected. Nixing your entire argument.

You keep making up these nonsense pseudo legal 'rules' that have nothing to do with the law. And then lock-jawing on them as if by recitation alone whatever you imagine magically becomes law.

It doesn't.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I was role-playing Ginsburg, as you know. She believes they only have the right to vote when she agrees with how they're voting.

Says you. And your awkward attempts to pretend that you know what the Supreme Court is thinking have been spectacular failures. Remember all the elaborate motivations, internal monologues and role plays that you imagined for the SCOTUS justices when the Supreme Court granted its stay to Utah? You pretending to be other people doesn't work. And you basing your entire argument on the assumption that you know Ginsberg's heart of hearts is just another exercise in imaginary role playing.

It doesn't actually reveal a thing about Ginsberg. But it tells us a hell of alot about you.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I was role-playing Ginsburg, as you know. She believes they only have the right to vote when she agrees with how they're voting.

Says you. And your awkward attempts to pretend that you know what the Supreme Court is thinking have been spectacular failures. Remember all the elaborate motivations, internal monologues and role plays that you imagined for the SCOTUS justices when the Supreme Court granted its stay to Utah? You pretending to be other people doesn't work. And you basing your entire argument on the assumption that you know Ginsberg's heart of hearts is just another exercise in imaginary role playing.

It doesn't actually reveal a thing about Ginsberg. But it tells us a hell of alot about you.

The key question is does Justice Ginsburg actually support minorities views on things expressed through their vote or not? When you suppress the votes of tens of millions of minorities because they don't line up with your personal philosophy about advancing a neo-cult to "specially protected" federal status, you're not really about the power of their vote are you? I'm assuming that Ginsburg agrees with the philosophy that if a majority of hispanics and blacks cast their vote a certain way on a certain topic very important to the center of their culture, that that vote would be respected?

Especially when the motivation of hispanics and blacks on that certain topic was to protect the children in their discreet communities from manifest-sexual predators displayed in parades in their town?

 

[Skylar]

When you suppress the votes of tens of millions of minorities because they don't line up with your personal philosophy about advancing a neo-cult to "specially protected" federal status, you're not really about the power of their vote are you?

That's not the basis that Ginsburg has given for her decision making. That's the motivation that you've made up, pretending to be Ginsberg. You're stuck in this little circle, where your entire argument is predicated on us accepting that YOU are Justice Ginsberg. That you speak for her. That you know her.

You aren't. You don't. And you've never met her.

You're expressing YOUR views. And then projecting them onto Ginsberg. Just like you did with your utter clusterfuck of a blunder in telling us what the Justices 'really meant' with a stay granted for Utah several weeks back. You didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about then. And you don't now.

The people don't have the right to vote other people's rights away. The people do have the right to vote. You can't recognize the distinction. A rational person could.

 

[Silhouette]

...You're expressing YOUR views. And then projecting them onto Ginsberg.

No, I was depicting Ginsburg's dual stance on her professed support for minorities self-governing and defining key parts of their community with their vote.

 

[Skylar]

No, I was depicting Ginsburg's dual stance on her professed support for minorities self-governing and defining key parts of their community with their vote.

No, you were pretending to be Ginsburg again, telling us what motivates her and why she makes her decisions. And of course you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, once again making up elaborate internal monologues for people you don't know nor have ever met.

As for your 'dual standard', its another imaginary invention of your mind. As the people don't have the right to vote other people's rights away. While the people do have the right to vote.

So much for your 'dual standard'.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I was depicting Ginsburg's dual stance on her professed support for minorities self-governing and defining key parts of their community with their vote.

No, you were pretending to be Ginsburg again, telling us what motivates her and why she makes her decisions. And of course you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, once again making up elaborate internal monologues for people you don't know nor have ever met.

As for your 'dual standard', its another imaginary invention of your mind. As the people don't have the right to vote other people's rights away. While the people do have the right to vote.

So much for your 'dual standard'.

No, I was depicting her dual stance on minority voters. It's OK when they vote her way if they want to vote. But not OK when they don't. EVIDENCED [manifest] by the fact that she was instrumental in suppressing their Will in ....how many states now? 30?

 

[Skylar]

No, I was depicting her dual stance on minority voters.

Nope. As none of the motivations or beliefs you attributed to Ginsburg in her decision making process were hers. They were yours.....which you then awkwardly tried to project onto Ginsburg.

And that dog won't hunt, no matter how hard you try and pretend that you're Justice Ginsburg. You still aren't.

It's OK when they vote her way if they want to vote. But not OK when they don't.

Again, the people don't have the authority to vote away other people's rights. The people do have the right to vote. Equating the two doesn't work.....as they aren't the same.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. As none of the motivations or beliefs you attributed to Ginsburg in her decision making process were hers. They were yours.....which you then awkwardly tried to project onto Ginsburg. .

Was or was not Ginsburg the author of the dissent quoted in the OP. Yes. OK.

Was or was not Ginsburg part of removing the Will of the voters in 30+/- states as to gay marriage? Yes.

Was or was not a large part of the public who voted in, say, Prop 8 in California hispanic/black? Millions? Yes. OK.

Ergo, while Ginsburg professes to fight for the power of minority voters, she simultaneously is stripping that power from tens of millions of minority voters across the US.

Ergo, Ginsburg is a hypocrite.

 

[Contumacious]

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC you have the right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to exchange your votefor the right to have the government force me to make you happy.

.

Laws, customs and cultures [like hispanic/catholic] be damned right? .

You have a right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

I fail to see how homosexualism impinges on any of those rights.

.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Guess what? A sharply disproportionate percentage of the 7 MILLION voters in California who enacted proposition 8's definition of man/woman marriage were also African-American and especially Hispanic. Seems Ginsburg doesn't have a problem stripping minority voters of the power of their vote AFTER they cast it. She just wants to make sure they all can vote so that later she can take the power of their decision away if she disagrees with it personally.

That's not a 'dual standard'. As the citizens of a state don't have the authority to vote away rights. They do have the authority to vote in elections. Texas' law would disenfranchise tens of thousands.......to prevent a form of voter fraud so ludicrously rare that Texas could cite only 2 examples in the last decade.

Disenfranchising 200,000 to prevent 2 cases of voter fraud is some pretty brain dead math. If the goal was election integrity, that is.

Democrats are against voter I'd because it makes it less likely for voter fraud. You go to a casino and every black there has an ID. There is no burden put on blacks to have an ID. Neither for whites or Redskins. The law applies to them too.

 

[Silhouette]

You have a right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

I fail to see how homosexualism impinges on any of those rights.

.

Children also have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's how homosexualism impinges on the rights of others.

This is what will gain legal access by lawsuit-force to adoptable orphans: