Seeing as how he has played such a crucial role in undermining the marriage laws in various states, I am curious if the people who were angry at him for Bush-v.-Gore are now willing to forgive him for his supposed treachery in that earlier case. I asked a longtime (20+ yrs) friend of mine who was very angry indeed about Bush-v-Gore, and is now a fervent supporter of "marriage equality", if she was now willing to characterize Kennedy's overall tenure on the Court as something positive, or at least neutral. She paused for a moment and said she would have to think about it. I'm just curious how other liberals feel about him.

(10-07-2014 10:58 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Seeing as how he has played such a crucial role in undermining the marriage laws in various states, I am curious if the people who were angry at him for Bush-v.-Gore are now willing to forgive him for his supposed treachery in that earlier case. I asked a longtime (20+ yrs) friend of mine who was very angry indeed about Bush-v-Gore, and is now a fervent supporter of "marriage equality", if she was now willing to characterize Kennedy's overall tenure on the Court as something positive, or at least neutral. She paused for a moment and said she would have to think about it. I'm just curious how other liberals feel about him.

It's not a question of politics...it's a question of legality, constitutionality, and jurisprudence.

the court has not undermined anything, it simply exercised it's authority.

(10-08-2014 12:33 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 10:58 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Seeing as how he has played such a crucial role in undermining the marriage laws in various states, I am curious if the people who were angry at him for Bush-v.-Gore are now willing to forgive him for his supposed treachery in that earlier case. I asked a longtime (20+ yrs) friend of mine who was very angry indeed about Bush-v-Gore, and is now a fervent supporter of "marriage equality", if she was now willing to characterize Kennedy's overall tenure on the Court as something positive, or at least neutral. She paused for a moment and said she would have to think about it. I'm just curious how other liberals feel about him.

It's not a question of politics...it's a question of legality, constitutionality, and jurisprudence.

the court has not undermined anything, it simply exercised it's authority.

Exercised its Authority? The only thing the court is supposed to do is interpret law. Not "exercise authority" by legislating law. They don't have that authority.

And as far as who/what has authority-- someone only has authority when it is recognized by others. Voluntarily or forcefully, authority is only as good as those who are decide (by themselves or by others) to submit to it.

Interpreting law is exercising their authority...damn

(10-08-2014 05:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Interpreting law is exercising their authority...damn

I just said that. Did you not read? Maybe you thought it went beyond this?

(10-08-2014 05:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 05:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Interpreting law is exercising their authority...damn

I just said that. Did you not read? Maybe you thought it went beyond this?

That's what I just said... Try and keep up.