Principal Demoted, but not Fired for taunting gays

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not just fired, based on that last line he should be arrested.

[Sbane]

Not just fired, based on that last line he should be arrested.

Or shot execution style at the spot

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not just fired, based on that last line he should be arrested.

Or shot execution style at the spot

     That could work too. Keeps him away from the minors.

[Smash255]

Probably deserves a promotion.

Absolutely sickening.

[??????????]

Probably deserves a promotion.

Absolutely sickening.

Yeah it was...I'm so bad.

[opebo]

Today in Iowa fifty rabbis in charge of supervising the kosher slaughter and processing of meat at Agriprocessors walked off the job.

Hard to imagine that there are fifty rabbis in Iowa!  (or what this has to do with our conversation). 

I don't know, man, I still say that I like Scalia.  I probably disagree with him on gay marriage, gay rights, civil rights, the role of the US Department of Education, you name it.  But I agree with him on the most important issue of all:  the role of the US Constitution.  You and I had this argument before, and I don't care to re-hash it here. But- for the benefit of the unitiated, you genuinely see it--as most Americans do--a fight over nominations to the federal judiciary that hinges on your talking points on issue positions.  I simply don't see it that way.  I see it as a balance between the rights of the people, as enshrined in the US Constitution, versus a totalitarian state.  Sure, maybe I disagree with The People sometimes.  I'd have disagreed with the people of Texas who wrote the law banning abortions, for example, but I'd rather have convinced them to convince their legislature to change the law, rather than making a scapegoat out of Jane Roe--who, incidently, has since changed her mind and has become a mouthpiece for the other side.  I also disagree with those who support capital punishment.  And, in fact, according to polling data, support for capital punishment had been on the wane for many years.  But then the US Federal Judiciary had to go and rule that it wasn't a state's right to use capital punishment in 1967.  So, as a result, the shallow-minded, like you, were happy.  Happy that no one would any longer be executed.  But by 1976 a different Court decided it was okay to execute Gary Gilmore.  And since then we execute people at the drop of a hat.  Make no mistake, I think capital punishment is wrong, and will try to help end it.  But I think that decision in 1967 damaged the cause of those conscientious objectors, just as I think these types of decisions damage my cause.  Just as a federal intrusion into a state education matter damages the cause of gay rights.  When you force values on people they are rejected.  I'll take George Bush out of context for a moment:  "The way to change these things is to change the peoples' hearts and minds."  I may disagree with him on the issue to which he was referring, but I agree with him on the underlying principle, which is that only internalized values stick, but enforced values cause a backlash that usually sets your cause back, in the longrun.  The federal court should not have become involved in this issue, and it would not surprise me if its involvement will set back the cause of gay rights in this country.  That's all I'm saying.  I may not agree with him, but I respect Scalia.  He once said, "you like activism as long as you agree with the activists.  but what will you do when the activists start to make decisions you don't like?  You'll replace them, of course.  and that will work as long as you can get some support on your side.  better still to try to change the laws the way the constitution intended, than by judicial fiat."  He's right.  I'm not saying the principal wasn't a jerk and shouldn't have been fired.  I'm just saying that the situation is not resolved, and that the involvement of the federal judiciary is likely to have exacerbated the problem.

But you and I are saying the same thing, angus - I'm saying that the winners of elections set policy by naming an entirely politicized Supreme Court, and you are saying that one should have a Supreme Court that does nothing to protect individuals or minorities, and allows the People to say who gets what rights.  Thus we are both saying that in fact the majority rules over the rest.

Look at it this way - if I am advocating Judicial Fiat, then that is a reflection of who won the elections and got to post the justices.  How is that any different from your wanting to make gay/minority rights contingent upon the electorally expressed will of the majority, sans any court 'interference'?  Either way the mass of the people, alas, have the power over the poor gays and blacks.

Of course as an aside let me comment that this - 'social issues' - is the only area where said mass is allowed any authority (through 'democracy').  In the important area of economics, only the owning class has any say.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Probably deserves a promotion.

Absolutely sickening.

Ah, now you know how conservatives feel about an Obama presidency

[MasterJedi]

Teacher's unions need to lose most of their power before anything good will come out of the education system.

We'd be able to fire the bad ones and give the good ones more money with merit pay! But oh noes!!! Teacher's shouldn't be paid on how good they teach their students!!111!1

[angus]

'social issues' is the only area where said mass is allowed any authority (through 'democracy').  In the important area of economics, only the owning class has any say.

a rather profound pronouncement.  not sure whether I agree with it, but I'll consider it.

[angus]

Teacher's unions need to lose most of their power before anything good will come out of the education system.

another profound pronouncement, one that I'm sure I agree with.  I guess I'm naive enough to believe that we great unwashed masses do, in theory, have the power to change such things.  Unless opebo is right, you and I can can take that power away legally and peacefully.  Or maybe he is right, and all we can do is whine about it.  I will say that I recently wrote an email message to my (Democrat) state rep, Doris Kelley, about the "fair share" act proposed in Iowa, which would have the effect of turning this into a closed-shop state.  She promptly wrote back to let me know she was one of five democrats who voted with the (minority) Republicans to give them just enough votes to defeat the issue.  That was one of the very few times I have contacted my state rep about anything--I feel very strongly against unions, in general, even to the point that I have gone out of my way to shop in stores to buy things I don't necessarily need on those ocassions when it offered me a chance to walk through a picket line and help support the job of "scabs," which are basically people who need jobs and know they need jobs and aren't trying to game the system.  And that was so many months ago I'd forgotten about it.  Until last week, when some really skinny, really old, balding, white guy came to my door canvassing for Doris Kelley.  I remembered her name immediately.  I'd told Doris in the email that I have actually turned down faculty positions that were otherwise fairly attractive when I found out I'd have to pay union dues, even if I had no interest in joining the union.  That "closed shop" state mentality is very authoritarian.  Scary.  The old man went about explaining to me far more than I knew about the bill, and said there'd have been a better way to do it.  I was fairly impressed.  I told him she'd definitely get my vote.  I consider this, in part, a decent argument against the statement that we working class schmucks don't have any voice in economic policy.