When politicians support Davis in defying the U.S. Supreme Court, they are making it clear why they should never be elected to any office, let alone the Presidency of the United States where they would take the oath to “support and defend the Constitution” since they are emphatically telling America that they wouldn’t support and defend it. They have announced that if you sincerely disagree with the Constitution, feel free to ignore it. And not just ignore it, make sure to use your position so that others are barred from following it.

And here I thought Kareem was just a great airline pilot.

h/t to Martin Ralya for the link.

http://time.com/4024556/kareem-abdul-jabbar-kim-davis/?xid=gplusshare

26 thoughts on “When politicians support Davis in defying the U.S. Supreme Court, they are making it clear why they should never be…

  1. Though she tries to fashion herself as a modern-day civil rights leader (her attorney has compared her to Dr. King), she’s no Rosa Parks. Instead, she’s the bus driver maintaining the status quo of injustice while forcing all the passengers to go where she takes them, not where they want to go.

  2. Though she tries to fashion herself as a modern-day civil rights leader (her attorney has compared her to Dr. King), she’s no Rosa Parks. Instead, she’s the bus driver maintaining the status quo of injustice while forcing all the passengers to go where she takes them, not where they want to go.]]>

  3. 100% agree.

    However, it should be noted (in the spirit of shoes and other feet) that this is the exact same conclusion one should draw of any President who supports gun control by any means other than a constitutional amendment.

  4. Sure. Not interested in that. But I think it’s important to realize the argument is the same both ways. Especially with an issue that is so ideologically delineated.

    One can’t* really stand firm on constitutional grounds for the one, unless one also stands equally firm for the other.

    *although many will try.

  5. While I don’t agree with her stance, in a more general sense I wonder if Liberals would necessarily have the same reaction to someone refusing to do their government job and follow orders based on what they thought was a moral stance if they agreed with the moral stance.
    For instance, if suddenly the draft were institutionalized because there were not enough soldiers to fight all the wars the politicians want to fight around the world, what would you think should be done with the person at the recruiting office who took the stance that while they were happy to accept volunteers, they were not going to send out or process draft notices to compel boys into military service.
    Because if she is morally wrong, and I do think she is, let us be clear that what she is ultimately doing is taking a stand to refuse to obey what she feels is a morally objectionable if legal order. And as wrong as her morality may be, voting results from state to state indicated that it has been what the majority of Americans believed was right.

  6. Also: many things and ideas have been constitutionally protected in the past and are not any more. 

    I confess this entire line of argument makes me uncomfortable. It’s not like The Constitution isn’t (or should be!) a permanent, unchanging document.

  7. andrew ferris My issue with these kinds of shoe-on-the-other-foot hypotheticals is that they rarely feel morally equivalent to me. E.g., I don’t think your draft example is equivalent; no one is being discriminated against in that scenario.

    Here’s a hypothetical for you: What if Davis was refusing to issue licenses to black people? I mean, that used to happen, right? Is allowing African-Americans to marry legally just a “liberal” issue?

    I don’t think this is about liberals vs. conservatives. This is a human rights issue. Davis isn’t a conservative; she’s a radical extremist.

    But, hey I’m kind of a moral absolutist. Some acts are wrong in my book, full stop.

  8. Mark Delsing Apparently she feels that allowing people of the same sex to marry is somehow violating the human rights of opposite gendered people who have chosen to marry. I am not sure how that connects, but if you have ever listened to them they clearly somehow think and believe that it is true just as much as you think and believe that not allowing any two random adults to make a state contract that joins their property rights and makes them responsible for one another’s debt and the poorer one entitled to half of the richer one’s wealth in case of divorce or all of it in the case of death is a major violation of human rights.
    In fact, all in all there might be a good case to be made that allowing people to get married is allowing them to ignorantly surrender their human rights.

  9. andrew ferris I don’t know that what she feels really matters, because it flies in the face of everything we know about the rational universe. I can believe I can fly all I want, but that isn’t going to save me if I jump off a building.

  10. Mark Delsing And you are just stating your beliefs. Yes, it may fly in the face of everything in your rational universe. On what empirical evidence is your so-called “rational universe” based?
    Remember that the concrete thing you are trying to argue is the ability for two random people to enter into a financial contract with one another and register that contract with the state is specifically a human right and being denied the ability to enter into this financial contract is a violation of that human right.
    So if you were to argue from a truly rational and objective perspective, treating that contract for what it is and not for what emotional attachment you may place upon it, how can one say that refusing to obey an order to register that contract for certain people and not other people based on the moral standards of the majority deserving of imprisonment when you would not support imprisonment for people refusing orders based on refusing orders based on other moral grounds?
    In fact, from a purely rational perspective, in a “rational universe”, I do fear that the whole concept of a “human right” is a difficult thing to approach. There have been humans for a few million years and the vast majority of them never had these entitlements. Certainly they are not even universal across the globe to this day. Would you then redefine those people who did not and currently do not have those rights as something other than human? If not, how can you claim that certain privileges and entitlements that the majority of humanity that has ever lived did not have are things that people are entitled to simply be being human?
    Also understand that these systems of morality for you, for me, for her, for anyone– they are nothing more than big systems based on assertions made to us about what is right and wrong from the time we are born onward, usually attempting best one can to incorporate everything the pers and adults who treat us favorably or seem attractive to us preach and rejecting that which those who treat us unfavorably or seem unattractive to us preach (or that are entirely incompatible with what we had previously been programmed with.)
    When it comes to these moral systems, one doesn’t really have a choice. We have all been programmed by society to see things a certain way and thus our reaction is predetermined before we are ever even presented with a choice. That includes being programmed just how much pressure need be applied to you in order for you to make the choice and perform the action that is against your programmed belief. But next time you are faced with any sort of “difficult decision”, the truth is that if you make that choice immediately or you wait a week to make it, you are almost certain to make the exact same choice because that is precisely what you have been programmed to make. The only exceptions would be if you were to gather more information during that span of time that effectively changed the choice you were confronted with, you were in a compromised mental and emotional state when the choice was presented or if someone who have been programmed to obey makes an appeal in a way you have been programmed to obey makes such an appeal (or, contrarily, a person you have been programmed to reject makes an appeal that you are programmed to reject). But, regardless, people do not actually choose– they simply act as their previous experiences and learned doctrine have determined they will act.
    In the case of this woman, we both disagree with what she has been told is wrong and yet while you would choose to nothing but demonize her, I have to think that her unwillingness to buckle and act against her preprogramming under enormous pressure is worth noting and even admiring as I hope that there are people whose preprogramming I would be more inclined to agree with would display that same sort of constitution.
    And, I realize that however this person is treated for having protested against my beliefs and agenda is going to be indicative of how the person who stands up for my beliefs and agenda is going to be treated. And how they should be treated for performing the same act whether or not their programming is more in line with yours and mine.

  11. your rational universe. On what empirical evidence is your so-called “rational universe” based? Remember that the concrete thing you are trying to argue is the ability for two random people to enter into a financial contract with one another and register that contract with the state is specifically a human right and being denied the ability to enter into this financial contract is a violation of that human right. So if you were to argue from a truly rational and objective perspective, treating that contract for what it is and not for what emotional attachment you may place upon it, how can one say that refusing to obey an order to register that contract for certain people and not other people based on the moral standards of the majority deserving of imprisonment when you would not support imprisonment for people refusing orders based on refusing orders based on other moral grounds? In fact, from a purely rational perspective, in a “rational universe”, I do fear that the whole concept of a “human right” is a difficult thing to approach. There have been humans for a few million years and the vast majority of them never had these entitlements. Certainly they are not even universal across the globe to this day. Would you then redefine those people who did not and currently do not have those rights as something other than human? If not, how can you claim that certain privileges and entitlements that the majority of humanity that has ever lived did not have are things that people are entitled to simply be being human? Also understand that these systems of morality for you, for me, for her, for anyone– they are nothing more than big systems based on assertions made to us about what is right and wrong from the time we are born onward, usually attempting best one can to incorporate everything the pers and adults who treat us favorably or seem attractive to us preach and rejecting that which those who treat us unfavorably or seem unattractive to us preach (or that are entirely incompatible with what we had previously been programmed with.) When it comes to these moral systems, one doesn’t really have a choice. We have all been programmed by society to see things a certain way and thus our reaction is predetermined before we are ever even presented with a choice. That includes being programmed just how much pressure need be applied to you in order for you to make the choice and perform the action that is against your programmed belief. But next time you are faced with any sort of “difficult decision”, the truth is that if you make that choice immediately or you wait a week to make it, you are almost certain to make the exact same choice because that is precisely what you have been programmed to make. The only exceptions would be if you were to gather more information during that span of time that effectively changed the choice you were confronted with, you were in a compromised mental and emotional state when the choice was presented or if someone who have been programmed to obey makes an appeal in a way you have been programmed to obey makes such an appeal (or, contrarily, a person you have been programmed to reject makes an appeal that you are programmed to reject). But, regardless, people do not actually choose– they simply act as their previous experiences and learned doctrine have determined they will act. In the case of this woman, we both disagree with what she has been told is wrong and yet while you would choose to nothing but demonize her, I have to think that her unwillingness to buckle and act against her preprogramming under enormous pressure is worth noting and even admiring as I hope that there are people whose preprogramming I would be more inclined to agree with would display that same sort of constitution. And, I realize that however this person is treated for having protested against my beliefs and agenda is going to be indicative of how the person who stands up for my beliefs and agenda is going to be treated. And how they should be treated for performing the same act whether or not their programming is more in line with yours and mine.]]>

  12. andrew ferris Arguing “Do human rights even exist?” is not going to get you very far with me. It’s meaningless obfuscation.

    There is one rational universe and we all live in it; you drop a rock and it falls to earth, and you get wet when it rains. And when two people get married in New Jersey, it has no effect on total strangers living in Montana.

    And while whether marriage is a fundamental human right may be up for debate, it is a right asserted and acknowledged by the U.S. government. And if you use your elected office to deny that right to someone, then you are committing a crime and you go to jail.

    And if you offer as defense that the Sky Spirit told you to do it, then I am going to ridicule the living fuck out of you.

    Seriously, would you be offering this Philosophy 101 “disappear up our own asses” kind of argument if we were talking about denying licenses to African-Americans? About women being allowed to vote?

  13. fundamental human right may be up for debate, it is a right asserted and acknowledged by the U.S. government. And if you use your elected office to deny that right to someone, then you are committing a crime and you go to jail. And if you offer as defense that the Sky Spirit told you to do it, then I am going to ridicule the living fuck out of you. Seriously, would you be offering this Philosophy 101 “disappear up our own asses” kind of argument if we were talking about denying licenses to African-Americans? About women being allowed to vote?]]>