And can we trace the attempt to medicalize one’s opposition to the bizarre pseudo-psychiatric hit piece in “Fact” magazine about Goldwater? Or is there connection to the similar Soviet practice? Either way, it’s interesting to see a left-wing tactic being brought to bear against the left.

The history of Jim Crow laws is more complicated than that; the vast majority of them were passed by Southern states to stifle democracy and discourage black voters from voting (as well as to encourage racism, which would discourage anyone from protesting these policies). Jim Crow laws were also blatantly unconstitutional, because they violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The federal government — both the Court and the Congress — was thus fully justified in banning segregation and literacy tests.

Same-sex marriage isn’t comparable to segregation or interracial marriage for a number of reasons (there’s no “right to marriage” enumerated in the Constitution; there’s no mass terror campaign directed at homosexuals as there was at black Americans; no one is arresting gays for cohabitating), but there’s a reason for supporting the California court’s decision beyond that. If the national Supreme Court were asked to decide the issue of gay marriage today, there’s a strong possibility — an overwhelming likelihood, in fact — that they’d side against it. Rather than see that happen, I’d prefer to let the people come around to the idea of gay marriage one state at a time.

I’m a staunch supporter of gay marriage, but we’re deluding ourselves if we think we can change society through a judicial deus-ex machina.

It looks like the SCOTUS will reverse Ricci, and probably declare this specific aspect of Title VII as unconstitutional – and good for them. Were nullification in effect, Sotomayor could be held as unnecessarily supporting these aspects. As it is not, the best thing she can do is to interpret the case in light of the law as it currently stands.

Frankly, I’m a huge supporter of the Court and what Tocqueville describes as the “legal aristocracy.” Of all the branches in government, it seems to be the only one that gives a shit about the letter of the law.

Really? They’ve done it before. Whether you like the comparison or not, look at the history of the civil rights movement.

The democratically expressed will of the people was to keep segregation and to fight mixed-marriage. Do you believe the government was wrong to go against the democratically expressed will of the people in those cases? If not, why not?