Doubting Marcus

Losing ‘By Definition’

So I’m back and yada yada… How’s the family? That’s good to hear. Anyway… Last night I failed at attempt to mock winning an argument by definition but fortuitously reminds me of a larger problem in our society.

I jokingly said I must be correct because “what we mean when we say X is Y and the the dictionary also says Y about X.” The problem with this style of argumentation is it hides the real dispute and nowhere is this more evident than public discussions of same-sex marriage.

A large section of the opposition has come by saying proponents of same-sex marriage are “redefining marriage” including today by Justice Alito during the SCOTUS hearings on Prop 8. Aside from the historical silliness of attempting to win an argument about marriage by definition, these aren’t, by and large, people who would agree to grant rights to same-sex couples provided we called such unions “schmarriage.” Clearly then the disagreement isn’t really over what the word “marriage” means but what real world changes will occur if same-sex couples are afforded the benefits traditionally reserved for straight couples.

But aside from the specifics of same-sex marriage, attempts to use “by definition” with regard to laws prove too much if successful. If we were to take them seriously this would have also been a legitimate reason to oppose any and all changes to classifications. In the 1920s traditional voting literally meant one man, one vote and in 1850 the same argument could have been used to prevent non-property owners from voting.

Simple rule of thumb: Argue about and for the consequences of changes that will occur in the real world instead of pointing to a dictionary and shouting “A Ha!”

Who’s Feeling Cynical? I Am

When does skeptical become cynical? Right now. The 5-4 Supreme Court decision which upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, is being debated for its political implication but looking solely at the climate around the decision I am left feeling cynical.

Reason for Optimism

On what was one of the most polarizing political issues of our time Chief Justice Roberts decision could be seen as one of one which values law being independent of politics. In a case with immense political baggage Roberts was the lone justice to vote in opposition to the party of the president that appointed him. Whether or not you think he’s right you have to acknowledge this kind of independence is the way the court system is supposed to work.

Reasons for Pessimism

Within minutes of a supreme court decision liberals and conservatives came out to lampoon or support a court decision based on whether or not it serves their purposes. How many of those discussing it know anything about legal precedent and whether or not, structurally speaking, the insurance mandate qualifies as a tax? How many of them even care? Two reactions from people who do have law degrees today still left me pessimistic:

In an interview on the Supreme Court steps Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, without her face falling off, that the ACA being upheld the path to the U.S. becoming Greece. Yes because we all know, whether or not the national debt is increased by the ACA or jobs are gained or lost, that mandated private insurance is going to stop the U.S. from having its own currency and the U.S. will be forced by another country to have steep austerity measures in the middle of a depression. This is the type of non-sequitur that makes “Robocop is riding a unicorn, your argument is invalid” seem like it would be a reasonable debate tactic in our political climate.

Meanwhile President Obama, who opposed the individual mandate during his 2008 campaign for president, just had a celebratory speech which begun by claiming to be not about politics. He then promptly went on to tout the popular provisions of the law which will undoubtedly help him politically. Moreover who doubts if the had ACA had been struck down that same planned speech would have been openly partisan and he would have run against the Supreme Court during the upcoming election?

As a true cynic would say: There may be honor among thieves, but there’s none in politicians.