What a difference One Minute Makes

musicman said:
I don't mean to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I can't let this kind of gross inaccuracy pass. The essence of conservatism is strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution; its principles on the devolution of power (away from central government and to the people) - its clear directives on the separation of powers - its ingenious design, which - when followed - stamps out tyranny wherever it tries to raise its ugly head.

The essense of conservatism is restraint and adherance to precedent.... the concept of stare decisis.

It is liberalism which seeks to circumvent these protections - with language like "living, breathing (read: malleable) Constitution" - with an unbridled lust to create rights and national policies where none, constitutionally, exist - and with a single-minded determination to wrest from the people their right to determine the conduct of their everyday lives.

Actually, there are two schools of thought as regards Constitutional construction. There is the literal or "strict constructionist" (call it "fundamentalist") method so loved by the radical right. And there is the method which has historically been used by the Court... which is that since the founding fathers could not anticipate the problems which would besiege a modern world, the Court looks at the "intent" of the Constitution and it's words. Since the intent of the Constitution is to limit government action and protect individual liberty, the Court articulated the viewpoint, in the '70's, that there is a right of privacy emanating from the Bill of Rights which keeps government from interfering in the individual choices made by citizens. Among the things into which the government was not allowed to insert itself was the choice of a married couple to purchase contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), intermarriage (Loving v. Virginia) and a woman's right to reproductive choice (Roe v Wade). You claim that the right of privacy
"wrest from the people their right to determine the conduct of their everyday lives." Yet it is the evisceration of the right of privacy in favor of the insertion of the right wing religious agenda of extremists which actually does that, despite the claim that strict constructionism and the determination to ignore precedent is somehow "conservative". It isn't... it's radical and it's intended to be so.

What the so-called activist judges are actually attempting to do is rely on the concept of states' rights to deconstruct long-term Constitutional construction and on Federalism when it comes to doing things like preventing individual states from passing legislation that expands freedom such as the manner in which it recently dealt with one state's passage of legislation legalizing marijuana.

This is a practical, working definition of modern judicial activism. "Conservative activist judge" is, then, a contradiction in terms.
.

The assertion that "conservative justices" are not activist is disingenuous. As with most things, it's in the eye of the beholder.

NOW you're getting the idea! Isn't the Constitution wonderful?

It is...in my view, the so-called conservatives are violating it's letter and spirit.
 
jillian said:
Jul. 06, 2005 - 4:18 PM
A New Way to Measure Judges
Steve Lovelady
On the Op-Ed page of the New York Times today, Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder bring some clarity to the murky term "activist judges,"

The term is only "murky", and in need of a "new" definition, to those who are uncomfortable in the glare of its true, generally understood meaning, to wit: the means through which liberalism circumvents that pesky obstacle to its quest for power - representaive constitutional government.

jillian said:
Gewirtz, a Yale law professor, and Golder, a recent graduate of Yale Law School, note that the word "activist" is widely-used -- usually as a rebuke -- but rarely defined. "Often," they note, "it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees." So they came up with their own empirical measurement of the word, as applied to each justice currently on the U.S. Supreme Court.

COOL! Can I come up with my own empirical measurements of words, too? Mine is, "Money: that stuff everybody gives to musicman". I like this game!

jillian said:
Instead of scoring the judges on how often they affirmed or overturned lower court rulings, Gewirtz and Golder asked a different question: "How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?"

Why don't they just ask, "How often has each justice voted to strike down a law that was purple?" It's about as honest, and makes about as much sense.

jillian said:
And kudos to Gewirtz and Golder for coming up with a measure that gives the words "activist judges" more than just emotional content.

Right - it adds pure, agenda-driven fantasy to the mix!
 
musicman said:
The term is only "murky", and in need of a "new" definition, to those who are uncomfortable in the glare of its true, generally understood meaning, to wit: the means through which liberalism circumvents that pesky obstacle to its quest for power - representaive constitutional government.

You simply prefer the meaning assigned by the radical right. If you look at the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor, a true moderate, you'd see that while she doesn't address the particular term, she does rely heavily on precedent and doesn't insert her own political agenda in place of it.

COOL! Can I come up with my own empirical measurements of words, too? Mine is, "Money: that stuff everybody gives to musicman". I like this game!

lol... you can do whatever rocks you. :)

But if one needs to actually assess a situation, rather than just spout platitudes, one has to assign an empiracal value to show how a term bandied about with impunity (e.g., activist judges) is really a propaganda tool.

Why don't they just ask, "How often has each justice voted to strike down a law that was purple?" It's about as honest, and makes about as much sense.

Ummmm.. not really. No laws are purple. Heh!... But the Court is frequently asked to address laws passed by Congress or individual states. Thus, an appropriate measure of activism.

Right - it adds pure, agenda-driven fantasy to the mix!

You don't like the article, huh? :)

Time to get my boy ready for school...

laterz!
 
jillian said:
Actually, there are two schools of thought as regards Constitutional construction. There is the literal or "strict constructionist" (call it "fundamentalist") method so loved by the radical right.

Adherence to the Constitution is radical?
jillian said:
And there is the method which has historically been used by the Court...

I find your use of the term, "historically" very interesting - especially since what you're really talking about is:

jillian said:
...which is that since the founding fathers could not anticipate the problems which would besiege a modern world, the Court looks at the "intent" of the Constitution and it's words. Since the intent of the Constitution is to limit government action and protect individual liberty, the Court articulated the viewpoint, in the '70's,

...the Court's actions since the advent, and in the heyday, of judicial activism, to wit:

that there is a right of privacy emanating from the Bill of Rights which keeps government from interfering in the individual choices made by citizens.

What you actually mean here is, STATE government. But, the entire purpose of the Constitutionally-designed devolution of powers is to keep the federal government out of the everyday affairs of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are supposed to decide these things, through the vote, at the state, community, and - ultimately - individual levels. In Constitution-speak, "the states" = "the people". So when you say:

jillian said:
Among the things into which the government was not allowed to insert itself was the choice of a married couple to purchase contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), intermarriage (Loving v. Virginia) and a woman's right to reproductive choice (Roe v Wade).

...what you're actually admitting is that the PEOPLE forfieted their say in these matters - in favor of the central government - in direct contravention of fundamental constitutional principle - all in the name of some imagined, newly-created right to privacy. This is tyranny; this is judicial activism.

jillian said:
You claim that the right of privacy
"wrest from the people their right to determine the conduct of their everyday lives." Yet it is the evisceration of the right of privacy in favor of the insertion of the right wing religious agenda of extremists which actually does that,


And what agenda is that - the defense of representative government?

jillian said:
What the so-called activist judges are actually attempting to do is rely on the concept of states' rights to deconstruct long-term Constitutional construction and on Federalism when it comes to doing things like preventing individual states from passing legislation that expands freedom such as the manner in which it recently dealt with one state's passage of legislation legalizing marijuana.

Quite frankly, jillian, I'm having a hard time getting a handle on what you're saying here. Sorry. Could you clarify a bit?

jillian said:
The assertion that "conservative justices" are not activist is disingenuous. As with most things, it's in the eye of the beholder

Those Yale law, NYT "beholders" were pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.
 
jillian said:
It's not a common procedure at all and is only done when the mother is in jeopardy, usually because the baby has hydrocephus and can't be delivered. And if it were to be delievered, the hydrocephalus would cause severe brain damage and other horrible conditions.

The big fallacy is that this issue is relevant to Roe v Wade at all. Roe only covers the initial stages of pregnancy.

This is because the abortion rights side ignores the Doe V. Bolton decision that was put out the same day that legalized abortions throughout the pregnancy and struck down most restrictions that could be put on the "procedure".
 
musicman said:
Adherence to the Constitution is radical?

No...using it to limit individual rights and increasing governmental involvement in our personal decisions is....as is ignoring precedent.

I find your use of the term, "historically" very interesting - especially since what you're really talking about is:

...the Court's actions since the advent, and in the heyday, of judicial activism, to wit:

No...it's just that in the 70's, the privacy issues came before the Court due to State efforts to turn back the tides of the 60's and return things to the way they were in the 50's. (e.g., by anti birth control legislation, which wouldn't have been an issue pre-contraception).

What you actually mean here is, STATE government. But, the entire purpose of the Constitutionally-designed devolution of powers is to keep the federal government out of the everyday affairs of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are supposed to decide these things, through the vote, at the state, community, and - ultimately - individual levels. In Constitution-speak, "the states" = "the people". So when you say:

No. The Bill of Rights limits the actions of ANY government, state or Federal, hence why State Constitutions may provide for greater rights than the Federal Constitution, but cannot provide for fewer. It is also why the Civil Rights laws were appropriately applied to the States, despite the outrage of the southern states.

...what you're actually admitting is that the PEOPLE forfieted their say in these matters - in favor of the central government - in direct contravention of fundamental constitutional principle - all in the name of some imagined, newly-created right to privacy. This is tyranny; this is judicial activism.

No..... judicial activism is ignoring precedent and overturning state laws that provide for rights GREATER than those provided by the Constitution. And we prioritized Centralized government over the State when we went from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. And when the South lost the war between the States, the States-rights argument pretty much got resolved once and for all, for better or worse.

My use of the term "historically" is that the constitution, since Marbury v Madison has been interpreted and shaped and precedents set which have been followed by later Courts.

Since Marbury, the Court has exercised the right to determine the Constitutionality of acts of the legislative branch. The right to do that was "found" by an analysis of the intent of the Constitution, not based on it's specific and "exact" words. Ignoring that and saying that the Constitution "means only what it says" makes no sense in that context and, frankly, is a means of Constitutional Construction which has only been adopted fairly recentlyand only by part of the judiciary .

And what agenda is that - the defense of representative government?

No...the interference in individual liberties.


Quite frankly, jillian, I'm having a hard time getting a handle on what you're saying here. Sorry. Could you clarify a bit?

Hope I did above...Apologies...sometimes I 'speak' quickly. :)

Those Yale law, NYT "beholders" were pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.

I don't care how the NYT construes the Constitution, that's not where I get my analyses.

I am, curious, though. This is the second time in a few days where I have seen comments made about Yale. Yale is a pretty conservative place; it's not Berkeley. (And something like 10 generations of the Bush family went there). And, not to criticize...but I'd think folks at Yale Law School have a pretty good idea of what Constitutional scholarship is.
 
Jillian still thinks abortion is about privacy. She believes her own fraudulent frames. No one else buys them, Jill. Abortion is about killing babies.
 
jillian said:
No...using it to limit individual rights and increasing governmental involvement in our personal decisions is....

When the Constitution is allowed to operate as designed, this translates into OUR involvement in our personal decisions. Government = us.

jillian said:
No...it's just that in the 70's, the privacy issues came before the Court due to State efforts to turn back the tides of the 60's and return things to the way they were in the 50's. (e.g., by anti birth control legislation, which wouldn't have been an issue pre-contraception).

No - it's just that, in the '70's, the judiciary went into the "rights creation" business, as a means of insinuating itself into matters expressly forbidden it in the Constitution.

jillian said:
No. The Bill of Rights limits the actions of ANY government, state or Federal, hence why State Constitutions may provide for greater rights than the Federal Constitution, but cannot provide for fewer. It is also why the Civil Rights laws were appropriately applied to the States, despite the outrage of the southern states.

This was a case of the Constitution - specifically Amendment XIV - working as designed; affording Bill of Rights protections to all Americans.

jillian said:
No..... judicial activism is ignoring precedent and overturning state laws that provide for rights GREATER than those provided by the Constitution.

Your interpretation is unique, then - not to say at odds with some sixty years of general understanding.

jillian said:
And we prioritized Centralized government over the State when we went from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. And when the South lost the war between the States, the States-rights argument pretty much got resolved once and for all, for better or worse.

So, what is Amendment X all about? It's irrelevant gibberish? It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

jillian said:
I'd think folks at Yale Law School have a pretty good idea of what Constitutional scholarship is.

You'd sure think so, wouldn't you? But, if nothing else, our op-ed authors demonstrated that even Ivy-Leaguers can fall victim to the allure of presenting horse manure as fact. Ah - the human touch...
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Jillian still thinks abortion is about privacy. She believes her own fraudulent frames. No one else buys them, Jill. Abortion is about killing babies.

It's about a woman deciding her own fate...Not being treated as a mere baby-making machine. And given that some 50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus anyways...the "Pro-Life" arguments are largely irrelevant.
 
Bullypulpit said:
It's about a woman deciding her own fate...Not being treated as a mere baby-making machine. And given that some 50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus anyways...the "Pro-Life" arguments are largely irrelevant.

It's also about killing babies.
 
Bullypulpit said:
It's about a woman deciding her own fate...Not being treated as a mere baby-making machine. And given that some 50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus anyways...the "Pro-Life" arguments are largely irrelevant.


Really? Where do you get those stats?
 
Bullypulpit said:
No...Much as you might wish it were otherwise, it's about terminating a first trimester pregnancy.

Baby...ex utero.

Fetus...in utero.

Fetuses are people too.
 
jillian said:
No...they're fetuses.

People are people AFTER they're born. Would you confer rights of citizenship on someone before they're born? Or does someone get American citizenship by virtue of being born here?

Sure a fetus can have the rights of citizenship. Why not?
 
mom4 said:
Actually, citizenship is also determined by the nationality of the parents.
NOT in the US!

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
mom4 said:
Actually, citizenship is also determined by the nationality of the parents.

Nope. See Kathianne's post, above.

That's why the "illegal immigrant" issue is more complex than just 'getting rid of the illegals'....many of them have had children who were born here and who are citizens. Makes separating families or excluding natural born citizens a bit complicated.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top