The Left Thinks Legally, The Right Thinks Morally?

[Bonnie]

www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/printdp20040921.shtml

within America itself--one must understand the vast diffrences between leftists and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law--both national and international. Law is supreme good. for most on the Left, "Is it legal"? is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.

Take the war in Iraq. the cheif leftist argument against the war--before it began, not later when no WMD's were found--was that without U.N. sanction, attacking Iraq violated international law.

International law thus provides a clear example of the left-right divide. to the left an international action is right if Nations such as China, Russia, France and Syria vote for it, and wrong of they vote against it. To the right and to the religious, and action is good (or bad) irrespective of the votes of the world's nations. They judge it by a code of morality higher than internation law.


Thoughts? Do you find this to be accurate to where you stand philisophically, or are you somewhere in the middle?

 

[DKSuddeth]

I think this is a nearly complete butchering of the ideology of law/morals and who believes in whats right/wrong. All sides, conservative/liberal/independent republican/democrat/libertarian etc..., ultimately use 'law' in their defense of their arguments ESPECIALLY when a large percentage feels differently. Slanting the view of Liberals/'is it legal' and conservative/'is it moral' is nothing more than a propagandized push to further exacerbate the divide and paint the mask of 'evil incarnate' on liberalism.

 

[dmp]

Both 'sides' want to do what is 'just' - the Left just goes about it with the perspective "who am I to say what's 'just' for you?"

 

[Avatar4321]

Since when have the left thought about the law as anything other than something to ignore when it gets in their way?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

More clearly dictated by the left's apparent attempts to "use" the law or even attempt to define the law with broader scope than original intent.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Since when have the right thought about the law as anything other than rules with loopholes when it gets in their way?

 

[007]

Since when have the right thought about the law as anything other than rules with loopholes when it gets in their way?

So then give me an example of a conservative judge that's recently "ruled from the bench" to the degree of outright law breaking, such as the left's judges granting marriage to queers.

 

[DKSuddeth]

So then give me an example of a conservative judge that's recently "ruled from the bench" to the degree of outright law breaking, such as the left's judges granting marriage to queers.

If I'm not mistaken, the judges declared the law unconstitutional. So the states legislatures are remedying that by amending state constitutions, are they not?

your example you ask for could be best answered by doing a google search on justice priscilla owens in texas.

 

[007]

If I'm not mistaken, the judges declared the law unconstitutional. So the states legislatures are remedying that by amending state constitutions, are they not?

your example you ask for could be best answered by doing a google search on justice priscilla owens in texas.

That's my point DK. "Municiple judges" DON'T have the POWER to over step STATE LAW.

Yes states are putting the issue to referendum, but lest we forget, the "liberal" judges that OVER STEPPED THE LAW, and ruled from the bench.

Now again... show me a CONSERVATIVE judge that's done ANYTHING to that degree WRONG.

 

[DKSuddeth]

That's my point DK. "Municiple judges" DON'T have the POWER to over step STATE LAW.

Yes states are putting the issue to referendum, but lest we forget, the "liberal" judges that OVER STEPPED THE LAW, and ruled from the bench.

Now again... show me a CONSERVATIVE judge that's done ANYTHING to that degree WRONG.

so what you're saying is that a handful of 'liberal' judges represent the entire liberal community? Isn't that an extreme motion of generalizing?

 

[Bonnie]

DK it's a lot more than a handful of policy making judges.

 

[dmp]

so what you're saying is that a handful of 'liberal' judges represent the entire liberal community? Isn't that an extreme motion of generalizing?

If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it really make a sound?


Rightly or wrongly, a vocal portion of The Left makes all the noise. Generalizing isn't a bad thing.

 

[DKSuddeth]

DK it's a lot more than a handful of policy making judges.

ok, lets include the very small population of gay/lesbian rights activists and gun control freaks(that might be a large percentage, not sure). Does that still lump the whole group in the pretense of the original article or is it like I said and nothing more than propaganda to paint the ultimate evil on liberals?

 

[DKSuddeth]

If a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it really make a sound?


Rightly or wrongly, a vocal portion of The Left makes all the noise. Generalizing isn't a bad thing.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[007]

ok, lets include the very small population of gay/lesbian rights activists and gun control freaks(that might be a large percentage, not sure). Does that still lump the whole group in the pretense of the original article or is it like I said and nothing more than propaganda to paint the ultimate evil on liberals?

There's really no need to go into all of that. I asked you if you could do one simple thing.

SHOW ME A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE THAT'S *RULED FROM THE BENCH* LIKE LIBERAL JUDGES HAVE.

The point of this whole thread DK, is that liberals make laws, or BREAK laws, to suit themselves, whereas conservatives OBEY laws, and make laws more pertaining to morality.

Isn't the liberal mantra... "if it feels good, do it, and if it's wrong, I don't want to be right"?

 

[DKSuddeth]

There's really no need to go into all of that. I asked you if you could do one simple thing.

SHOW ME A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE THAT'S *RULED FROM THE BENCH* LIKE LIBERAL JUDGES HAVE.

I gave you the name, Here is an example.

On July 23, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to conside rthe nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen To the U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. AAUW opposes the nomination because Owen's record shows her to be an activist judge with a demonstrated hostility to reproductive and civil rights, including plaintiffs' rights and employment discrimination. Throughout Owen's career, she has demonstrated a commitment to the reversal of a number of the rights for which AAUW has fought for more than 50 years. Owen's confirmation is opposed by a number of
organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), National Women's Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Partnership for Women and Families, People for the American Way, and the Feminist Majority.

In almost every reproductive rights case decided by the Texas Supreme Court during her tenure, Owen has sought to restrict a woman's right to chose.

Owen's approach shows a consistently extreme conservative bias, focused most strongly against minors seeking abortions. In her dissent and otheropinions, Owen tried to impose entirely new - and impossibly high - standards for minors seeking abortions even though the Texas law was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision on minors seeking abortion.

Owen is one of the most frequent dissenters of the already very conservative Texas Supreme Court. She has routinely dissented on rulings by the court regarding the rights of employees, including the right to be free from invidious discrimination.

Finally, Owen has repeatedly ruled in favor of big business, medical entities, and employers. Denise Castaneda sued her insurer for not covering her medical costs. A jury awarded her $50,000 in damages, which the trial court tripled under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. When the case reached the Texas Supreme Court, Owen's majority opinion overturned two lower courts, finding insufficient evidence of liability and creating a new defense for insurers to deny claims on pre-existing conditions.

 

[007]

NOTHING pointed out in that article indicates what this judge did was "ILLEGAL". It does however point out that she's a conservative.... so what?

 

[DKSuddeth]

NOTHING pointed out in that article indicates what this judge did was "ILLEGAL". It does however point out that she's a conservative.... so what?

so basically you're saying is that as long as its a conservative judge, any ruling that is done on self principle, according to morals and beliefs you agree with, although not consistent with the states laws is fine by you. Thank you for your partisanship. Show me where the 'liberal' judges made an illegal ruling.

 

[007]

so basically you're saying is that as long as its a conservative judge, any ruling that is done on self principle, according to morals and beliefs you agree with, although not consistent with the states laws is fine by you. Thank you for your partisanship. Show me where the 'liberal' judges made an illegal ruling.

C'mooooooooon DK. Aren't you above games? I *SAID*, that nothing that conservative judge did was illegal, according to what is purported in that article. If it was, I'd condemn it.

"LIBERAL" judges WENT AGAINST THE WRITTEN LAW when they said lo and behold, "we now declare homosexual marriage legal". THEY HAD NO POWER TO DO THAT, AND IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW!!

You're grasping for straws in the dark in this debate DK. You CAN'T SHOW ME where a CONSERVATIVE judge has done ANYTHING of that magnitude, AGAINST THE LAW!

 

[DKSuddeth]

C'mooooooooon DK. Aren't you above games? I *SAID*, that nothing that conservative judge did was illegal, according to what is purported in that article. If it was, I'd condemn it.

"LIBERAL" judges WENT AGAINST THE WRITTEN LAW when they said lo and behold, "we now declare homosexual marriage legal". THEY HAD NO POWER TO DO THAT, AND IT WAS AGAINST THEY LAW!!

You're grasping for straws in the dark in this debate DK. You CAN'T SHOW ME where a CONSERVATIVE judge has done ANYTHING of that magnitude, AGAINST THE LAW!

was the law banning gay marriage ignored or declared illegal and unconstitutional? If it was, then the judges in question did their job. If they ignored the law without declaring it illegal or unconstitutional, then you would have my agreement in saying that they ruled against the law illegally.

Ruling against precedent or trying to rewrite laws from the bench is what you conservatives have called judicial activism, is it not? Then how is what judge owens did any different?