Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Paul:

I agree to the extent that all judges interpret the Constitution.

I disagree that we need only liberal judges, if that is your intent. I think the court needs to be balanced in viewpoint so we don’t end up with either a theocracy or bedlam.

Paul,

I agree that all Supreme Court Justices interpret the constitution since that is their job after all. I take anything Sunstein says with a grain of salt when it comes to commenting on more conservative justices because of his political viewpoints. I would be curious where he comes up with the back up to the statement, “Justice Thomas would allow states to establish official religions”?

I think your statement,”The issue is whether we want a justice who would tend to restrict our rights or one who would tend to expand them.” shows a partisan spin. All judges restrict rights to some degree with their decisions. The question is where to draw the line on what should be restricted or not. The recent decision regarding emminent domain restricted the rights of one group (Home owners) and expanded the rights of another (government entities). So which judges do you classify as liberal?

I think we need neither an expander nor a reducer. We don’t need balance either, because that’s just the same mistake made in the center. We need wisdom and understanding. We need somebody who gears their decisions towards the real world that will operate by it, whether or not big changes come from that decision.

But I am puzzled how a guy living in the 21st century can know the intentions of someone who lived in 18th century. The Constitution is all we have and nothing was said about intentions.

Wow Paul, it’s a shame that they didn’t write down their ideas and intentions throughout the debating of the writing of the Constitution. Perhaps in some form of ‘papers’, from both the federalists and anit-federalsts, that we could read today and figure out what the original intent of some of the aspects of the Constitution were…

Then we might not be swinging in the dark!

Btw, most everything else I pretty much agreed with, liberals interperet liberally, conservatives interpret conservatively. I wonder where they got those names to begin with because it seems to fit!

“”They would like to interpret the Constitution to strike down affirmative action programs, gun-control legislation, and restrictions on commercial advertising; they also seek to impose severe restrictions on Congress’s powers and to invalidate campaign-finance regulations, environmental regulations, and much else.”“

I like this much of what you say. As far as Justice Thomas allowing states to establish an official religion, I’ve seen nothing to support that idea. and nothing leads me to believe that the government would or could discriminate on the basis of sex or race.

There is a way to change the constitution. It is hard as it should be, but it can be done. We shouldn’t change the original meaning of the constitution based on the vote of the supreme court.

Yes, tomd, you are correct. The Constitution *IS* living document, but living because it can be AMENDENDED through a very strident process, not at the whim of 5 people, no matter how smart they are. Some people don’t like this because their pet cause would be dead in the water if it took an amendment to institute.

The constitution is one of America’s most prized and amazing accomplishments. Our society will always change and grow and have differences of opinion —- but this institution is the last great voice of law in our country. If you took the brilliant gentlemen who created that document and tranported them into the world of today, do you think that documement would change? An ultimate debate question…

We are a society today determined to label everything. Christian or Pagan - Democrat or Republican - Conservative or Liberal - Pro War or Anti War - Pro Choice or Right to Life. You can see a trend in the past several years to this black and white vision from our people, and in the supreme court.

This court has the most fantastic responsibility to be corrupt free. If the people of the United States have no faith in the Supreme Court it would be a disaster for our society.

I agree that you need to have supreme court judges who strictly interperate the constitution. However our great land is populated by every race and religion that exists on the planet. It is the most complex country that has ever existed and prospered on the earth, and you need to have individuals who understand this. You need judges to understand that the job is NOT TO BE A POLITICIAN or a MAVERICK, but to be an interpretor of the law, constitution, and the rights of America’s different people. Your job is not to CHANGE law, unless it is strictly un-constitutional. They should be highly educated by the best schools our country has. They should be spiritual people and have a track record of being honest. They should be on the bench to uphold the constitution at all costs.

Many liberal and conservative judges on the bench today don’t understand this thought. Special interests groups and the white house (under any administration) has influenced this court too many times.

I think John Roberts would be an excellent Supreme court justice and I am a proud Democrat. I don’t agree on all of his decisions or thought processes, buth that goes for every person I have every known. Don’t taint this great body with hate politics —- you need to have wonderful variety of opinions and races in this court, just like America has with its people.

When this court becomes totally conservative or liberal, it will be the slow downward spiral of decline for America.

I think all ours supreme court justices need to protect the constitution period liberal or conservative. I think our founding fathers did a great job and the supreme court or congress should not try to change the meaning. we can no longer pursuit happiness be safe from the government in our on homes. the 4th left with the patriot act. I hope we come to our senses and start demanding more or our rights left a lone

Paul,

“After all isn’t this a liberal democracy?”

Nice spin! Here, and I always thought we were a federal republic. It turns out we’re not sure.

“The United States of America-also referred to as the United States, the USA, the U.S., America, the States (colloquially), and Columbia (poetically)-is a federal republic of 50 states, located primarily in central North America.”

or

“The government of the United States may be accurately categorized as a republic or as a liberal democracy. Specifically, the United States is an example of a representative democracy. There are three levels of government in the United States-federal, state, and local. All of these are freely elected by the American people. Americans enjoy universal suffrage upon reaching the age of 18, however the residents of Washington, D.C.’s representation in Congress is limited.”

Considering who’s being elected lately, I guess Americans didn’t much like being a liberal democracy. But, nice try.

The Constitution is short enough to read on the bus on the way to work. It is meant as a general guide. There are two sources of legitimate law: the Constitution and the will of the people manifest through their elected representatives or in rarer case in a direct vote. Judges should be restrictive because it is not their job to make laws. The Constitution gives that to the legislatures. That is how it works in a democratic system.

If you allow judges to make law expansively, you are effectively creating an oligarchy, where a small number of appointed “wise men” decide what is best for the vast majority who evidently don’t know what is best for them.

Liberals have come to fear the will of the people. Rather than put measures up to the elected legislatures or in some states direct referenda, they seek redress among the oligarchs. An interesting permutation recently is for the oligarchs or individuals among them to prevent or throw out the results of popular referenda as well as laws made by the people’s representatives.

You are right that all judges must interpret the laws. But they should do it conservatively, with a small c. Otherwise they exceed their authority, much like the bureaucrat who decides on his own authority that the state can take your house and give it to someone with more money – oh – sorry – that was the bureaucrat and the liberal judge - quite a dynamic duo.

“Liberals have come to fear the will of the people. Rather than put measures up to the elected legislatures or in some states direct referenda, they seek redress among the oligarchs.”

I totally agree Jack. That happens all too often.
But what happens when the will of the people tramples on individual rights such as gay people not being allowed to marry who they love?

—-
Liberals have come to fear the will of the people. Rather than put measures up to the elected legislatures or in some states direct referenda, they seek redress among the oligarchs. An interesting permutation recently is for the oligarchs or individuals among them to prevent or throw out the results of popular referenda as well as laws made by the people’s representatives.
—-
Please be more specific. Your anti-liberal rants ring hollow.

Rhinehold:

Your “Federalist papers” argument is hardly ironclad, since they overwhelmingly represent the views of just one man: Alexander Hamilton. Anti-federalist viewpoints represent a very small minority of the papers.

Paul:

If you want a point of view that I believe more accurately reflects the way constitutional interpretation should be undertaken, read some of Ronald Dworkin’s works.

To give him a rather cursory treatment, his assertion is that the constitution enshrines certain general principles that can be effectuated via means that demonstrate contemporary understanding of those principles. In fact, that is what all judges do, whether they be liberal or conservative, and whether they admit or not.

But what happens when the will of the people tramples on individual rights such as gay people not being allowed to marry who they love?

We could just lynch em all. That way they won’t pester the judges with difficult questions and they won’t make more gays either.

unkind k:
Great statement regarding Ronald Dworkin. I think you’re on the money there.

Taylor:
Huh? Gays make more gays? Maybe you should go back to grade school health class.

To everyone else:
This is truly a sane, measured debate that I’ve been reading here. Nice to see everyone discussing a hot topic without all of the hate rhetoric (with the exception of the lynching comment).
It appears that everyone wants their supreme court justices to apply the constitution to modern problems; however they may do that.

So the real question we are facing today is whether or not Roberts is his own man, or a lacky of the current administration or the republican party. I don’t think he is either. I believe he’s probably his own man. I might not agree with him on everything, but I don’t believe he’ll apply the constitution unfairly, just to satisfy the conservative perspective.
We should have both “liberal and conservative” justices on the court to bring both sides of any argument to their debate. There have been times when a justice has been swayed by an opposing argument from another justice. If the court roster leans a little to one side or the other, I don’t see any great problem with it. As long as the members do not act strictly out of an ideology, we should be ok.

Being specific

We have court challenges to referenda concerning affirmative action. We have court challenges about overwhelming votes about gay marriage. We have courts ordering states to increase their taxes for schools (as in Kansas) or ordering them to change the way schools are organized (as in New Hampshire). Or how about the grand daddy or all Roe v Wade? The list is too long to go into.

It is not that the goal is always bad. As I have written on many occasions, I support same sex marriage, for example. But the courts have taken over the role of the legislatures and of the people. Presumably we believe in the will of the people. If not, you should say so. Why do you need activist judges if not to overrule the people or the legislatures?

tony,

An activist judge in California shot down a referendum that banned gay marriage.

A federal judge ruled against a “gay marriage” amendment to the Nebraskan constitution.

For none, homosexual related incidents, there’s these:

In New York a judge determined what homeless shelters must provide, since neither the city nor the state did.

There’s also the Schiavo case.

the Ten Commandments

And the ban on partial-birth abortions.

Then there’s the conservative activist judges, like:

This one forbids two divorced parents teaching their child their Wiccan beliefs.

See this article to better understand why activist judges are bad, whether they’re conservatives or liberals.

Jack pointed out that the constitution is a fairly short document. That’s the charm of it. Nobody’s trying to anticipate the whole future of a nation in the space of a few pages. It’s purposefully vague, purposefully short of details. We have judges to interpret the law, and for more than two hundred years, that’s what they’ve done.

Come to Texas if you want a good idea of what a constitution run amok can be like. Hundreds of amendments. Why? Because the legislature fixed it so it would have all the power, so the executive would be weak.

What the Republicans don’t like is what the judges aren’t getting in the way of. They call it judicial activism and legislating from the bench, not because these are terribly overwrought decision, nor because the remedies being suggested are all that detailed or involved, but because those are the kinds of words that provide justifications for conservatives to intrude on state matters, and play judge from the legislative benches. Why? So they can use their power to reverse the shifts in society.

Unfortunately, they are overreaching themselves, and everybody knows it. Some Republicans don’t care, but quite a few have found incidents like Terri Schiavo’s case to be particularly disturbing to their notions of state’s right.

The trouble here is that the courts are not meant to be democratic. They are meant to be consistent, and for good reason: inconsistent interpretation of the law invites disrespect for the law, and truly invites judicial activism and legislation from the bench into the picture.

Is it enough that these people get to advise and consent on judges, do they have to decide their cases for them too?

Stephen,

“Unfortunately, they are overreaching themselves, and everybody knows it.”

Part of the reason Bush got re-elected was so he’d be the one deciding who would be the federal judges (and luckily at least one Supreme Court Justice). You call it overreaching, and yet the Democrats are the ones filibustering.

Steph wrote:
“Part of the reason Bush got re-elected was so he’d be the one deciding who would be the federal judges (and luckily at least one Supreme Court Justice). You call it overreaching, and yet the Democrats are the ones filibustering.”

well steph… the president can appoint anyone he wants to the SC. That is totally within his powers, however, shouldn’t we have the right to review all of the crucial information regarding said appointee?

judges work by interpreting the law over long periods of time. it reflects changing times, differing views and arguements, and it is crucial to know how a judge votes, his or her views of the law, and how his or her decisions reflect upon the general public.

i don’t want an ultra-liberal on the SC. i don’t want an ultra-conservative on the SC… which one is John Roberts? right now there is so much static on both sides, that i just don’t know.

as for filibustering, you know…all i have to say is let us filibuster. he’s going to pass, he’s going to pass with a large margin…so if we want to bitch and moan, let us. hell, we can’t stop you from doing it.

HYPOCRISY WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Democrats complain the loudest about the loss of life in Iraq, but are predictably silent about the number of human beings killed daily through abortion. As a veteran I can tell you it is easy to conclude that the hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them, care more about bashing President Bush than they do about our soldiers who love their Commander-in-Chief. It is a scientific fact that when a “being” exists in the womb, that “being” is human, no matter what the stage of development. If democrats are so concerned about the deaths in Iraq, why aren’t they questioning their Party’s refusal to support a Human Life amendment to our Constitution that would vastly reduce the number of innocent human beings killed through abortions?

Vincent Bemowski

and republicans love killin when it’s not in the womb….

pro death sentence…pro war…pro assassination of foriegn leaders…

you all just love killin so much, we just wanted to help out.

sound outrageous what i just said? (i can hear stephanie typing furiously) ok…now go back and read mr. bemowski’s post.

this is the kind of ranting that does both sides a disservice.

let’s stick to the debate, and avoid the rantings.

Stephanie,

The Schiavo case is an example of Judicial activism? What are you talking about??? The judges on all levels in that case ruled based on the law on the books. They didn’t create new law, and they weren’t activist.

The article you linked to is incredibly biased, so its claims of what is or is not judicial activism are laughable. For example: “Judge Greer, the evil facilitator…” and “judicial homicide” and “quest to have her murdered” and “Greer’s liberal judicial rulings” (Greer’s a Republican) and “Is it possible that a criminal case can be made against Michael Schiavo, Attorney Felos, and Judge Greer for ‘conspiracy to commit murder?’”.

Just because you may have not liked the ruling doesn’t mean it’s activist.

Lawnboy is right, the Judges in the Shievo case made there decisions based on Florida law, writen by a repulican dominated state house, and signed by a republican Govener. As for abortion, NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT LOVES ABORTION, I personally hate it, but unfortunatly it is the law of the land. It has been debated in front of the Supreme court many times and come up the same way, even thought the courts have been dominated by Rep. Aptointees. Also unfortunate is that the will of the majority of Americans is pro-choice. There is two ways to change the law of the land; 1. Change the constitution (unfortuatly that is not going to happen in a long time) 2. get Roe vs. Wade overturned, which would be legislating from the bench.

Stephanie-
I think you misinterpreted me. I said that the legislature already gives the people the control they need over the non-elected judges. The people elect their representatives, and they in turn have the power over who gets appointed to these lifetime positions. Problem is, there are Republicans and independents out there who really don’t have the faith in our system or patience with dissenting points of view to trust in the constitutional checks and balances.

Think of it this way: if Republicans don’t intervene in court decisions they feel go against them, the Democrats can’t legislate against decisions they don’t like. This system balances out if you let it. If you let it.

Vincent Bemowski-

As a veteran I can tell you it is easy to conclude that the hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them, care more about bashing President Bush than they do about our soldiers who love their Commander-in-Chief.

It is easy to conclude that. The ease of a conclusion doesn’t equate to it’s being right, however. There are a lot of easy conclusions to make about both sides. Republicans reportedly want to take away all our rights and make this country fascist. Democrats reportedly want to take away all our rights and make this place Communist. How many Democrats and Republicans do you think actually believe things that way?

The Democrats take the more secular, more liberal position on abortion. That is undisputed. But do they do it in ignorance of that being being a separate human life, or do they believe that they are not dealing with a distinct human life at this point? From the non-religious point of view, the embryo and fetus in it’s early stages are part of the mother. It may one day become a separate human being, but for the time being, in their eyes, it is simply a part of the mother that has that potential.

I don’t agree with that point of view, but it is the settled justification under the law for allowing the practice, and since religion is not the basis for our laws in this country, it stands. What can we do? Limit it. Give more power to the states to decide these matters.

The legal justification for abortion rights comes under the heading of medical privacy, which is an important right. After all, you don’t want some future government able to force an abortion or any other operation on you for that matter. Any removal of abortion from the laws must be surgical, not political hackery.

I think the abortion debate is one that will slowly come towards our side. We may end it more quickly if we are less violent and obnoxious about it. After all, we are asking people to take on what is a religious point of view on when life begins. Should we not put the best, least hypocritical face on our religious opposition to Abortion?

As for Democrats not caring about the soldiers themselves? You can always believe somebody’s motivations are false. You just have to have no faith whatsoever in their honesty. Again, it’s easy, but it doesn’t make it right.

Besides, if you claim to be for life, we could make the same bleeding heart argument for your side, and indeed we do: If you believe in the sanctity of human life in the womb, why don’t you extend that to the soldiers in Iraq and those on Death Row at home?

The key here is where you believe the protections accorded to individual life begin and end. Simply telling people they’re wrong is not enough. You have to, by what peaceful means you have at your disposal, pull their opinions towards yours. Insulting them and berating them will probably not do the job.

If getting Roe vs Wade overturned is legislating from the bench, is not the adoption of Roe vs Wade also legislating from the bench?

views,

“i don’t want an ultra-liberal on the SC. i don’t want an ultra-conservative on the SC… which one is John Roberts? right now there is so much static on both sides, that i just don’t know.”

It would be my guess (and time could prove me wrong) that because there’s so much static, that he’s not an ulra-anything. He’s almost certainly more conservative than liberal, because Bush picked him out, but that doesn’t make him “ultra.” I don’t want an ultra-anything either. I want a judge that’s going to make logical, practical decisions within the scope of American law. There are too many judges, on both sides of the fence, who really don’t do that, IMO.

“as for filibustering, you know…”

I see filibustering, no matter WHO does it, to be contrary to the job our representatives are paid for. The Senate and the Congress are so slow already, why aggravate that by filibustering? If you don’t have the votes to accomplish your desires, filibustering is only obstruction. Now, if the matter were acctually pretty much undecided, and your fellows could actually be swayed by your words, by all means speak. Don’t just speak to take up time, speak to convince.

views,

“sound outrageous what i just said? (i can hear stephanie typing furiously) ok…now go back and read mr. bemowski’s post.”

Actually, I agree with you, views! ;-) Surprised?

LawnBoy,

I linked to a bunch of articles and spent probably two hours searching the net. As I’ve admitted many times before, I’m not very good at using search engines. I’m sorry that one was too biased, it was hardly the only article written on the incident.

For all others,

The issue of Schiavo really bothers me, considering a man who was committing adultery had his wife killed so he could marry his girlfriend without losing the money he got from his wife’s disablement. Yeah, that bothers me. And yet, I can see why some liberals (and some conservatives)would go along with that, seeing as our society sees little problem with extra-marital affairs, unless of course they involve our politicians.

If it was based on the laws of Florida, then fine. I’ll concede that, while also stating that Florida has some pretty hokie laws.

Stephen,

“Think of it this way: if Republicans don’t intervene in court decisions they feel go against them, the Democrats can’t legislate against decisions they don’t like. This system balances out if you let it. If you let it.”

The problem I see is that it doesn’t seem like either side is letting it.

Stephen,

“After all, we are asking people to take on what is a religious point of view on when life begins. Should we not put the best, least hypocritical face on our religious opposition to Abortion?”

Not all people who are against abortion are religious, and not all people who are religious and against abortion do so because of religion. I was pro-choice (with myself choosing to have my baby) until I became pregnant with my first (living) child. Feeling him alive in my womb and seeing the ultrasound was what made it impossible for me to ever see abortion as anything but murder, and I was already religious at that point.

I do not buy the latest hogwash of ‘activist judges.’ Judges review and decipher laws, that’s their jobs. The DO NOT read law by the current majority’s position or feelings on the matter. This was one of the major checks and balances put in place by the Constitution.

If you feel that a judge interprets the law wrong, then you can appeal to a higher court. If you feel the Supreme Court had interpreted a law wrong, or feel that the law itself is wrong, then Congress can act to overturn that law.

I’ve read that some here feel that a law is wrong if it does not reflect the will of the people. The laws (interpreted using the Constitution) are there to represent/reflect our set of American values - not the feelings of a majority at any given time.

—-
Not all people who are against abortion are religious, and not all people who are religious and against abortion do so because of religion. I was pro-choice (with myself choosing to have my baby) until I became pregnant with my first (living) child. Feeling him alive in my womb and seeing the ultrasound was what made it impossible for me to ever see abortion as anything but murder, and I was already religious at that point.
—-
I agree with you- from a personal stand point, although I did not need to see the ultrasound to know how I felt. However, I look at my own situation as unique to me, and feel that I only have the right to make judgments and decisions based on my own life, not for others I do not know.

I do not think that people who choose to have abortions are making a good decisions, but I don’t think that they have any good decisions available. I’m sure anyone can come up with 1000 different choices for them, but without knowing their situations personally, I will leave it up to each of them to make the best decision for themselves.

I was wondering – how do you feel about ‘Plan B’ or ‘the morning after pill.’ It stops a egg from being fertilized/or attaching to the uterus wall… To me, it’s clear that this prevents conception and could be a huge step in preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Thoughts?

tony,

I don’t have a problem with the “morning after” pill, especially for emergency cases. However, as a preferred method of birth control I don’t recommend it, because it does nothing for STDs.

While I would love for everyone to live responsibly and not have to worry about STDs, this is not the reality of the world today. If you’re asking what I’d recommend and would like people to be educated about, I would say condom use is still highly recommended for those outside of monogamous relationships (and I don’t think, for safety purposes, serial monogamy should count as monogamous). Condoms, preferably paired with those creams (I don’t remember what they’re called, it’s been a while since I’ve needed this kind of thing) that can kill sperm. I believe some of them even protect against some STDs, though not all types.

The “morning after” pill is especially good for rape victims, though, who obviously didn’t have much of a choice as to whether or not condoms were used. It’s also good for the “Ooops!” people, who got caught in the moment and weren’t prepared.

Yea - it’s been a while since I’ve studied up on the whole birth control thing - and after this past Friday, it’s all in the past for me. (Not to get into too much information…) But I do get the weekend to relax…

I especially like the morning-after pill as a way of reducing the number of people waiting for conception before thinking of their options. Unfortunately - I think there will always be people who don’t react quick enough or use good judgment - so the abortion issue will still be around.

tony,

“Unfortunately - I think there will always be people who don’t react quick enough or use good judgment - so the abortion issue will still be around.”

Especially for the young ones who honestly don’t how they could have possibly gotten pregnant.

Re Justice Thomas and state religions:
” The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Amdt. 1. As I have explained, an important function of the Clause was to “ma[ke] clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments.”… The Clause, then, “is best understood as a federalism provision” that “protects state establishments from federal interference.” … this federalism understanding of the Clause prevents federal oversight of state choices within the ” ‘play in the joints’ ” between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses… the Clause protects the States from federal interference with otherwise constitutionally permissible choices regarding religious policy.” taken from Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in CUTTER et al. v. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTION, et al.

Despite any conservative political leanings he might have, I’ve not yet seen anything about John Roberts that would make me want to disqualify him as a Supreme Court justice. As difficult as it is to admit, being quite liberal, John Roberts looks like a man who will serve his country on the bench in a responsible and conscientious manner. That being said I hope that he, as well as all of the Justices, can put politics aside when they put on their robes in the morning.