Conservatives

[DBowling]

I am not very political, so im not exactly sure what a conservative judge being appointed would mean. I would like to hear a conservative point of view of the good things that will come from this.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not very political, so im not exactly sure what a conservative judge being appointed would mean. I would like to hear a conservative point of view of the good things that will come from this.

[/ QUOTE ]

DB,

Well , the stock conservative answer is that the Conservative judges will be more in favor of decisions that limit federal power, respect property rights, and they wont make "activist" decisions or "legislate" from the bench.

Personally, while I hope Bush gets the nominees through that he wants, I dont buy into the whole conservative/liberal judge thing. George Will has written a series of columns talking about this particular issue and why it is very hard to pigeonhole a SCOTUS decision as liberal or conservative.

I hope that helps a little.

[[censored]]

In all honesty the only reason I care so much about court is because the specific liberals which I find so annoying care so much. It is only because I stand to gain so much personnal satisfaction and enjoyment from hearing them bitch and moan, that I want to see Bush nominate a true hardass conservative.

Other than that a respect for state ballot measures as passed by thier respective populations.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]


Other than that a respect for state ballot measures as passed by thier respective populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[HtotheNootch]

Learn to look beyond the labels. Things will make more sense.

If you listen to some of the "conservatives" out there today, Barry Goldwater was a liberal.

The labels don't work any more.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The defintion of conservative/liberal varies depending who you ask. When I was in college my school sponsored a debate between William F. Buckly (a conservative icon) and some liberal whose name I forgotten. The debate was on the merits of political conservatism versus liberalism. As in any debate, the debatees had to agree upon the defintions. The defintions the agreed upon were roughly as follows:

Conservatism:
The political philosophy that the people are better off under a smaller and less intrusive govt and that this govt should only provide a small number of services (military, courts, law enforcement). Some conservatives have arguments on what services the govt should be involved in. A pure conservative govt has low taxes because it has less overhead. Conservatives are more incline to let the free market work its magic than to interfere.

Liberalism:
The political philosophy that the people are better off under a larger and more active govt. A liberal govt has higher taxes because it has higher overhead since it provides more social services.

Conservative/Liberal Views
Govt Sponsored Job Training: Conserv=Against, Liberal For
Tax Subsidies to Home Owners: Conservative against, Liberal For (a pure conservative would argue that the govt should not show favortism to homeowners over renters)
Subsidies to an ailing domestic steel industry: Conservative against, Liberal for
Creating a Govt Sponsored Social Security Retirement Plan: Conservative against, Liberal for
Eliminating a Govt Department: Conservatives for, Liberals Against

As a general rule a person is 'liberal' if they want govt involvment and 'conservative' if they think the govt should not get involved. Obviously in a situation like a crime both conservatives and liberals want govt involvment to investigate, catch, and prosecute criminals. Having a military is something that most conservatives and liberals agree upon. It is the 'luxery' govt services where their fight begins.

To complicate this matter is very few people are purely conservative or purely liberal. Many are conservative on some issues and yet liberal on others. President Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" but he has spent tons of money on liberal issues (Farm Bill, Drug Perscription Plan, etc...). His plan to reduce govt involvement by partially privatizing social security would be considered a conservative move.

Some people claim the defintion of conservative is wanting to maintain the status quo.
This is a silly defintion. Say you want to keep social security. Since you are for maintaining the status quo you are 'conservative'. Lets say social security gets abolished and now you want to bring back social security. Now you are a 'liberal' and not a 'conservative' because your attacking the status quo. So you can be liberal one day and conservative the next day depending on what laws are passed.
Coservatism/liberalism are a set of political beliefs on the amount of govt involvement and has nothing to do with wanting or attacking the status quo.

A conservative judge is an originalist judge. That is to say they believe that the constitution is like the Rock of Gibraltar and its meaning in 1786(?) is the same as it should be today. An activist judge (liberal) believes in a 'creative' interpretation of the constitution. One judge admitted he consulted foreign law to help him make some of his decisions!!!??? A true originalist judge would find using foreign law to make a judicial decision for the USA to be a violation of their oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the USA. Their belief is that the constitution (and perhaps some supporting writings of the authors) is the only document they need to make their decison. Many conservatives accuse activist judges of ignoring the US Constitution (which their swore to uphold) and in effect legistlates from the bench bypassing the voters and congress which was elected by the voters. In practice their is little people can do to remove renegade judges. Thomas Jefferson tried it and impeach two judges (one was insane) but the political price he paid was too high and he gave up on this strategy...

Take the 1st amendment which gives the people the right to bare arms. Does this mean people sould have the right to own nuclear weapons? 200 years ago arms were muskets and swords. They never envisioned tanks, nuclear weapons, and chemical weapons. It is up to the judges to interpret what the original writers of the constitution meant by arms.

The constitution provides two functions:
1. It sets the rules/structure of the govt.
2. It restricts what the govt can do.

OFTEN, when many people think of a conservative judge you think of some fuddy-duddy yet in the California Medical Marijunana case is was conservative judges who voted that California had the power to decide on this issue (pro pot /images/graemlins/smile.gif). It was liberal judges (and one conservative) who voted to give the federal govt the power to regulate marijauna(anti-pot /images/graemlins/frown.gif).

[HtotheNootch]

Umm, you had me until you mixed up the 1st and 2nd ammendments.

[[censored]]

By quoting dead, you cause me to read dead which not something I want to do. There is no need to point out how wrong he will almost always be as it has long be established that dead is full of [censored].

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
im not exactly sure what a conservative judge being appointed would mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
It means from the impending hysteria both sides are going to display, you won't ever really want to be involved in politics.

Seriously though, depending on the nominee, I think it would be a breath of fresh air for the country. I would recommend that you do your own research of the nominee, as the media, along with both sides, are almost sure to distort who the nominee is.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Cutting through the usual rightwing spin:

A "conservative" Justice will be one who votes to gut the scope of federal power arising under the Commerce Clause. With that, all federal protection for organized labor -- as well as all federal regulation of wages, working hours and worker safety -- all of that goes right out the window.

Or, to put it another way : welcome back to the 1890's.

Roe v. Wade is a useful misdirection, nothing more.



q/q

[Hedge Henderson]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, you had me until you mixed up the 1st and 2nd ammendments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Yeah.

I do strongly support the right to bare arms, though. I've got a really good farmer's tan going on right now. It'd be a shame to lose it.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I was in a hurry. Cut me some slack. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
2nd Amendment = Right to bear arms.

What makes this even worse is I'm a member of the NRA and TRA(Texas Rifle Assc.) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was in college my school sponsored a debate between William F. Buckley and some liberal whose name I forgotten. The debatees had to agree upon the definitions:

Conservatism:
...
<font color="white"> .</font>
Liberalism:
The political philosophy that the people are better off under a larger and more active govt. A liberal govt has higher taxes because it has higher overhead since it provides more social services.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have been duped. That was no liberal.

This "definition" is the standard facile shorthand of the liberal positions as taken by the conservatives! You watched a staged act, not a debate.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I know you hate providing specifics in your posts...BUT...maybe this one time you could do this.
Feel free to define conservative and liberal. Consider it a challenge. Show us how smart you are. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
By quoting dead, you cause me to read dead which not something I want to do. There is no need to point out how wrong he will almost always be as it has long be established that dead is full of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies I didn't realize his ignorance was of historic proportions.

[DBowling]

thanks for the post, felix

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you hate providing specifics in your posts.

[/ QUOTE ] Whenever possible, I am as specific as I can. And I back as much as possible my specifics with data and links, as well. The evidence is all over this forum. (I might be overdoing it, if anything!) What basis do you have to claim that I "avoid specifics"?


[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to define conservative and liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I repeat: that definition of "liberal" you provided, contains one of the many choices of smears that anti-liberals have to describe their ideological opponents, e.g. "liberals love raising taxes!"

As in the case of pornography, I will not define "liberal" for you, but I'm sure you know a liberal when you see one!

Seriously, liberalism, in general, meant somewhat different things in the 50s and 60s compared to now. Today's liberals are less of the interventionist, liberty-spreading kind; they tend to support individual freedoms, due process in law, separation of branches, more stringent controls of concentrated finacial/political power, assistance to the downtrodden, elderly and helpless, secular domestic policies, co-operative (rather than unilateral) foreign policies, etc.

Don't always judge a book by its cover. I know of a fellow Blackjack AP who's a pious and devoted Catholic, plays in a honky tonk band, is a loving family man, earns his living by doing a honest day's work, totally supports the troops --- you'd think hard-hat conservative, but he is (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0757000487/qid=1120313975/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1142781-0464722) a liberal and a union man!

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to define conservative and liberal. Consider it a challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, I'll give it a shot.

Conservative: Narrow-minded

Liberal: Open-minded

It is that simple.


I would be considered by most (I don't label myself) to be a liberal. Why is it that my list of favorite presidents goes...

1. FDR
2. Reagan
3. Clinton

???

[kurto]

I think you missed a real chance to drop the rhetoric and actually post about philosophical differences that you see.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still needs to play out.

So far, the Feds have not enforced any federal laws against legit medical pot clubs.

They've (here in Cali) gone after some clubs that where growing and distributing illegally, but all the other places are operating without fear.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Conservative: Narrow-minded
Liberal: Open-minded
************************************************** *****
Hmmmmmmmm..........so these defintions are an example of being "open-minded"?
This type of "open-minded" thinking is why liberals keep losing elections.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I repeat: that definition of "liberal" you provided, contains one of the many choices of smears that anti-liberals have to describe their ideological opponents, e.g. "liberals love raising taxes!"

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the quote referred to liberals preferring a larger and more active government. If the gov't is to be large and active, it follows that taxes must be higher than under an ideal conservative gov't. I see nothing wrong with the previous definition and it seems that your definition is not much different; just longer and more rhetorical.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with the previous definition and it seems that your definition is not much different; just longer and more rhetorical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I provided, at Felix's request, no less, a broad list of what makes a "liberal", as the term applies today (when it has almost become a synonym for "lefty").

In that list, the "active gov't" part is but one of the liberal atrributes - while in the W. F. Buckley debate it was the sole characteristic! Something which I specifically pointed out as being a standard conservative smear on liberals' positions. (And this is why I provided the example of the pious Catholic who's a liberal union leader - but you were not paying attention! It meant to show that a definition of conservatism that goes only by the person's take on religion does not take us far.)

I know people who are liberal on issues of individual freedoms but cons in foreign policy. I know people who are conservative in matters of fiscal policy but liberal in sexual issues, including abortion. (By the way, these folks are dumbstruck with Bush's runaway spending!)

We are sometimes too quick to pigeonhole ideas.

[BCPVP]

A couple things to keep in mind:
1) The definitions were meant to show a contrast, so including things like "liberals support the 3 branches of gov't" implies that conservatives don't.
2) The debate could very well have been about what size the gov't should be, in which case, the additional characteristics would be unnecessary and time-wasting.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress are really respecting the state of California's ballot initiatives by prosecuting medical marijuana users.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really attempt to learn something about an issue before you post in reference to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?

Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day after the RAICH ruling, two congressman introduced a bill to congress specifically to direct the DEA to respect states' decisions about medical marijuana and stop all prosecuting.

The bill was introduced by Dana Rohrbacher and Ron Paul.

Both Republicans.

However, I agree with you that by and large, both republicans *and* democrats have no respect for states' rights and have no fear of an overly strong federal govt, except when it is convenient to say so.

natedogg

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

What am I wrong about shithead?
Tell me one thing wrong with what I said. Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly anti-medical marijuana. They are trampling on states' rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about everything. Bush and the congress had nothing to do with the California ballot initiative being overturned, that was a supreme court decision and the conservatives were the only ones that were for the state having the right to make there own decision, as usual.

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]

the California ballot initiative being overturned

[/ QUOTE ]

overturned?

[[censored]]

I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well hoss, like it or not we are about to try it again.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple things to keep in mind:
1) The definitions were meant to show a contrast, so including things like "liberals support the [strict separation of the] 3 branches of gov't" implies that conservatives don't.

[/ QUOTE ] They don't --- in, obviously, the liberals' opinion! (Example: The conservatives' drive to have the presidency invested de facto with war powers the likes of which would make the hair stand on the heads of the framers! Talk about strict interpretationists!...)

But the point is that conservatives should, of course, be allowed to claim otherwise in their definition of their ideology.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The debate could very well have been about what size the gov't should be, in which case, the additional characteristics would be unnecessary and time-wasting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing what the definition of "conservative" was, respectively, at the debate that Felix watched, you just might be right. (link to OP (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2773684&amp;page=117&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)) Nonetheless, a close reading of the two definitons renders them as created by the same person - and a conservative to boot. (Example: Liberals are not against "the free market being allowed to work", as the conservatives' definition implies. See previous remark about being alloed to formulate one's own definition of one's own ideology.)

I have now come to believe that there is fuzziness in how Felix Nietsche transmits to us the information abt that debate he watched a long time ago. (It's called memory.)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought about this more and being a conservative does not mean refraining from passing any restrictions on personnal behavior like abortion, gay marriage or the ones mentioned within the thread. What it means is a belief that laws should reflect the will and beliefs of the people they govern and that they should be decided at the lowest level of government possible. In most cases this is the state level but with issue like education the local level would apply.

Thus on say abortion a true conservative does not oppose roe v. wade simply because it made abortion legal but because the judicial branch thrawted the will of the people who had decided at a state level that abortion was not legal. Hopefully it will someday be overturned so that states like NY or CA can have it legal and states such Kansas and Alabama can restrict it.

judicial activism: conservatives are against judges determining the law on important social issues instead of letting the people themselves decide.

So to go back to the question of drugs, gambling and prostitution I believe that all of these are best decided at the state level and as a conservative I respect laws like medical marijuana even though I may be personally against them because it was decided by the people of CA.

Some on here like to constantly call conservatives hypocritical yet while they love a law like medical marijuana they are quick to hope that other measures also passed by the populace, like definition of marriage acts or restrictions on abortion are struck down by judges who for the most part do not have to answer to the people they serve.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, we tried it your way, but your conservatives where not able to protect even basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very common mistake, made by people across the political spectrum, is that a repeal of a current law, and/or a return to a previous law, will result in the exactly the same previous society.

It will not. In the case of liberal laws, this is usually because the social trend was already going in the direction of whatever law was passed to address the previous condition.

Things like the war on poverty, and consumer products protections, were designed to address problems that were *already* on the decline. So, for example, removing seat-belt requirements from auto safety regulations would results in VERY VERY few cars being produced without seatbelts, if any. Because the world is different now.

natedogg