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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). It was liberal judges (and one conservative) who voted to give the federal govt the power to regulate marijauna(anti-pot [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]).

[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.