Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people say they want "tolerance". Others say they want "sympathy for the downtrodden". In the last few decades, belief in an ironclad right to have an abortion, has been high on liberals' radar screens for judicial appointees.
These and several other things have been emphasized by liberals and other socialists in picking judicial nominees. But none is really "the" quality they want in a court judge.
All of these qualities do have something in common, though. And that points to what the liberals really want in a nominee or judge.
Q: What do they have in common?
A: None of those qualities are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the document that gives the Federal government all its powers (and restricts it to ONLY those powers).
That may seem like a trivial coincidence. But in fact, it gets to the heart of what the liberals want. In fact, it points to the most basic issue in all of politics, and the fundamental conflict between liberals and conservatives.
The most basic purpose of the Constitution, was to RESTRICT the Federal government's powers. It created the Fed govt in is present form, and assigns each branch the powers it can exercise. And the assumption was made that, if it didn't assign a certain power, then the Fed govt was forbidden to have that power. That assumption was later "cast in stone" by the 10th amendment.
Conservatives are fine with that arrangement, and believe it is a vital characteristic that keeps government out of the way of the citizens except for the few things government MUST do.
Liberals profoundly disagree, and feel that the more govt does to "help" people, the better off the people will be. They ignore the second half of the quote from Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."
Liberals want the U.S. to become a country where the government does more and more for people. But the Constitution expressly forbids such expansion of government authority unless a long amendment process is followed. And since the job of Federal judges is to make sure laws conform to the Constitution, conservatives want judges who will do that, while liberals and other socialists want judges who will try to get around that requirement, and permit the expansion of government the Constitution was designed to prevent.
To put it another way, conservatives see the Constitution as a framework for small government and a set of restrictions that forbid going outside that framework. Leftists also see the Constitution as a framework for small government... but one that is an obstacle to be gotten around. And the liberals dearly want judges who will also see it as a nuisance, an obstacle to be defeated.
How do they know which judges will do that? If a judge has previously ruled in favor of the qualities mentioned above (extra support for minorities, abortion etc.), then it is clear that that judge does not believe in the strict rules laid out in the Constitution to prevent them. And this is the kind of "judge" the socialist Democrats want on the bench - one who will rule in favor of their attempts to expand government beyond the bounds laid out in the Constitution.
When liberals favor judges who permit abortion, it's not because they like abortions (although undoubtedly some of them may). And when they favor judges who support racist policies like reverse discrimination, it's not because they oppose white people (although some of them may). It's because those judges are more likely to favor the MANY sretches and outright violations of the Constitution, the liberals need to convert this country to the big-government Nanny State they desire.
Abortions are not the ultimate goal, official boosting of minorities is not the ultimate goal, harm to big business is not the ultimate goal, though the liberals favor all those things as they come up. The ultimate goal is the same one socialists all ove the world have had for centiries: To create a society where government takes care of people, and people serve the government instead of serving themselves.
Finding judges who support abortion or reverse discrimination etc., is merely one step in that long process. But it's a vital step, since Federal judges are in a position to defeat the liberal socialists' ultimate goal. If they believe the Constitution is a document that should be followed instead of evaded, then the liberals are uninterested in supporting them. But if a judge believes more in his personal idyllic vision of a government-controlled society, the liberals will fight hard to get him on the bench.
Our liberal socialists want judges who will permit their attempts to expand government in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent. Judges who have supported abortion or reverse discrimination, are merely examples of suuch people - good indicators that they might be permissive of unconstitutional legislation in general.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Conservatives think that we should be bound by tradition, no matter how outdated they may be. Liberals think as the nation progresses and gets bigger that change is necessary. As a liberal I believe we have to have a Constitution that is a "living" document that has to change as the country and technology changes but yet keep the fundamentals such as the Bill of Rights as a foundation.
When the Constitution was written, the USA was a small collection of states where people primarily farmed and lived simple lives. It made sense then to have a limited Federal government because most of what was done was done at the local level and it only affected people at the local level. Travel back then was done by horse and wagon and, for the most part, people died where they were born. There was no TV, no telephones, no electric power.
The nation we live in today is NOTHING like is was when the Framers wrote the document. To them "Freedom of the Press" meant newsprint. They know nothing of radio, TV, the internet, CNN or Fox News.
A conservative wants to use a standard of so-called "strict construction" where judges are supposed to go strictly by what the Framers intended. So by that standard, only newspapers printed on a printing press would enjoy "Freedom of the Press" while electronic journalist would be required to bow to government scrutiny.
They argue that we should limit the power of the Federal government but in a modern society where people can fly from NYC to LA in 4 hours and where we have a modern highway system, states are not isolated as they were when the Constitution was wrote. What happens in one state DOES affect others which is why we need a powerful central government to ensure uniformity across the country.
If you consider the public schools- which were a strictly local matter- it made sense back then. If a student was badly educated in Georgia, he stayed in Georgia and worked a farm. Now, he may move to Nebraska and end up in jail or on welfare which effectively means that the people of Nebraska end up paying the price for bad schools in Georgia. That is why it is necessary for the Federal government to set educational standards while giving the local school boards some flexibility in meeting them.
When the Framers wrote "Freedom of Speech" they knew nothing of megaphones, PA systems and stages. Back then people got up on a stump and yelled to small crowds. There is a difference between getting up on a stump and yelling and using a 5000 watt PA system. That is why the latter has to be regulated to a degree that you are not disturbing others right to quiet enjoyment of their private property. As a liberal, I fully support your right to picket a residence but not at midnight with a megaphone loudspeaker. During the day, quietly with signs, fine.
This is why we need a "living" Constitution that can be modified to fit into modern American life. We need judges that can recognize this and make the correct decisions based on what the document says and what it means to modern life. It is the job of judges and courts to make these calls and ensure balance. Not to merely "interpret" what somebody else wrote 233 years ago.
Not so, at all. Most of us want strict-construction, not judges that are willing to use liberal reasoning in interpreting conflicts between new law and the Constitution. Talk of a "living" document being our Constitution is nothing but talking about changing the "Big One" to fit what liberals want.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Not so, at all. Most of us want strict-construction, not judges that are willing to use liberal reasoning in interpreting conflicts between new law and the Constitution. Talk of a "living" document being our Constitution is nothing but talking about changing the "Big One" to fit what liberals want.
It is not just what "liberals" want. It is what Conservatives want too. Conservatives are the loudest protesters when it comes to campaign finance restrictions on TV ads and talk radio. The Framers know nothing of talk radio or TV so they obviously did not mean to include them in "Freedom of the Press". They meant newspapers that were printed on a press. Yet it is Conservatives that say they want "strict construction" while screaming about "attacks on the Constitution" when it comes to their pet issues.
What was the agenda put forth for Frist?
You know, the guy who killed animals as a child?
Do you suppose that killing animals as a child brands one conservative for life? Not in my case because I was terribly liberal until 1972 when the Dems nominated their first socialist of the decade in the person of George McGovern. I heard that guy tell the biggest campaign lie I ever heard when the group of California welfare delegates trapped him on a staircase of his hotel and more or less forced him to promise he would work for a $5600 guaranteed annual wage for everybody. Now I know that isn't much money today but back then it was more than most people who worked their butts off made. I decided right then that I was done with the party if they nominated him and they ran away from me.
I really don't think that killing mice, rats, various kind of birds caused me to be conservative. Do you really believe that?
The Framers know nothing of talk radio or TV so they obviously did not mean to include them in "Freedom of the Press". They meant newspapers that were printed on a press.
Ummm, right.
They meant such things to be included under "freedom of speech".
(Any fish left in this particular barrel?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
