Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record

[LowlyPion]

Completely missing the forest for the trees.

Not to worry. The Forest of Failure is clearly visible littering the Republican landscape.

Maybe think of the Bush-Cheney stewardship more as a Tunguska Event?

 

[Al68]

It may become a person, but it is not one. That is still a faith based view that it possesses any particular sanctity prior to viability...

As someone opposed to outlawing abortion, I can't help but notice that the pro-view is deemed "faith based" despite the obvious fact that an embryo is genetically identical to an adult from conception. Conception isn't just "faith based", that's when we scientifically have a human.

That being said, we shouldn't demand "involuntary servitude" on the part of the mother to keep alive what is technically a parasitic human. Flame on for my using the word "parasitic", but I mean it in the nicest way.

 

[mheslep]

As someone opposed to outlawing abortion, I can't help but notice that the pro-view is deemed "faith based" despite the obvious fact that an embryo is genetically identical to an adult from conception. Conception isn't just "faith based", that's when we scientifically have a human...

No, you had it right first sentence - that's when we genetically have the same DNA as the future adult (mostly, it can change slightly over time). But for that matter so does everyone of our cells now. Whether or not we have a human, a life with rights, is more complicated. I say we do, it does. Maybe not right from conception.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Not to worry. The Forest of Failure is clearly visible littering the Republican landscape.

Maybe think of the Bush-Cheney stewardship more as a Tunguska Event?

Actually George W. Bush was easily one of this country's better Presidents. But unfortunately many people are afflicted with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not saying he didn't have his flaws, he had a few, but in comparison to some of the previous Presidents we've had, he was pretty good overall.

 

[Al68]

Actually George W. Bush was easily one of this country's better Presidents. But unfortunately many people are afflicted with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Careful, that might catch on and become the latest "disease."

 

[LowlyPion]

Actually George W. Bush was easily one of this country's better Presidents. ...

I think you are on the wrong thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=320336

A Bush-Cheney hagiographer is desperately needed there.

 

[BobG]

It may become a person, but it is not one. That is still a faith based view that it possesses any particular sanctity prior to viability that the State may intrude to override a woman's choice to discontinue. It is not even viable to the point that it can be an individual until about 24 weeks, which is roughly about the 50% survival rate with some assistance point. (Hence the Roe v. Wade threshold.)

Try reading Roe v Wade sometime. Section VI includes a history of abortion laws, since the US Supreme Court had to rely on precedent to a large extent (the Constitution, as many have noted, makes no mention of abortion).

It was the American Medical Association that provided the initial drive towards much stricter abortion laws, seeing as doctors could see firsthand who's life they were ending. Religious organizations were perhaps more predisposed to accepting doctors' sentiments about the lives they were ending and religious groups are obviously ardent opponents of abortion, today.

Doctors also provided some of the impetus towards the viability standard you mentioned. Typical pre-19th century standards were no punishment to mild misdemeanor for abortions performed prior to the baby moving; to no punishment to mild misdemeanor to criminal offense (but not murder) for abortions performed after the baby's movements were perceptible.

The US Supreme Court decision specifically avoids making a determination of when "human life" begins:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology* are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

*- Note that the Catholic Church, at least, did not define human life as beginning at conception until fairly recently (within the last couple centuries). They mostly (but unofficially) adhered to the "perceptible movement" standard when it came to abortion along with most other people.

The USSC bases its decision primarily on the traditional approach of focusing on the mother's health (hence no restrictions on early abortions, but restrictions on later abortions); but the decision does acknowledge that there could be some point where the rights of the unborn child could be taken into account even if there is nowhere in common law or the Constitution where anyone is given the rights of citizenship prior to birth. Presumably, these rights would be limited to the inalienable rights inherent to any human being, whether US citizen or not.

As the decision is worded, developing medical technology could push the cut-off point either way. Better medical facilities mean abortions can be performed later in the pregnancy without jeopardizing the safety of the mother. Better medical facilities mean viability can be pushed closer and closer to conception - at least theoretically, since viability seems to have plateaued for the last decade.

Roe v Wade

Considering the record of court attempts to throw out laws such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 and similar state laws, I'd say there's a developing consensus that, at some point, the unborn posess at least the same rights as an illegal immigrant or an unlawful combatant. You can't murder them just because they're not US citizens.

 

[jgens]

Republicans didn't run things into the ground. What they did do that was bad was spend too much, which is what the Democrats seem bent on doing right now, only the level they want to spend will make the Republicans look puny by comparison. It is also completely unsustainable.

Well, since the modern Democrats have not controlled the executive and congress for more than a year really, I can't comment on whether or not they will still outspend the Republicans. However, examining the past 30 years, Republicans have repeatedly driven the economy into the ground. Take Reagan for example. While economic woes began to set in during Carter's administration and Reagan did manage to minimize the impact of a recession temporarily, his excessive military spending tripled the federal deficit and also caused a short term recession between 1981 and 1982. Also, Reagan's adherence to side-supply economic theory seems to have done little to help anyone but the wealthiest few individuals in America. During H. W. Bush's administration, the economy continued to decline and ultimately cost him his re-election despite having nearly 90% approval ratings after the victory with the Gulf War. By the time Clinton took the presidency, the country was yet again facing a recession and a mounting national deficit. During this time, Clinton not only managed to repair the economy but also turn the federal deficit into a surplus. Currently, that surplus is now a deficit, courtesy of President Bush.

The point is, considering the last 30 years, the Democrats have a much better record on managing the economy and I think it's a little premature to judge the Democrats spending policies.

This country has never, not once, done well under the Leftist policies we are seeing right now. Nor has any city, state, or other countries.

While not the same policies we are seeing now, FDR implemented "leftist" policies with his New Deal which alleviated the effects of the depression. Also, once WWII started, our economy completely recovered. Interestingly, during WWII, government intervention - competition even - with business was at an all time high.

One could also argue based on the direction the economy has gone under the Republicans that the country has never done well with conservative policies. Left is a really ambiguous term here so I'm sorry if I missed your point.

Leftist policies almost destroyed New York City. Now they have practically wrecked California, a state that taxes everything they can, with the highest taxes it can, that have incredibly restrictive regulations, are outright anti-business, where the unions, trial lawyers, and environmental lobbyists, etc...have a stranglehold...not to mention the state is the worl'd 7th largest economy. New York State is also going the way of California right now. I know, because I live here. They run commercials about how businesses are leaving the state, forcing taxes up higher, which leads to more businesses fleeing, thus creating a vicious cycle.

Also the public employees unions are so strong. Unlike a business, in which a union has to be careful because if the business dies, then so does the union, with government, unions can demand far more money and benefits, because the government can always increase taxes...that is until they run the state into the ground.

Michigan and Illinois, also Leftist states, are also in trouble.

I'll admit that I don't have enough knowledge to either agree or disagree with you on most of these points. I have a difficult time taking a stance one way or another on unions so I can't really discuss them either.

Or one could look at the experiences of the European nations with leftism, where they refused to try to stimulate their economies when President Obama asked them to because they have experience with it creating inflation. Because their labor laws are so much more stringent and their regulations tougher, they have chronically high unemployment (in Germany in the good times it averages as high as 10%, that's considered a disaster here in America). Now in this recession, they are in almost depression-level conditions unemployment-wise.

Pending on what's meant by leftism, European nations have had great success with "leftist" policies. During the Depression, while both Germany and Britain did not resort to Keynsian Spending, their respective governments took near control of the economy - much more so than here in the U.S. - regulating business, forcing employment, etc. Interestingly, both of their economies recovered much quicker than ours, resuming and often exceeding pre-depression production by 1937.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with saying no to a huge "stimulus" that no one had time to read, that was too long to really read, when historically stimulus spending doesn't even work.

Historically, keynsian spending lifted the United States out of the Depression and was the policy that governed our post-war economic spending. Ultimately, after the war, our economy continued to get better. While keynsian spending isn't exactly stimulus spending (some would probably argue it is, some would argue it isn't), the general idea is the same.

Nothing wrong with saying no to universal healthcare without serious debate on the subject.

Sure, as long there isn't much contention one way or another. However, if many Americans support universal healthcare, I think it would be wrong to dismiss it on the basis that you (or even many other Americans) do not support it.

Nothing wrong with saying no to some carbon cap-and-trade program that will infringe on freedoms and liberties and could tank the economy and hurt businesses (and then the Democrats will complain when those same businesses start shifting more jobs overseas), not to mention being grounded in a theory that is not even proven. It will also make some big corporations and individuals incredibly rich. It also is approximately 1,300 pages long, too long to read.

First, while global warming has not been "proven," a phenomenon known as ocean acidification has. We need to reduce carbon emissions to save the oceans, which as it turns out, are pretty important.

Also, I personally don't find any issues in requiring business to employ environmentally safe standards. While it may impede on many of the "freedoms" and "liberties" that businesses have, I also like to believe that as a citizen of the United States I have rights to clean, unpolluted air and safe living conditions (while it's not written into the constitution, many of our fundamental rights are not either). Given the unscrupulous nature of many businesses and the health hazards that they have caused - love canal for example - I don't think it's unreasonable to impose environmental restrictions that preserve my right to life (in the Declaration of Independence) or any other rights.

If you take issue with the fact that the rights I mention are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution note that freedoms for businesses are not mentioned in the constitution either. Also consult the 9th ammendment.

I mentioned California being a wreck. Well this new "cap-and-trade" bill will mandate California's housing standards for all communities nationwide. GREAT! Let's copy the state that is the shining example not to copy, only this time for the whole nation!

Oh and it also resulted in exactly what any conservative will tell you happens with such regulations. Barack Obama said he would make the government no longer one for the special interests. He apparently seems oblivious to the fact that the whole reason it is currently a government more of special interests is because of its excessive size already.

Because you see when you try to regulate the private sector more, the private sector seeks to regulate government more.

And this cap-and-trade bill is a primary example. Industry sent an ARMY of lobbyists up onto Capitol Hill to lobby for special freebies in the bill.

This bill is nothing but a huge power grab, correction an ENORMOUS power grab, by the Federal government.

So yes, Republicans should, quite loudly, give it a big fat "NO!" It just narrowly passed in the House, I am praying it the Senate will kill it.

Like earlier, I simply do not know enough to contend these points.

You see, the problem is that the Democrats and the political Left are trying to say the Republicans will not embrace "change."

This is pure nonsense. Republicans are all for change. But the Left hijack the term, because they want to actually change the fundamental principles that this country was built on, that made it great. Republicans are all for change, but they are not for changing these actual principles. They got kicked out of office for violating some of those principles (whatever happened to limited government, for example? And morals? (all those scandals, Sanford being the latest)). The Left are trying to claim that the Right's clinging to these sacred principles is somehow refusing "change."

Ironically, this nation's sacred founding principles have changed. Did you know that slavery is explicitly written into the constitution with the 3/5 compromise? So yes, slavery is a fundamental, "sacred" principle that this nation was founded on that eventually changed (also note that many of the founding father's like Jefferson and Washington held slaves as well). Since evidence also suggests that the constitution was also developed as an economic document to benefit the founding father's personally, these principles seem much less "sacred." Moreover, you seem to believe that the nation was founded on some great "moral character," however, I can see no evidence to support this - Jefferson raped his slaves, Franklin cheated on his wife, Hancock illegally sold liquor, etc.

Limited government has been an issue since the constitution was first drafted, consider the stuggle between the Federalists (big government) and the Democratic-Republicans (small government).

Revering the nation's founding principles is one thing but regarding them as sacred is another. You should read an article titled The Founder's Chic which explicitly addresses this issue.

If they expect Republicans to be for wealth redistribution, which IS a form of socialism, no they are not. Modern Democrats, or Leftists, may not necessarily want to nationalize the MEANS of production, but they do want to nationalize the OUTCOMES of production.

While I'm certainly not socialist, why is there such a stigma associated with socialism? Sure, it's not perfect and it's not capitalism, but capitalism isn't perfect either.

If they expect Republicans to be for government being the solution for our healthcare problems, for our energy problems, for our educational system problems, when:

1) Government interference is one of the reasons all three of these industries have problems in the first place, and

2) Government has an outright awful record of ever doing anything even remotely well

then they are hitting the bong. It almost seems like a religion in some senses. The solution to fixing healthcare? More government. The solution to fixing education? More government. Energy? More government. Economy? More government.

One of the reasons Texas is the nation's leader in wind energy (yes, that evil Republican oil state, Texas, is the leader in wind energy), is because in 1999, then Governor George W. Bush deregulated the electric utilities sector.

Government most certainly has a role to play, but the focus needs to be on limited government, and of taking the government we have and making it into good government, not in adding more government.

I'm getting tired so I won't respond to this right now.

If they expect Republicans to be for government acting as some parent for American society, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support activism on the Supreme Court, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support the various infringements on freedoms the Left want, they will not.

I mean, who want to dictate whether people can drive SUVs? The Left (California tried to ban SUVs outright some years ago).

Prevent people from living in a huge, "energy-guzzling" McMansion if they can afford it? The Left.

Prevent people from smoking? The Left.

Prevent people from owning guns? The Left.

Prevent people from eating fast food? The Left.

Control healthcare? The Left.

Control free-speech (hate speech laws)? The Left.

Control the media (Fairness Doctrine)? The Left.

Do you know who ended slavery? The "Left." Sure, it wasn't the Democrats, it was actually the Republicans, but at the party's inception during the 1860's the Republican party was the "Left."

Who supported women's suffrage? The Left.

Who supported African-American's suffrage? The Left.

Who ended Jim Crow laws in the South? The Left.

Who supported equal women's rights? The Left.

Who supported infringing our fundamental rights to privacy? The Right. The PATRIOT Act ("patriot" is actually an acronym) and the Alien and Seditions Act are frighteningly similar.

Who failed to fund AIDS research because it initially primarily impacted gay men only? The Right.

See, I can make a list too!

You know in California, the government actually tried to make it where the state government could control your central air conditioning in your home? Where your air conditioning system would be hooked up so that the state could control your thermostat, so if they thought too much electricity was being used, they could actually turn up your thermostat.

Luckily enough hell broke loose that it was not passed.

About the only thing Republicans want to control perhaps is when the ultra-religious evangelicals come in wanting to control whether you can open up a porn shop somewhere or force school prayer or something, otherwise, true conservatives for the most part could care less what you do.

You want to smoke, fine. Drink, fine. Drive SUVs, fine. Drive a Prius, fine. Own guns, fine. Eat McDonald's all the time, fine. Live in a huge home, fine. Work yoru butt off and become wealthy, fine.

The Left, if they cannot directly control these things, they seek to tax and regulate them.

What will happen, if the Democrats in Congress right now and President Obama keep going at their rate, they will literally wreck the country. They'll do to the nation what they first did to NYC in the 1970s, which had to be bailed out by the state of New York and the Federal government, and now to California.

OR, they'll go more to the Right, and not do as much harm.

As for 2010, has it ever occurred to you just WHY they are trying to do all of this stuff so fast? Why not give it more time? Because they know that it is very risky stuff, and if they do not get it done, and fast, come 2010 enough Republicans may get in that it will not be passed.

If the stuff was truly good for America, they'd have no such worry.

As for Sotomayor, relax, she will get appointed. It will be a HUGE shock if she somehow isn't.

I might reply to this later, but at present I don't have the time.

 

[BobG]

I'd say Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v Wade explains judicial activism fairly accurately, as well.

The funny thing about the Roe v Wade decision is that Roe's state of pregnancy (which week she was in) was never brought up. The court expanded its ruling beyond the case in front of it in some sort or another, since they used the vagueness of the case as an excuse to rule on all stages of pregnancy.

The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her law-suit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The Court's statement of facts in this case makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed.

There's a problem using the privacy argument, as well:

Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

It would be appropriate for the court to strike down a Texas law because it was unconstitutional. Historically, it's been left to the state to develop a new version of the stricken law that might meet Constitutional requirements. In Roe v Wade, the court went well beyond just striking down the Texas law:

The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Perhaps an unfortunate side effect is the anticipation of each USSC decision resulting in Earth'shaking decisions. Time after time, the court publishes a decision that refuses to address "the big issue" at the root of issues such as the New Haven case, gun control laws, etc. The problem is that the Supreme Court should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."

And that phrase is a better discriminator between whether a judge is an "activist" judge or not. The Earth'shaking decisions should only come when there is no way to avoid them.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Well, since the modern Democrats have not controlled the executive and congress for more than a year really, I can't comment on whether or not they will still outspend the Republicans. However, examining the past 30 years, Republicans have repeatedly driven the economy into the ground. Take Reagan for example. While economic woes began to set in during Carter's administration and Reagan did manage to minimize the impact of a recession temporarily, his excessive military spending tripled the federal deficit and also caused a short term recession between 1981 and 1982.

The 1981 - 1982 Volcker Recession was trigger by Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve to fix the skyrocketing inflation. Reagan's defense spending was crucial to break the back of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were pouring about 40% of their economy into their military.

Reagan understood that peace with the Soviet Union never could be achieved because it was in the nature of the Soviet Union to make war. The entire "union" itself was an example of blatant imperialism. He knew that socialism didn't work, and that the Soviet Union was a lot more fragile than people thought at the time.

The deficit under Reagan began reversing itself around 1985 to 1986, because of the economic growth.

Also, Reagan's adherence to side-supply economic theory seems to have done little to help anyone but the wealthiest few individuals in America.

The Reagan tax cuts and deregulation led to people being able to keep a lot more of their money and a lot more job creation, and hence economic growth.

During H. W. Bush's administration, the economy continued to decline and ultimately cost him his re-election despite having nearly 90% approval ratings after the victory with the Gulf War.

George H. W. Bush reversed his "Read my lips, no new taxes" and agreed with Congressional Democrats to a tax increase which also contributed to the recession that occurred under him.

Also, I believe he was leading Clinton in the polls up until the last week, when soemthing (I forget exactly) came up which reversed the polls within a week and he lost.

By the time Clinton took the presidency, the country was yet again facing a recession and a mounting national deficit. During this time, Clinton not only managed to repair the economy but also turn the federal deficit into a surplus. Currently, that surplus is now a deficit, courtesy of President Bush.

A President cannot repair an economy (remember Congress is included too; only Congress has the power to tax, spend, etc...). The only way a government can repair the economy is if it is too taxes or regulated and they proceed to cut taxes or cut regulations. Or if a deficit is so large that the gov't shrinks it, which helps the economy. But otherwise, the economy self-regulates for the most part.

Clinton increased taxes and sought to increase spending. Now the Clinton tax increase did not tank the economy, despite claims by the Republicans it would (this just shows how tax policy is both art and science), and it did increase revenues. But then the Republicans won back the House and Clinton started governing more to the center. He also kind of became a lame duck for awhile due to the Monica Lewinsky incident I believe. The economy reversed itself under him from a few reasons:

1) He finally signed off on welfare reform, which he resisted and vetoed multiple times at first

2) He complete NAFTA, which had been started under Reagan

3) He signed off (reluctantly) on a capital gains tax cut (28% to 20%) and revenues surged, hitting surplus in 1998.

4) He benefited from the Dot Com bubble. Reagan benefited from a bubble as well which helped reverse his deficit despite his increased defense spending, then in 1987 it burst. And so did George W. Bush, who saw the deficit begin shrinking in 2006 to 2007. But then the bubble popped (had the Republicans been fiscally conservative, we probably would have seen a budget surplus under George W. Bush for awhile). Remember in 2000 the Dot Com bubble popped, the markets tanked over 50%, and the Clinton surplus quickly became a deficit again.

5) Defense spending was significantly cut with the Soviet Union's collapse; this had made up a lot of the initial Reagan deficit.

The point is, considering the last 30 years, the Democrats have a much better record on managing the economy and I think it's a little premature to judge the Democrats spending policies.

I'd disagree there. And remember government doesn't "manage" the economy. However, I am not talking about Democrats versus Republicans, I am talking about Left versus Right. Very few Republicans have ever been truly to the Right. Reagan was to a good extent, but he was limited to some extent by the Democrats in Congress and also his military spending.

The other thing is remember, the Presidency does not rule the country. The Congress counts too. Only the Congress has the power to tax, spend, declare war, etc...

But if Democrats become the party of limited government, fiscal conservativsm, free-market capitalism, etc...fine by me! And notice that is what we had under Clinton, which is what helped the budget to become balanced.

While not the same policies we are seeing now, FDR implemented "leftist" policies with his New Deal which alleviated the effects of the depression.

This is highly controversial. There are many books on this subject which go into detail about how his policies lengthened and deepened the Great Depression.

Also, once WWII started, our economy completely recovered.

This is again another area economists debate. Some say the super-high spending of WWII recovered the economy, others say it is a ludicrous claim because a good deal of the workforce was sent off to war, which automatically helped drive down the "unemployment" rate, along with some other details.

Interestingly, during WWII, government intervention - competition even - with business was at an all time high.

War can help business, the economy is the question however.

During WWII there were many shortages. Certain businesses profited very well from the war however. Some even supplied both the Allies and the Axis powers!

One could also argue based on the direction the economy has gone under the Republicans that the country has never done well with conservative policies. Left is a really ambiguous term here so I'm sorry if I missed your point.

Like I said, just look at the states, cities, and European countries. I say Left because the Republicans have occasionally been Left and the Democrats have occasionally been Right. leftism doesn't care what party applies its policies.

There is a myth that when the 1929 Stock Market crash happened, that Herbert Hoover stood on the sidelines, took a hands-off policy on the economy, and the economy went into the depression.

In reality, he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff which put a huge tax on over 20,000 different imports. Other countries responded with similar measures, and global trade ground to a halt. The measure was meant to protect American industry from foreign competition, but instead it proceed to wreck the economy. It is believed as well that the news that Smoot-Hawley would be signed likely by Hoover is what triggered the 1929 crash, as it was the day before the crash that the (I think) New York Times had a front-page article saying this.

Hoover also signed off on a large tax increase, making things worse. The NYT even ran a story saying Hoover had done everything anyone could think of to try and recover the economy.

When John F. Kennedy sought to cut taxes, it was the Republicans in Congress who resisted it. And when Reagan wanted to cut taxes, which went against the Republican establishment at the time, they said it was ludicrous.

The Republicans, and Democrats, at the time, believed in raising taxes to try and close the deficit. It didn't occur to them that increasing taxes could negatively affect economic growth because the establishment Keynesian ideology at the time was that cutting taxes would overwhelm the economy with demand and skyrocket inflation.

And then here we were with double-digit inflation and it was thought a possible Wiemar Republic-style inflation on the horizon and this looney-tune Ronald Reagan wants to CUT taxes? Was he nuts? Nope, he just knew that the Keynesian idea that tax cuts would overwhelm the economy and make inflation worse was incorrect.

Nixon was a HARDCORE Keynesian. He was only "Republican" in social issues, otherwise he was strictly for big government control of the economy (and under him the economy went haywire due to his policies). He "fixed" inflation by enacting price controls, a politically brilliant move, but Constitutionally questionable and ludicrous economically. The inflation kept building, so it exploded into double-digits when the price controls were removed.

I'll admit that I don't have enough knowledge to either agree or disagree with you on most of these points. I have a difficult time taking a stance one way or another on unions so I can't really discuss them either.

Unions served a very good role back in the days prior to good labor laws and regulations, as a way to protect workers from corporations that just treated them like crap (like force them to work in completely unsafe conditions).

But like corporations, unions unto themselves can become corrupt and very greedy.

In modern times, unions have more been simply for workers who wanted more money out of a business, rather than safer working conditions, which is wrong as the workers are not entitled to the profits of the business in a free-market. This isn't the full-case, there is still need here and there, but unions are needed a lot less in modern times.

Historically organized crime ties in a lot with organized labor.

Public unions are mostly strictly for money, as they are for employees of the government. But unlike with a corporation, a government can always increase taxes if they need more money, so public employees unions tend to demand lots more money. But they ignore that forcing the government to keep yanking taxes damages the economy and can make the government go insolvent or bankrupt.

Pending on what's meant by leftism, European nations have had great success with "leftist" policies. During the Depression, while both Germany and Britain did not resort to Keynsian Spending, their respective governments took near control of the economy - much more so than here in the U.S. - regulating business, forcing employment, etc. Interestingly, both of their economies recovered much quicker than ours, resuming and often exceeding pre-depression production by 1937.

That depends. Germany implemented a wartime economy, which appeared to fix the problems. In Britain, I don't know about their depression situation, but I know after World War II, the British nationalized multiple industries outright, such as mining, coal, railroads, and so forth, and it proved to be a total disaster.

Labour party, by the 1970s, was running the economy into the ground. The unions, in particular the coal unions, had a tremendous stranglehold on the UK economy.

When Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives took power, they went to battle with the coal unions. Thatcher had stockpiled coal so when the coal unions went on strike, the country didn't shut down. They mananged to break the coal unions.

However then the Conservatives and Thatcher started becoming hypocrites; Thatcher raised taxes later on, and the UK's party of family values started having all sorts of various scandals.

Meanwhile Labour re-branded itself as "New Labour" and won back power. However, they seem to have since very mis-managed the public finances, so now it seems the Conservatives will make a comeback in the UK soon.

In Italy, I know there are books about how Mussolini's fascism wrecked Italy's economy.

Historically, keynsian spending lifted the United States out of the Depression and was the policy that governed our post-war economic spending. Ultimately, after the war, our economy continued to get better. While keynsian spending isn't exactly stimulus spending (some would probably argue it is, some would argue it isn't), the general idea is the same.

Again, depends. Remember, FDR's Treasury Secretary said that all the spending they were doing wasn't working. But even if it was, FDR still enacted a lot of things that were hurting the economy, such as keeping wages artificially high, rationing, and super-high taxes. Also free-trade remained restrained.

During the 1950s, our economy had little competition from foreigners (Japan and Europe were still re-building. Also, because birthrates dropped off during the Depression, when the 1950s came, a much smaller number of men were entering the workforce, and they were in great demand, which thus drove up wages.

So the 1950s were kind of "glory days," good wages, American economy was the envy of the world, etc...by the 1960s the economy was stalled again (this is why JFK wanted to cut taxes), and then by 1970 Nixon's actions really sent things going haywire.

Sure, as long there isn't much contention one way or another. However, if many Americans support universal healthcare, I think it would be wrong to dismiss it on the basis that you (or even many other Americans) do not support it.

How do we know many Americans support it though? Or do they support it assuming we can afford it..? Do they understand what they are supporting, that it has a cost as it isn't free? What about the whole argument about how it will affect costs.

For example the universal types say it will cut costs. The others say it will increase costs.

What about examples such as the UK, though, where they are having to ration various forms of care now, or Massachusettes, which tried a universal care system, but it has come out costing more than thought, or California which wanted to create such a system, but axed it because it would've bankrupted the state?

What about the cost issues with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, which have trillions in un-funded liabilities? Are Medicare, Medicaid, and SS sort of like a bigger version of our current financial crises, where some say, "Oh, the critics, they are scaremongers, do not worry," then in some years BOOM! these systems blow up in our faces...?

What about the concern that it will drive the private insurance industry out of business?

Are people aware that the anti-universal healthcare types are not pro health insurance company either?

What about the kind of control this could give government over our lives? For example, they might want to enact a law on this, or a tax on that (say fast food) because eating such stuff "increases healthcare costs."

We need a good national debate on all this stuff.

I am not ideologically, personally, opposed to single-payer healthcare, if someone could prove to me it works better, but I do not see how it possibly could nor have I seen any examples. For example I knew a soldier who had a vasectomy done in the military, and well then he got his wife pregnant later on, seems the vasectomy "fixed" itself :) so he had a private doctor look at it, and the doctor said it was the worst vasectomy he'd ever seen.

Military healthcare is strictly government-run healthcare, government hospitals, government doctors, etc...it seems really scary. Remember Walter Reed for example.

 

[WheelsRCool]

First, while global warming has not been "proven," a phenomenon known as ocean acidification has. We need to reduce carbon emissions to save the oceans, which as it turns out, are pretty important.

Has it been proven carbon released into the atmosphere causes this? Carbon is an awfulyl small portion of our atmosphere.

Also, I personally don't find any issues in requiring business to employ environmentally safe standards. While it may impede on many of the "freedoms" and "liberties" that businesses have, I also like to believe that as a citizen of the United States I have rights to clean, unpolluted air and safe living conditions (while it's not written into the constitution, many of our fundamental rights are not either). Given the unscrupulous nature of many businesses and the health hazards that they have caused - love canal for example - I don't think it's unreasonable to impose environmental restrictions that preserve my right to life (in the Declaration of Independence) or any other rights.

Yes, those types of things are fine, but you don't do it via a 1,300 page bill that no one has any chance to read in detail. And we have done much of those things already. This isn't the 1950s or 1960s. We have the cleanest industry in the world and are very environmentally aware now regarding our rivers and lakes and so forth.

This "green" movement is much like a watermelon: green on the outside, RED on the inside. It is an excuse to infringe on capitalism and create control over much of the economy and people for many. There are darker motives using it as an excuse.

For example, they say carbon is a pollutant. But technically it isn't. You get a coal plant that has 100% pollution-free emissions and it just releases 100% pure CO2 into the atmosphere. The pollutants are the stuff that's in the coal that should not be there.

If you take issue with the fact that the rights I mention are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution note that freedoms for businesses are not mentioned in the constitution either. Also consult the 9th ammendment.

No individual or business should be free to do things that harm or maim or kill others. You have freedom as in you are free to do anything as long as it doesn't harm others.

Ironically, this nation's sacred founding principles have changed. Did you know that slavery is explicitly written into the constitution with the 3/5 compromise? So yes, slavery is a fundamental, "sacred" principle that this nation was founded on that eventually changed

I am assuming you mean they're saying blacks are 3/5 human and thus can be slaves? From what I understand, the origins of the clause come from the debate between the northern and the southern states over the issue of political representation. The South wanted to count blacks as whole people/persons, in order to increase its political power. The North wanted blacks to count for nothing, not because they were racists, but so they could preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress.

I believe the three-fifths compromise was proposed by an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania. The idea was to limit the South's political representation and thus undermine its ability to protect the institution of slavery. The great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass called the three-fifths clause "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" which deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation." He also said (regarding the Constitution), "I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it," and he told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."

Also, I think the three-fifths clause only referred to slaves, not blacks who were free.

(also note that many of the founding father's like Jefferson and Washington held slaves as well).

That's why we amended the Constitution with the 13th Amendment.

Since evidence also suggests that the constitution was also developed as an economic document to benefit the founding father's personally, these principles seem much less "sacred." Moreover, you seem to believe that the nation was founded on some great "moral character," however, I can see no evidence to support this - Jefferson raped his slaves, Franklin cheated on his wife, Hancock illegally sold liquor, etc.

I said the nation was built on sacred principles, and by that I mean in terms of limited government, fiscal conservatism, free-market capitalism, individual liberties, etc...America certainly has its flaws historically. Remember we destroyed the Native Americans and really treated them badly.

As for the Founding Fathers and the others involved in our country's founding, I do not know enough about their histories on their full character at the moment. I know Benjamin Franklin loved women, not sure about Jefferson raping his slaves however, etc...

Limited government has been an issue since the constitution was first drafted, consider the stuggle between the Federalists (big government) and the Democratic-Republicans (small government).

Yup. Also for example Jefferson who didn't believe in banks and wanted us to remain an agrarian nation, and Hamilton, who knew the nation had to industrialize and had to control its currency, etc...

Revering the nation's founding principles is one thing but regarding them as sacred is another. You should read an article titled The Founder's Chic which explicitly addresses this issue.

Freedom, liberty, limited government, etc...are sacred principles. If/When America ever collapses, and another country ever rises up, these principles will remain the same. The norm throughout human history is enslavement. Freedom is very precious.

Government is a necessary evil, you cannot have a free society with laws without a government, but at the same time, government itself is an evil entity as well, as it always seeks to control and increase its size and influence.

While I'm certainly not socialist, why is there such a stigma associated with socialism? Sure, it's not perfect and it's not capitalism, but capitalism isn't perfect either.

Because socialism is evil, has killed many millions, and is not grounded in reality. Capitalism isn't so much a system as it is just reality. It acknowledges that there are scarce resources.

Trade always will occur, whether in a free-market economy with laws or in one without laws or government. But in that case, the term "crush your opponents" is literal, like crush them with a car! Or "blow our competition away" again literal, blow them up!

Like those criminal enterprises, that is capitalism too, they have franchises, and are in busiensses like drugs, sex traffiking, guns, gambling, etc...but they operate outside the rule of law.

Also with an under-developed economy, there is lack of finance, so only the rich can benefit. Development of finance allows entrepreneurs to start businesses and create jobs and economic growth.

Socialism is grounded on the premise that everything can be made "free" and that the pie is fixed, that in order for one guy to get rich, another one must become poor, which is nonsense, as wealth is created. It also assumes the government can ration scarce resources better, which is incorrect.

It also means infringment on freedoms.

Remember, everywhere there is capitalism, there isn't freedom, but everywhere there is freedom, there is capitalism, you find people engaging in voluntary cooperation and free-trade.

Socialism is enslavement, as the government owns and/or controls everything.

Do you know who ended slavery? The "Left." Sure, it wasn't the Democrats, it was actually the Republicans, but at the party's inception during the 1860's the Republican party was the "Left."

They weren't "Left" so much as they were liberal (true liberalism, which is classical liberalism). Classical liberals sought to end slavery.

Who supported women's suffrage? The Left.

Again, people who were of classical liberalism. A person for something like women's suffrage, who then wants to control other aspects of people's lives, is just a hypocrite.

Who supported African-American's suffrage? The Left.

Who ended Jim Crow laws in the South? The Left.

Who supported equal women's rights? The Left.

All classical liberalism. None of that stuff is to the Left. Leftism seeks to control. When a Republican seeks to control those things, they are not being right-wing, they are being to the Left.

Who supported infringing our fundamental rights to privacy? The Right. The PATRIOT Act ("patriot" is actually an acronym) and the Alien and Seditions Act are frighteningly similar.

The hardline Right supported the Patriot Act for national security reasons so our intelligence agencies could communicate better. And the Patriot Act has since been more limited, as the courts have looked it over and so forth. The checks and balances of the system kick in.

Who failed to fund AIDS research because it initially primarily impacted gay men only? The Right.

You mean Republicans who are bringing their religious views into it perhaps, which is wrong. That is a form of Leftism.

See, I can make a list too.

You have pointed out certain Leftist aspects of Republicans, and those things are wrong as well, as I've said.

Classical liberalism, remember, is just for universal human freedom within the rule of law

 

[jgens]

Since I'm on my Pre right now, I can't really respond. That said, that is a wonderful, well thought out response!

 

[LowlyPion]

If people don't want to post about Sotomayor in any way, let me suggest to perhaps find another repository for these screeds? I'd say it's gotten a bit out of hand, and I have come to regret my own meager contributions that might have helped in leading the discussion so thoroughly astray.

I'm usually pretty tolerant about peripheral and tangential discussions, and not that much of a stickler, but these last posts are way too much, and quite frankly not particularly inviting to even want to get into.

As a tip for the future maybe think Hemingway and not Tolstoy. And at least on this thread maybe even think about some vague reference to Sotomayor.

 

[jgens]

That's true LowlyPion. Since I sort of hijacked the thread with my response, perhaps the moderators should delete the last few posts and get the thread back on track?

 

[BobG]

As a tip for the future maybe think Hemingway and not Tolstoy. And at least on this thread maybe even think about some vague reference to Sotomayor.

I think Newton would be more relevant than either Hemingway or Tolstoy.

I stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one extraordinary person who is my life aspiration - that person is my mother, Celina Sotomayor.

At least she didn't call her mother a dwarf.

 

[Al68]

All classical liberalism. None of that stuff is to the Left. Leftism seeks to control. When a Republican seeks to control those things, they are not being right-wing, they are being to the Left.

The problem here is that the media and others in the U.S. have repeatedly used the words "left" and "liberal" to describe oppressors. That's not what the words really mean, but when's the last time you heard an actual libertarian or classical liberal called a liberal or left in the media?

When's the last time the media used the word liberal to describe a believer in "unregulated free enterprise"? They apparently don't have a dictionary.

 

[LowlyPion]

More Republican Grandstanding:

Firefighter to Testify Against Sotomayor
(CBS/AP) Republicans plan to call a white firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to testify against her.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/09/politics/main5147162.shtml

This accomplishes exactly what? Sotomayor didn't make the law. She ruled based on the Law. Where's the beef? Their testimony is irrelevant to the decision of the Court, either at the appellate level or The Supreme Court. So now they want to retry a case that is already decided, albeit by a split decision?

This sheds no light on anything that I can see except The Party of No's obstructionist game plan.

 

[seycyrus]

More Republican Grandstanding:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/09/politics/main5147162.shtml

This accomplishes exactly what? Sotomayor didn't make the law. She ruled based on the Law. Where's the beef?

Oh give me a break. Your antipathy to the republican party is translucent.

It is entirely relevant in that it might indicate a tendency to make rulings based on personal biases. This is a question that everyone should be interested in resolving.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

 

[LowlyPion]

It is entirely relevant in that it might indicate a tendency to make rulings based on personal biases. This is a question that everyone should be interested in resolving.

There is no light to be shed by Ricci on the law of it. There is no personal relationship between Ricci and Sotomayor. In short Ricci testifying has nothing at all to do with Sotomayor and is only political theater, so apparently the Party of No can adhere to their current effete tactic of being obstructionist, when it doesn't serve any useful or tactical purpose. It's just circus for circus sake.

Moreover, it's not that Sotomayor has expressed a judgment in Ricci that is out of line with the Law even. The extent to which the 2nd Circuit found differently from the Supreme Court is based solely on the vote difference of just one these Conservative Judges that the previous Republican administrations have salted the court with. One could as easily determine that it is Republican biases that are at odds with the application of the Law, and that it has been Republican politicization of matters of interpretation that has run counter to the finding of the 2nd Circuit. That replacing a few of the less distinguished Justices from the Right like Thomas or Alito would even have this judgment of hers push her 97% agreement higher than she already enjoys.

 

[Al68]

The point is, considering the last 30 years, the Democrats have a much better record on managing the economy and I think it's a little premature to judge the Democrats spending policies.

That statement might make sense if we had a government managed economy for the last 30 years.

If you take issue with the fact that the rights I mention are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution note that freedoms for businesses are not mentioned in the constitution either.

Every freedom mentioned in the constitution applies equally to people engaged in business. The constitution doesn't distinguish between people who engage in business and those that don't. It applies to all.

While I'm certainly not socialist, why is there such a stigma associated with socialism?

Maybe because some of us still believe thievery is wrong and individual liberty is not only good, but a natural right of man, and using offensive force against any person for the sole purpose of coercing them to serve a "public interest" is dispicable.

Do you know who ended slavery? The "Left." Sure, it wasn't the Democrats, it was actually the Republicans, but at the party's inception during the 1860's the Republican party was the "Left."

It still is generally, if we used the same definition of "left". The Republican Party is certainly more "liberal" economically than Democrats if we use the dictionary definition. In England, the "Liberal" Party is the one opposing the labor party and government control of the economy. This is a case of semantics, sure, but the words left, right, liberal, conservative, neocon, etc. are used more often to mislead people than to inform.

 

[Alfi]

Here we go !

I say Yea!
We'll see who says Nae.

United States Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears today for Senate confirmation hearings with the distinction of having weathered with flying colors what may be the most intense scrutiny ever applied to a would-be justice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/07/13/2009-07-13_sonias_supreme_moment_sotomayor_should_be_the_next_high_court_justice.html#ixzz0LA4KA5XO&D

 

[mheslep]

Here we go !

I say Yea!
We'll see who says Nae.

United States Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears today for Senate confirmation hearings with the distinction of having weathered with flying colors what may be the most intense scrutiny ever applied to a would-be justice.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/07/13/2009-07-13_sonias_supreme_moment_sotomayor_should_be_the_next_high_court_justice.html#ixzz0LA4KA5XO&D

I say Nae

 

[Alfi]

One for Nae then. One for Yea.


If you choose to mheslep, I would ask... In few words.. Why not?
( Yes I have read all 13 pages of this thread ( at this point)
I will not offer any judgment on your choice , no arguments, ... Just curious.

 

[Alfi]

Poor Fox News is trying as best they can to moisten Sotomayor's parade.

Who gives a **** what 'fox' cares.

What DO YOU CARE. ??

that's only what you should care about, and post about.

Enough! Who cares what the BS networks care! I only want to hear what the members here care.
Please stop being a reflection to the networks. Give your view.

Please... think .. and post YOUR thoughts. Not just a link to some one else's thoughts.

 

[mheslep]

One for Nae then. One for Yea.


If you choose to mheslep, I would ask... In few words.. Why not?
( Yes I have read all 13 pages of this thread ( at this point)
I will not offer any judgment on your choice , no arguments, ... Just curious.

In general I start w/ the position that the President should have deference on his judicial picks absent the grossly unqualified, but given the treatment of Miguel Estrada I'm not so inclined to counsel stepping aside. So w/ regard to the highly experienced Sotomayor, the Ricci case, and her repeated resort to identity politics: my take is that we have too much identity politics already. We need less, not more. Their are some other lesser issues, e.g. the http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/politics/07firm.html?_r=1&emc=eta1" about running her own private law office when she was employed a district attorney, but that might all be explainable.

 

[LowlyPion]

... and her repeated resort to identity politics:

What resort to identity politics? I've not heard Sotomayor offer her identity as a Latino or a woman as an excuse for anything.

What I have heard is the Conservatives trying to paint her as an activist. But then they should be well acquainted with appointing activist Judges, if you put any weight to this article about Roberts in the New Yorker.

“Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin

Perhaps if you want to keep partisan politics off the Court you should have been guarding the door more closely when Roberts was up for confirmation?

 

[mheslep]

What resort to identity politics? I've not heard Sotomayor offer her identity as a Latino or a woman as an excuse for anything...

...I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

is self-identification by race/ethnicity, not by itself a bad thing, but the statement empirically contains identity politics when made public official.

 

[russ_watters]

I appreciate the suggestion, but note lest it escape you too quickly, that my comments represent my thoughts, even if they are responses to the mindless ideologues of the right wing media. That is the nature of dialog after all.

I think this is a good point to pause and refer everyone back to the guidelines for posting on P&WA: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

In particular:

Any counter-arguments to statements already made must clearly state the point on which there is disagreement, the reason(s) why a different view is held, and cite appropriate sources to counter the argument...
[not permitted]
Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.

In other words, your understanding of the purpose and guidelines of this forum are not correct. This is not a place for freeform rhetic and editorializing. You must make arguments that have verifiable sources/justifications in order for th things you post to be useful. Post of a purely rhetorical nature are not permitted.

I'm deleting the off topic "blathering", as one person put it. Keep the posting quality high.

 

[russ_watters]

What resort to identity politics? I've not heard Sotomayor offer her identity as a Latino or a woman as an excuse for anything.

1. Barack Obama used her identity as part of the reason for nominating her.
2. She used her identity as an argument for why she makes a good judge (not an excuse). She has since, due to pressure over her bias, quit the club she belonged to that was based on identity and where she made that argument.

Both of these are well publicized and have been discussed at length in this thread.

I think I posted this before, but its a long thread, so here again is a commentary about the identity politics of the situation:

Some of us thought the election of Barack Obama as president might signal a fading away of the old identity politics...

But the president himself has made identity politics front-page news with his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee...

[The article then discusses statements by Sotomayor, Obama, and the context of the NH firefighters case]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.html?iref=newssearch

 

[mheslep]

...What I have heard is the Conservatives trying to paint her as an activist. But then they should be well acquainted with appointing activist Judges,

Judicial activism is about making social policy on the bench, inventing law on the bench, instead of simply applying the existing law as it was intended by its authors. A judge is not an 'activist' simply because his/her ruling runs afoul of the current leftist position. The linked article is a good case in point. It makes little comment about applicable law or the constitution. Instead, it takes Roberts to task on his background, on half a dozen political issues that the author finds telling: the du jour environmental issue, or the poor vs the rich, etc, and to hell with the law. That piece is demanding judicial activism.

if you put any weight to this article about Roberts in the New Yorker.

And no I do not.

 

[russ_watters]

Judicial activism is about making social policy on the bench, inventing law on the bench, instead of simply applying the existing law as it was intended by its authors.

I'll put a finer point on it: Judicial activism is a position of the left. The right favors constructivism*. These postitions are contained in/implied by the words "liberal" and "conservative" themselves.

*Just saying "conservative" is more common.

 

[mheslep]

I'll put a finer point on it: Judicial activism is a position of the left. The right favors constructivism. These positions are contained in/implied by the words "liberal" and "conservative" themselves.

I think 'favors' as you say is true, though there are certainly some issues where politicians, if not judges, on the right have favored and passed laws found to be unconstitutional. Flag burning comes to mind, where laws were passed in most (all?) states banning it, the US Congress (Republican at the time) attempted the same, but all of the above was struck down, finally so in United States v. Eichman (5-4) with none other than Antonin Scalia joining the majority opinion. Though I find flag burning detestable and worthy of all the ridicule I can muster, I don't think the 1st amendment can permit laws banning it, and dreaming up some constitutional interest by the state that allowed banning laws would have indeed been judicial activism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact is that the law is not always clear, which is why we need a Supreme Court. So by definition it is not always possible to interpret the law without in effect making law. IMO, this notion that SC justices are or could be completely unbiased - mere computers that spit out results - is naive to the point of being a deception.

That is also why we have nine justices that often disagree.

Her decision wrt the firefighters was based on existing law. It was actually a conservative decision. The SC then ruled against the existing law.

 

[russ_watters]

I think 'favors' as you say is true, though there are certainly some issues where politicians, if not judges, on the right have favored and passed laws found to be unconstitutional.

Politicians passing laws, certainly. Judges, I think you'll have more trouble.

Flag burning comes to mind, where laws were passed in most (all?) states banning it, the US Congress (Republican at the time) attempted the same, but all of the above was struck down, finally so in United States v. Eichman (5-4) with none other than Antonin Scalia joining the majority opinion. Though I find flag burning detestable and worthy of all the ridicule I can muster, I don't think the 1st amendment can permit laws banning it, and dreaming up some constitutional interest by the state that allowed banning laws would have indeed been judicial activism.

Certainly flag burning is a clear 1st Amendment right. It surprises me that the decision went 5-4, though I haven't read the reasoning. However, it is an example of a supposedly conservative leaning court deciding in a constructivist direction on a historically liberal issue, and with some party switching.

 

[russ_watters]

The fact is that the law is not always clear, which is why we need a Supreme Court.

Not always clear and not always objective. IMO, the larger of the two purposes is for the USSC to be objective. Theoretical the national stage makes for a tougher audience and more difficulty in accepting heavy bias.

So by definition it is not always possible to interpret the law without in effect making law.

I don't see how that follows. Though I use it, the term "legislating from the bench" isn't quite accurate since the court can't actually write a law or change the meaning of a written law. What an activist court does is change the way the constitution is interpreted and applied to a law it is reviewing. That's the point and that is what the court is supposed to avoid. It isn't so much legislating from the bench as it is amending the constitution from the bench.

IMO, this notion that SC justices are or could be completely unbiased - mere computers that spit out results - is naive to the point of being a deception.

I doubt anyone would suggest that it is possible for a justice to be completely unbiased, but I don't think it is too much to ask that a justice and a President appointing one not advertise their bias as their primary selling point.

Her decision wrt the firefighters was based on existing law. It was actually a conservative decision. The SC then ruled against the existing law.

That's not how it works, Ivan, since obviously every supreme court decision is based on existing law. But in this case, the laws in question were liberal in nature and the interpretation of the Constitution on which they were based is liberal in nature.

Affirmative action is a liberal issue and the idea of interpreting the Constitutional requirement for equal protection broadly is a liberal issue. The way AA is being done is unconstitutional and even goes against the words of Martin Luther King Jr himself. We do not live in a color blind society, we live in a society where it is written into our laws that the color of one's skin has to be considered when issuing promotions, hiring for jobs, accepting kids to college.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin...

Point blank: the firefighter advancement test was tossed out because the people who passed it were white. They were judged unworthy of promotion due to the color of their skin.

I'll go further: I think she knows it! The case was important and controversial and to me that demands a court decision. But she and her court chose not to issue a decision. Why? At the very best they were shirking their responsibility, and to me that sounds like passing the buck on an issue that they knew they stood on the wrong side of.