Or, to put it more straightforwardly, some on the left worry that Elena Kagan just may not sit left enough for their liking.
— Which is odd when one remembers what the role of jurists should be. Or when one looks to Ms Kagan’s record on many key issues that mark her as decidedly philosophically left leaning.
But then, it is of great benefit to the left not only to forget such things as the intended role of the judiciary but to actively reformulate the role of jurists altogether as “pragmatic” empaths who will, when there is a pressing need to do so — like, for instance, when their idea of “social justice” dictates — ignore the law (or simply rewrite it, using the the interpretive maneuvers that go with the “Living Constitution” paradigm) to ensure that they can justify predetermined conclusions.
As with “tolerance,” the left has redefined the rule of law to mean precisely the opposite of what it was meant to signify. In the progressive formulation, equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity — and so leftist jurisprudence follows the same rather predictable identity group mentality that today animates our “multiculturalist” ethos on the policy front.
Good thing I’ve already done the work of breaking down the kernel assumptions of multiculturalism to expose its totalitarian trajectory then, I guess. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to enjoy the boy’s first day of t-ball.
And that would just make me cranky.
No (incredibly leftist Supreme Court) justice! No peace!
The flip side of having an independent judiciary is that the members of that class show restraint in complying with the law A – as written and B – as intended where textual meaning is ambiguous. Throw that out the window, as the Left is so anxious to do, and there’s as little reason to respect a judge’s legislating from the bench. The Left is destroying that which they seek.
Sweet. I’d be willing to bet he — easily — has the best baseball name on the team.
Reversed, the personal views would disqualify a conservative even though their judicial philosophy would render those views a moot point. I’d assume cognitive dissonance on behalf of the progressives on this point but self-serving bullshit doesn’t need to be resolved internally.
I have a strong feeling that I’ll have to avoid the television during the confirmation hearings.
I don’t think they give a rat’s ass if the whims of judges end up giving court rulings the moral weight of used toilet paper. It isn’t so much a matter of which formality the absolute power is wrapped in, so much as destroying the culture of trust and respect that makes a free society possible.
We’re talking about people who consider it a heinous crime to have written legal opinions that are — according to the experts — incredibly well-reasoned, argued, and supported by law, if those opinions reach a conclusion they find distasteful (or at least politically unhelpful) while simultaneously not even batting an eye while presidential power is used to nullify contracts in order to award political supporters. If the rule of law — or even of lawyers — were their concern, they’d be praising Yoo et. al. while condemning Obama’s handling of the auto companies and banks.
You can reach your own conclusion as to the meaning of their doing the exact opposite.
I just had the theme music from the Kirk Douglas movie “The Vikings” pop into my head.
Do you think that means anything?
Soil enrichment.
Except Thomas and Brown. They can till the rest in.
RAAAAA
If you leave it, stay away.
Avoiding the part of TV that’s devoted to (or issues from) government (which is about a third of it…and that’s a problem), then coming back to it, will give you the impression that you’ve suffered a psychotic break, or that a Singularity happened without you.
If you disown the news for a few weeks, or however long it takes you to forget how it talks, then you turn it on, once, it doesn’t matter what network you flip to or what story comes up — you will know that the world is completely insane. Or you are.
And then what.
Not a question.
Head down, swing level and hard.
Damn skippy on the t-ball Jeff.
Heh, I actually had my existential crisis when I was in the 3rd grade, psycho. I might have viewed the world as insane back then. Not I view it as pleasantly absurd and myself to be incredibly ignorant and stupid on the absolute scale.
not=now
Might I suggest breaking out the costume (and adopted attitude) from The Citizen Journalist Report for the bleachers at the t-ball game. Nothing like a nice mustache & mullet leaning on the fence to keep the umpires honest.
Don’t forget that “social justice” dictated that three young men who were innocent of the crime for which they were charged be railroaded into rape convictions in Durham. After all, they were rich white boys and the alleged victim was a black woman, and to acquit them is to say that white men have never raped black women, which is pretty much the same thing as raping black women yourself, so even if these particular men didn’t rape this particular woman, social justice demands that we convict them, so as to make up for all those slaves schtupped by their massas.
The irony of that attempted lynching is something that those sophisticated, nuanced folks on the Left just don’t get.
When you presume that you by definition hold the moral highground because of your lefty views, everything you do is right.
“Good thing I’ve already done the work of breaking down the kernel assumptions of multiculturalism…”
Posted on that today, with reference to R.S. McCain’s post today, “Multicultural Homogenization”.
Obama should try to recruit Tarek El Aissami, that would probably satisfy most of his base.
O/T: Man, I sure am glad that it’s not Sarah Palin who’s a heartbeat away.
What did I tell you, bh?
I heard about that on the radio, SBP. Un-f’n-believable. Can you imagine being on this guy’s staff? Honestly, I’m not sure I would be able to keep a straight face.
Yeah, you might be right, Jeff.
“In December 2002, neighbors complained of loud construction work being done at the Naval Observatory, which has been used as a residence by vice presidents since 1974.”
Now they can go to work building a new one (Stimulus!) and disturb some other neighbor’s peace. Fits in though: finished at great expense building prison in Guantanamo, abandon it and build a new one somewhere (Stimulus!!). Rinse and repeat. (Stimulus!!!)
My favorite movie scene.
Kyle, I think the argument is that amendments to our “Living Constitution” should be just that: Amendments. None of this judicial jiggery-pokery that’s been going on for the past couple of generations. The Founders had enough sense to anticipate that changes would be needed. I just wish our countrymen since then had enough sense to understand what the Founders meant, and why it’s important.
There were incremental trends before those amendments. My main point is that adherence to a “strict constructionist” course is dogmatic nonsense.
As far as “jiggery-pokery”, that would seem to be in the eye of the beholder.
I see Kyle is of the “I agree with the current arbitrary judicial activism, so I simply won’t worry about the precedent it sets for the future” school.
Hey, Kyle: you’re dumb enough to believe that societies always “evolve”? Seriously?
And you know, Kyle, women were given the federal vote by the 19th Amendment, not because some judge unilaterally decided it was a good idea.
Anyone here willing to enter into a legal contract with Kyle?
Hey, Kyle: you’re dumb enough to believe that societies always “evolve� Seriously?
You might want to start here, Kyle.
Also check this.
Of course, you won’t get the parallel.
I’d rather buy some bonds from Chrysler, bh.
Heh.
Good point, SBP. I sometimes wonder if people who use evolution as a metaphor understand how it works in actual practice.
Change is not like evolution it is like a mutation. Most mutations are harmful. In fact, the organisms that evolve the fastest can only do so because they create so many copies. Create 10,000 copies, you can have a high mutation rate.
We have this single society, so how about we don’t roll the dice on all issues, all at once, across the board? You know, if we want to retain the capacity to possibly evolve.
#31 SFAG: Or maybe you should just STFU, you lying crapweasel.
#32 bh: That’s the beauty of the federalist form of government. You could have 50 experiments going rather than just one, with 49 partners to backstop your experiment in the event of Epic Fail.
Nope… can’t have that. Gotta go all in on socialism. It’s bound to work this time!
It’s not going to happen. Ever.
Yes, everything will continue to get better and better, forever and ever and ever.
Tell it to the Romans, Kyle. Or the Babylonians. Or the Persians. Or the Egyptians. Or the Carthaginians. Or the British. Or the French. Or the Spanish.
Wow, you’re dumb.
Well, when a new regime installs a new arbitrary court that makes arbitrary decisions that you don’t like, you’ll have only yourself to blame.
Sleep tight, Kyle.
I see SFAG is still laboring under the delusion that I’m having a conversation with her.
Hint: I’m not.
What time Saturday morning is that cartoon show on, Kyle? We keep hearing about it and would love to watch it too.
You seem to be arguing against imperialism. No doubt you took Bush Jr. to task for that, as well as spending tax-payer dollars.
No, conservatives look a bit farther back for ideals. Those days of Ike are not the days you think they are. Progressive/Socialist Democrats, you know the ones in power, prefer to return to those exciting days of the Wilson era. They are rebooting to it right this minute and you true believers don’t have the slightest clue what you voted for, but you will, you will. heh.
Kyle is an odd little non sequitur producing algorithm.
SBP: Not all societies evolve.
Kyle: You love the ’50s.
SBP: Many civs have failed.
Kyle: Imperialism sucks, like Bush.
SBP: 2+2=4
Kyle: Purple penguins.
That is some class A+++, 200 proof, bottled in bond stupid you got there. Must have borrowed a pretty penny for that
degreealgorithm.Oh, I know, Netflix.
It makes me laugh that Kyle pretends he has a clue what conservatives think. He missed the rise and fall of civilizations bit, opting instead to point to what he believed all those countries had in common conservatives, imperialism. I don’t hold out much hope for him being an asset in the public good.
..in common with conservatives..
My bad.
bh,
If wedding plans get to crazy, watch the season end (last Fri) of Ghost Whisperer, it shows all that is important to have.
First time here, Kyle?
Oh, I get it. That’s like one of them eye-ronic little “I’m pretending to speak as myself as if I were a redneck conservative what’s learned him some lessons about equality from US history” meta-performatives.
Tell you what, Kyle. Let’s you and I debate. Clearly you aren’t on the kind of site you think you are. And if you want to patronize my small-minded countrified wingnuttery, well, here’s your chance, big guy.
We can begin here: Since you have come out in favor of the idea of a living constitution, explain to me — and to others here — how precisely that works from an interpretive standpoint.
Having not seen it, I’m assuming that the Ghost Whisperer showed it was important to invite a pretty brunette to the wedding, preferably as the bride.
Which, hey, that’s the only thing I have covered so far.
Please do it, Kyle. Hey, Jeff’s dumb, he doesn’t want women to vote and he actually dresses like the Fonz because he loves the ’50s so much.
Please do it.
Kyle believes in a living vocabulary.
I remember criticizing Bush for taking over Iraq and making it a US protectorate and ultimately our 58th state.
I was all like, “hey, why not Sarajevo instead, Jr.? I mean, at least they have nice beaches. And, y’know — white folk…!”
You seem to be arguing against imperialism.
Let me know if you decide to address my actual point rather than some straw man you’ve concocted, Kyle.
Oh, right: you can’t.
Holy crap. It’s amazing that Jeff could write this with a straight face. You guys can’t admit, for one minute, that Right-leaning Republicans generally want judges who will come down on the right side of issues, and left-leaning Democrats generally want judges who will come down on the left side of issues. You dress it up and say “rule of law”, but you don’t really mean it. If it were about the rule of law, we wouldn’t have all the clamoring on “Where do they stand on abortion???” Someone could have just as easily written:
You guys can’t admit, for one minute, that Right-leaning Republicans
What makes you think we’re all “Right-leaning Republicans”? Or even that most of us are?
Me I think people are entitled to have faith in their justice system. Sammy doesn’t.
Sammy, you seem to have a world class intellect, perhaps you’ll take up Jeff’s proposal.
First, the extra question marks don’t make the question any more questiony.
Second, I don’t believe in judicial “litmus tests.” I don’t ask for — nor do I require — super duper precedents. So yes, I really do believe in the rule of law.
Third, I can write this with a straight face because I’m a classical liberal / legal conservative who argued against the Schiavo legislation and against Scalia on one of the marijuana cases (can’t recall the name). When I disagree with “conservative” justices, I say so. I’ve been hard on O’Connor here, as well.
I tend to fall mostly in the Thomas camp, if anything.
Not a “buffet,” necessarily. But I think I can arrange to leave plenty of egg on your face.
Close enough? Or do you need free potatoes, as well?
Oh, no. I really mean it.
Kyle strikes me as more of a fat-free soy decaf kind of guy.
Interesting data point.
That would be social cons you are talking about there. Most folks here would be more likely to ask “Where do they stand on Roe v. Wade?”
Do you understand the difference? Besides less question marks, I mean.
Extra question marks signify greater questionisity, B Moe.
Maybe Kyle is a Questing Beast. He’s certainly left plenty of fewmets in this thread.
There are a lot of people here in California that weren’t aborted. A lot in media especially and definitely a plurality if not way more than that at Warner Bros. and Disney. There’s a consultancy niche what’s not being exploited I think.
i like prime ministers questions on c-span
friday night at 9 est
Charles Johnson lives in California I think.
please/ more quotes from colin powell/arlen specter
and powerful maine lesbians
So you’re using Charles Johnson as a proxy for your viewpoints then, Kyle?
Funny how he’s not such a vile Nazi when he’s agreeing with you, isn’t it? In fact, agreement seems to be the mark of someone’s worth, in your book. Imagine!
If dicentra’s around I’d like to ask her if Charles was ever given in the past to calling himself a “conservative”? I mean, being hawkish on the war doesn’t make one a conservative — the lefties’ claims notwithstanding.
Maybe he’s just trying it out now because he knows it sells being a “former conservative” who, by sheer force of having seen the light, backs the sound and sober centrism that manifests in government ownership of banks, auto makers, healthcare, and — if all goes well — the media.
One of those kinds of conservatives, he is.
Not at all. Charles had his own tipping point, I was just using him as one of many examples.
And as you yourself have said, no one links to you anymore. He gets 800 posts to your 20 or 30. Do the math, as they say.
That is a good beginning for what? You don’t have a fucking clue what we are talking about, do you Kyle?
I have done the math. I don’t equate popularity with rectitude. Nor do I gauge my worth in links.
So. Is that a no, you don’t want to debate me — you’d just rather point out that Charles Johnson doesn’t mind Obama and that has a bigger audience than me, and call it a day?
Kyle, odd then, isn’t it, that I see Jeff’s message (and hell, some paraphrasing) spreading like all hell throughout the online world.
Johnson has 1000 commenters talking shit.
How about you do the math? Or, is that too nuanced for you to grok?
Oh, and dick. And what happyfeet will say later as well.
Well, it’s official then. Popularity does not equate rectitude. Thankfully I have no friends, have piles, and I like open fields.
Well, having no friends is indicative.
Maybe try an unguent?
There was something I read not long ago. It was from a professor who taught Obama back at Harvard I believe. I’ve tried to find the link but have failed.
Anyway the professor was amazed at a class speech on a controversial subject that Obama gave. Not so much at the speech but the reaction to it.
Students from both sides of the issue believed that Obama had spoken in support of their position. All saw themselves and everything they thought as reflected in his speech.
Charles has looked at Obama and seen as many have before him, a mirror that reflects back whatever is projected onto it. That ability is amazing but doesn’t give a clue to what is behind that mirror. Only actions speak to that.
i’ve never seen american idol
seriously…
i do not know who jon and kate are/
but they stare at me at the supermarket checkout line
but i know who alexander hamilton is
By the time Obama gets done fucking up the economy America is going to be very idle. Oh wait….
Of course, Kyle could explain the basic underpinnings of his view on proper judicial reasoning?
Just another guy talking shit on the internet then. Funny how the “talking shit” meme doesn’t so much spread as it does fester.
i’m not dissin it so much as
saying i’d rather read jeff g/ but thats me…
one of my sisters watches it every week with my neice
and they told me u could text so many times 4 votes
so they got 3 phones each and vote mad style…
i just looked at them w/ pelosi eyes…
then i’d pull out a twenty dollar bill and ask them
who is that [pointing to pic)
and they’d stare at me w/ pelosi eyes
God bless America!
Well, well. Looks like Kyle doesn’t have anything to support his position.
Imagine my surprise.
Summary: Kyle = FULL of FAIL.
Yo, Kyle:
Achy Breaky Heart sold WAY more copies than anything Bach ever did.
Doesn’t mean that Billy Ray Cyrus is a better musician.’
Hint: try googling “argumentum ad populum”.
the diff ‘tween conservos
and libtards is/
i’m happy that my sis can watch..whatever the freak
she wants/ with my niece/
asnd i’m happy happy fun joy that
i know diff stuff…
only in America
we/ don’t look down on that stuff/ generally
i carrie pray jean u understand…
boners
It’s funny, some of us consider the strawman, the non sequitur, or the ad populum to be rhetorical devices.
Hey, I admit it, that’s my mistake. I view them this way.
In truth, they remain, first and foremost, simple logical fallacies. Kyle isn’t very bright, he actually thinks this way. This is how he makes decisions in his life. From balancing the checkbook to shopping for groceries to voting for President.
So, pity before scorn?
bh wrote:
It’s funny, some of us consider the strawman, the non sequitur, or the ad populum to be rhetorical devices.
It’s more like something to cling to as if it were a life preserver.
In truth, they remain, first and foremost, simple logical fallacies. Kyle isn’t very bright, he actually thinks this way. This is how he makes decisions in his life. From balancing the checkbook to shopping for groceries to voting for President.
So, pity before scorn?
No, I’m all done with pity.
It never did seem as though his object was anything worthy bh. Taunts, jibes, projections, blah, blah, blah…all going nowhere slowly even, timewasting trivia.
The sad thing is that Kyle doubtless considers himself to be an “educated” person.
Ignorant of history, ignorant of politics, ignorant of logic, ignorant of human freakin’ nature… he’s a real nullomath.*
*(Please don’t kill me for mixing Greek and Latin roots, Sdferr… I looked but the only words I could find were άκυÏος and μηδÎν, but those both appear to be modern Greek).
You’re right, sdferr. As is SBP.
I’m young and dumb though. Frankly, it viscerally bugs me on occasion when people talk shit about people I respect. And, I mistakenly attribute cognizance to their statements.
a-mathia for unlearned, would do, SBP (an alpha privative, I think it’s called). μηδÎν is recognizable Attic greek, c. 450BC, άκυÏος I don’t recognize right off, but I could go haul out my Liddle-Scott and see what I can come up with. it too might be an alpha privative…
Is it just me, or is Kyle starting to sound Pudge-o Packerish?
Sdferr: thanks!
No, not at all. Which makes sense, given that he isn’t a conservative and never has been one.
So it is, alpha privative that is.
άκυÏος – (root, κυÏος [supreme power, authority]) – without authority I. of laws and contracts, invalid II. of persons, having no right or power
Ah… Google Translate gave it as a suggestion for “null”, if I remember correctly.
Kyros > Cyrus! (I’m feeling a bit *Duh* here.)
And kyrie eleison, I hazard?
which half of baby
upon a solomon split
would u call a gift?
um, upper half. for the braaains.
yep SBP, exactly (though a slightly different word -kyrios-, same root), lord/master
I’ve always liked Jim in Huckleberry Finn’s take on that one, pdbuttons.
huck finn win bin limb
of the silly party…
not to pat my buttons
sounds like me…
writing stylee
i never read it!
i swear!
luv that post
thankee/ yankee
pdbuttons gets a few dozen comments to my (or, a better example: Rob Crawford’s) one. Do the math, as they say.
Back when I was in school there were parts of the curriculum dedicated to teaching us the basic techniques of propaganda, so we could recognize them and thus disarm them. Their focus was on advertising, but it works just as well for politics.
One of the techniques was the “bandwagon” — “everybody’s doing it!” I can only assume that sometime in the last 20-25 years schools dropped these particular lessons, or possibly even turned the lessons on their heads to make students more susceptible to propaganda, because the primary form of argument the lefties indulge in is the “bandwagon”.
Jeff, the case you’re thinking of is Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
Stevens wrote the lead opinion. Scalia wrote a concurrence. Thomas and O’Connor both wrote dissents.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
Then I gather you’re still in school?
Raich, exactly. Thanks.
I say we have a public opinion poll. Who is more mendoucheous? Kyle or Sammy?
Not familiar with Sammy, but I’d say Cartman.
Well there you go, Kyle. 100% of the respondents state that you are the most mendoucheous asshat to walk the face of the earth. Brava.
It’s so hard to choose ,JD. Can I pick both? They both recite the lefts talking points with that smug assurance that reveals that they haven’t given the subject any thought of their own.
I had assumed these were dropped during the Bush years.
I assumed that you were an idiot, Pudge-O.
So far nothing has caused me to question that assumption.