Redstate

my posting rights on Kos ended after about 2 days.  So much for liberal tolerance, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

is the same wack job he ever was when he used to spam tacitus.org.

His writing comes from such a high stack of monumentally false assumptions as to make one stand in awe that the whole pile of rubbish he depends on can even stand up at all.

As much as I was hoping for Judge Alito's confirmation, I wasn't nearly as sure that it would happen. Conservatives have lost too many battles in the past to the Dem/MSM machine for me to get cocky but...Like the man in the story I think I'll take a walk in the woods, find a nice little hole in the ground and whisper ever so softly "You know what? We're winning.".

Alito has proved to be the un-borking candidate. Why? He is eminently qualified, a strong conservative and he has the right judicial temperment.

One more just like him ought to do it -- We would then be set for a long while with a Supreme Court that would be out of the legislating business..

You were really banned?

We would then be set for a long while with a Supreme Court that would be out of the legislating business..

If history is any marker it doesn't much matter whether the Supreme Court is Conservative or Liberal, they always "legislate".  The only difference is you might like the new court's brand of legislation.

and I have to give them credit, they figured me right out.  ended all my posts Sheehan/Moore '08 and they dumped me.  And I certainly didnt go in there trolling like, "BUSH IS GOD, YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS."  Maybe it was my handle, "loonylib", I don't know.

Sheehan/Moore '08

I think all of us here on RedState can agree with all the maniacal leftists that would be the dream Dem ticket, but for different reasons.

oh no, I can't post on daily kos anymore.  Lord, just can it.  Same thing I tell the pansies who come back there complaining about being banned here.  It happens both places, and rightfully so, as often people are just looking to stir up nonsense.  If you don't like it, then start your own blog.

I don't want a court that legislates, period. My brand or the other guys brand. I want a court that Robert's promised, balls and strikes, call them like you see them. It is only through that platform that we as a country can avoid the problems brought out by the Roe decision.

A fixed target is far better than one you don't know where it is going to end up -- See Kelo, where the 5th Amendment took a big hit.

I dont see me complaining anywhere.  If you think stirring up nonsense on a blog site is an issue in your life, you need to get something to do worthwhile.  Sounds like your tolerance level is on the same level as Kos and Armando.  To help you out, that's not a compliment.

Like the man in the story I think I'll take a walk in the woods, find a nice little hole in the ground and whisper ever so softly "You know what? We're winning."

i think the same thing and smile at every blatant democrat voter that gives me the evil eye when i work a election poll. trust me young conservatives, this wave has crashed yet.

Actually, the Court did relatively well, with only a few major screw-ups in its first 130 years (and they certainly were big screw-ups).  It wasn't until it started with its Lochner nonsense that things really went downhill.

I don't want a court that legislates, period. My brand or the other guys brand. I want a court that Robert's promised, balls and strikes, call them like you see them.

* nods *

Like the media: the idea of total objectivity is an ideal to be persued. Worth while trying to hold journalists and judges alike to, but, under no illusion that it is in fact totally possible.

That said support those you think are the closest to the ideal. :)

I lasted a good while and enjoyed the debates (when they debated and not called me names). I even caught Armando's eye early in my DK career.  :)

But it's clear they aren't interested in debate. Anyone that disagrees is rated to death and rode out on a rail or just banned for the irritating use of logic and facts.....

the qualitative value of the rulings.  I was really just pointing out that "legislating from the bench" is in the eye of the beholder.  And usually it means nothing more than "I don't like that ruling".

It is for the left. Because for them, the constitution is whatever they want it to be. It's all about penumbras. There are some people who actually take the document seriously, though.

like those crazy Liberal judges that think that the Constitution gives a right of contract or that it is based on capitalism or believe that corporations should be given personhood?  

I think it is hubris of the highest order for someone like you or I to believe that we take the Constitution more seriously that Warren Berger or David Souter or just about anyone else that has ever been on the Supreme Court.  

of corporations is 1) not exactly new and 2) isn't a judicial invention.

I don't know about the two you mention but my late dog cared more about the Constitution than Earl Warren.

There's plenty of holdings that I "like" that I think are wrongful "legislating from the bench."  Eg most of the opinions that conservatives complain about.

Heck at least with Lochner there was an actual clause in the Constitution referring to states respecting the obligations of contract.  I guess its penumbra wasn't big enough.

...err, never mind.

Most judges take themselves far more seriously than the law or the Constitution. Liberal judges are able to transfer the inate hipocrisy of liberalism to their rulings.

There are some people who actually take the document seriously, though.

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

--George W. Bush

Been around a long time.  

One out of two ain't bad.

1) It is not a new idea

1886

2) it is a judicial creation

Santa Clara Cty v Southern Pacific RR (118 US 394)

Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton.  The remaining were appointed by Ford, Reagan, GWB and GHWB.

So, was advise and consent broken then and its fixed now, or is the other way around?

It's all about penumbras.

and you're going to need a link for that.

when you need him?

I was curious, and this guy seems to be the source of the quote-  

A clear and present danger to America

By DOUG THOMPSON

Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

Jan 27, 2006, 05:11

 Email this article

 Printer friendly page

George W. Bush, the out-of-control despot who thinks the Presidency of the United States is a license to lie at will, wage war on a whim and break the law without recrimination, put on his "I am in charge" face Thursday and, for all practical purposes, told anyone who thinks his powers should be subject to review or oversight to go scr** themselves.

Here is link to article

in other words, no sources, no references, no reality, and not a real journalist anyhow.  Funny Bunny's brain isn't showing any sign of activity.  Though I have always contended that to remain a modern liberal, you must sniff the volatile ink until your conscience burns out.

Y'know, when you're quoting a paleocon crank who's been using "anonymous sources" to "prove" that the President's staff dislikes him since Clinton was in office, particularly one whose response to being called on a source was to report that the source didn't actually exist and had been fooling him for 20 years, you might want to indicate that. Because the moral appeal of your plaint that partisans get irrational when confronted with facts is somewhat diminished when the "facts" are figments invented by lunatics.

Does this guy bathe? I mean, really? I also talked to his three sources for the article, just before they went to sleep on the grates outside the White House.

Ah, I just processed some of the relevant Free Republic threads. Nick, would you please show the gentleman above what we do to people who take Doug Thompson at face value?

He tried SOOO hard to keep the faith, but alas even he is beginning to see the light.  I particularly like the opening segment of his post where he tries to put a good face on all of this.

... On the Alito nomination, the Party leadership did try to stop Alito, did recognize the importance of Alito's ascension to the Court, did try to persuade and cajole the Democratic Caucus to unite in opposition.

At the end of the day, the numbers were not there. ... Bottom line, they [Red State Senators] weren't with us on stopping Alito.

But a surprising number were. After the debacle of the Judiciary Committee hearings, the Beltway conventional wisdom was that not only would Alito be confirmed, but that he would likely garner nearly as many Ay votes as Roberts. That certainly did not turn out to be the case and I think, whatever they might say now, the Leadership tried damned hard to whip up support for stopping Alito. And they made some headway.

Dems are learning, unfortunately slowly, to fight. We lost this battle, but at least Dems threw some punches. And that is progress.

The battle lost was monumental and I think even we don't fully realize it yet. There is no putting a happy face on this result. But I do feel somewhat heartened by the fact that Dems threw a couple of punches this time and tried to stand up for principle, for the nation, for what is right. Not enough Dems. But more than before. ...

Emphasis is mine.

In other words, "We lost, but at least we tried hard."  This is actually kind of impotent given all of his former bluster.  Wasn't he just calling anyone who would vote "yes" on Alito a bunch of four letter explatives or similar?  Now I guess that he feels that they gave it the old college try.

Armando does not seem to handle defeat particularly well.  When he has to debate a point with someone and he senses that he is loosing, he just resorts to name calling.  Now we see that he has a second means of avoiding the inevitable: declaring victory even in the face of defeat.

So now, like a five year old who is not getting his/her way, he's just not going to play anymore ... at least for now.

There are those over at DK that are still up for the fight and have even tried to call Armando to task for posting this before its time.  But commensurate with his ego, I guess he just couldn't wait because he wanted to look insightful.  Yep, as this episode illustrates, he is the master of the obvious.  :-)

Leave the quotes from Doug Thompson/Capitol Hill Blue out of this forum. The man has been caught fabricating quotations numerous times. He is a zero-credibility source.

Somewhere else.  Banned.

Adam "Good Day" C

creation with mention. In fact you confuse the mention you are familiar with with first mention.

The idea of personhood for corporations has been around since about the time corporations were formed because it is the only logical way of dealing with a corporation.

in the past. Ergo, you are still banned. Go away.

By conservative I assume you mean textualist or originalist.  Conservative is a political term applied by liberals to legal ideologies.

By their very definition, textualism and originalism (legal philosophies, not political ones) are not "activist".

By applying a political term to a judicial philosophy you betray your slant on this matter.

Also, you were here for the Meirs debate.  I'm sure you saw the majority of posters who wanted qualification over view as a qualifier for a  nominee.  Most conservatives want a qualified originalist or textualist because (like it or not) a fair reading of the constitution yields results that conservatives "almost" always desire.

By their very definition, textualism and originalism (legal philosophies, not political ones) are not "activist"

How does one come to a textualist interpretation of cruel and unusual?  What is cruel and what is unusual?  

Activist means nothing except ruling that people don't like.  It means simply that the ruling goes against what you feel is the proper reading of the Constitution.

Both sides view the way they interpret the Constitution to be the proper reading.  I fail to see how either is inherently superior to the other.   Both methods of jurisprudence still require, at their core, sound judgement from the justices that are making the ruling.

is a general statement.  Certainly not everyone believes that.  

1.  Let's agree on terms.  Activist does not mean "rulings you don't like".  It properly means rulings without basis in law.  While I disagree with most of what you write at RS you are generaly more intellectualy honest than that.  Come on now.
   
2.  Your third paragraph is relativist.  For those of us that believe in right and wrong and an existent truth it is not possible that both sides are correct.  But I take great joy in noting your final sentence.  Perhaps you will take note (and conceed) that the GOP respects your philosophy and near unanimously passes the likes of Ginsburg and Breyer, while the dems can't bring themselves to vote in near numbers for Roberts or Alito.  Why?  The GOP believes in sound judgement over which philosophy is right or wrong.
   
3.  The cruel and unusual argument isn't germane and I won't fall for it.  People may differ on interpretations (fair enough), BUT when a law is created out of nothing (Roe) then it fits the description of activist.  Cruel and unusual is existant, so it is open to debate by jurists.

I have to agree with hoosierteacher's take on this question.  Roe is made up completely out of whole cloth.  The stated the right to an abortion was part of the "penumbra" of rights under the due process clause.  How this penumbra relates to the actual text of the consitution and what the penumbra includes and does not include is never explained in the Roe opinion.  

The court did the same thing in Griswold and in Lochner.  However, as has been pointed out, at least there is a clause in the consitution that protects contractual rights, thought I doubt it applied in the Locher situation.  And perhaps Griswold could be justified under an extremely broad, and likely incorrect, reading of the fourth amendment.  But there is absolutely noting in the text of the Constitution that justifies Roe or its companion case Doe v. Bolton, which struck down state laws that permitted abortion in various circumstances, including laws that presented very little restriction on abortion.  As a result, the abortion laws in EVERY state were declared unconstitutional.  By dividing the pregnanacy period into trimesters and imposing varying degrees of permissable abortion restrictions, Roe was a decision that legislated from the bench in a way that practically no other decision ever has either before or since.

As far as the eight amendment and the rest of the actual text of the constitution is concerned, the best answer is that judges and justices should interpret the text of the constitution like wills, contracts, deeds, and other legal documents, and like the laws enacted by legislatures, and look to the intent of the drafters of of the law or legal document.  In the case of the constituion, the inquiry would require a court to look at the intent of the framers of the constitution, or to those who drafted and enacted a particular constitutional amendment.  These principles should certainly guide judges and justices in examining our consitution.  

Those who would disgard the intent of the framers and drafters of amendments and look to their own sense of justice or worse to "evolving international standards" (which are really their own notion of what these standards should be) are rightly classified as "activist." Indeed, to justify a constitutional intepretation based on an international treaty that the United States is NOT a party to, as Justice Ginsberg did several years ago, is activism of the highest order.  Interstingly, the activists and their cheerleaders have never really explained why consitutional interpretation should be altogether different from the interpretation of laws enacted by Congress or the legislatures, or from other legal dicuments like will and contracts.          

was how banal the argument was. Not once did Armando even try to justify the notion of rejecting a SCOTUS nominee solely on the basis of ideology. Not once did he consider the consequences of that policy, especially for a Democratic President at some point in the future. He is talking to an echo chamber.

1.  I have a of trouble with amateur legal commentators making judgements on when Supreme Court Justices are basis their decisions on the law and when they are not.
   
2.  You think that Liberals don't believe in right and wrong?
   
3. I'm not a huge fan of Roe and I think it needs to be overturned(not that I think that things will change because of that much).  But there are a lot more court cases than just Roe.

Consequently they believe most things in error.