If you believe, however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail; if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year; if you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society - if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I'm afraid to ask. If that is what you think the Constitution is, then Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn't be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English - whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don't. So in principle, it's incompatible with the legal regime that America has established.
Markadelphia:
No doubt, Madison does appear to be saying what he was saying nor is what he is saying bullshit. It just depends on how you define general welfare and limited government. Madison was also not the sole voice in creating the Constitution. He was part of a chorus that created a document that, by its very nature, invited debate with the hopes of coming to a reasonable compromise and/or conclusion. A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant.
I won't admit to knowing more about the Constitution than Madison does. Given his historical context, he defined what he thought was the best way to govern. I do, however, know more about the year 2010 than Madison does and can see that many of his basic ideas are still useful. Each state, for example, has their own education standards and given the variety of demographics in each region of our country, there are many advantages to this approach. Many would argue that it was NCLB that made things worse and if the states had been left to their own devices, things would've been better.
As I have mentioned before, health care was not one sixth of the economy and the for profit business as it is today. In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening so to use his writings as a framework/solution for our challenges today is in no way a solution.
Given such a perfect "compare and contrast", I can only find two words that seem appropriate to add:
If all the above had been written by Thomas, it would be worthy reading, but given Scalia's rulings on cases like Raich, Lopez, or Kelo or his disgraceful line of questioning in McDonald, he's a very fair-weather originalist.
A fair observation. Scalia has admitted to being a "fair-weather federalist" on at least one occasion. My SCOTUS dream picks are Randy Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, and Alex Kozinski.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
—Federalist Paper 45, by James Madison
This was not an Überpost. It was a simple cut-n-paste from another post from five years ago that was also not an Überpost.
But thanks.
Oh, and on Stormy's observation: Yes, I'd have preferred it if the words had been Thomas's rather than Scalia's too. Scalia says the right things, but too often doesn't do them.
Just to insert, the Dred Scott court listed "those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people" and here I repeat Chief Justice Taney's listing of the rights that could not be conferred upon blacks, free or slave: (Citizenship) would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
Those liberties. In 1856 the Supreme Court wasn't yet willing to reinterpret a "living Constitution," so instead the Court's members decided that excluding an entire race of people from its protections was perfectly valid. It's only a little damage, and it's for public safety, you know.
Hunh, damn. What would it take to win that suite of rights for myself today?
Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process [...] the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years.
Does he mean federally? Because, as far as I'm concerned, that's actually true, insofar as the Constitution grants no authority to ban such consenting activity between adults. Just because it used to be illegal doesn't mean shit.
Because, as far as I'm concerned, that's actually true, insofar as the Constitution grants no authority to ban such consenting activity between adults. Just because it used to be illegal doesn't mean shit.
Fortunately or unfortunately, with stare decisis it does mean shit.
Scalia claims to be (and insofar as I have seen, Thomas is) an "original understanding" originalist. If it was illegal when the Constitution was ratified, then it was not overturned by that Constitution, and the Constitution can't be used to overturn it later. You want to change the law? Change the law. Don't ask the courts to do it for you by fiat.
This is a point that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia keeps making time and time again in his public speaking.
Well, since the Scalia-bashing has commenced, my astonishment at this comment is abated. Scalia is not a faithful follower of the Constitution or he could never have penned Raich and Heller or conducted the line of questioning/rhetoric at Gura during McDonald as he did. He is a false flag friend of liberty - he is Catholic conservative to the core, Torquemada in a robe, and faithful only to himself. He is lying when he claims fealty to the Constitution.
I think he believes it, but he convinces himself that he's being practical or pragmatic. You can see it in his questioning of Gura on the topic of privileges and immunities versus due process. He KNOWS which one is the right argument, but for practical purposes he won't do what's right instead of what's expedient.
That is precisely the difference between he and Thomas. If Thomas were not on the Court, the act might be believable or certainly not as obvious as it is.
That's USSC politics rearing it's ugly head more then anything else, IMO. Kennedy would not have gone along with a broader Heller, and Scalia knew it. So instead of having Kennedy pen some kind of implied powers "moderate" affirmation of gun control that the Leftwing 4 would join, we got a pro-gun ruling, if not the trumpet blast shattering the walls of the antis "constitutional" Jericho.
I think Scalia tries to get 5 on his side, rather then a write a dissent that our little peanut gallery would quote approvingly. With Harvey Dent...I mean Anthony Kennedy...as the 9th, things we want the Court to strike down simply cannot be struck down. So it's really more a matter of taking what we can get.
Oh, I concur. He is being expedient. It pains me to know that there are four Justices on the Court who have no problem violating their oaths completely in the mistaken belief that they're serving some greater good, and only one wishy-washy Justice sits between the two groups.
What sucks the most is that Stevens and Kennedy were appointed by Republican Presidents. I'm just hoping Obama is a one termer and we rotate some fresh blood in on the right side of the bench. Maybe Ginsburg will retire during the next Republican President's term, and we can get a solid 5-1-3 breakdown. All I know is that a slow reversal of the ratchet effect will take a control of all three of the branches of government. It won't work without the Court overturning so many of the horrible rulings that distort the Constitution and enshrine collectivist beliefs and impulses into the law without the bothersome procedure of legislation.
As I've noted before, Obama is in fact a corporatist. But Paul uses the popularized, entirely wrong definition of what corporatism is. This definition does not explain Obama's support for unions, which would seem to be against the interests of corporations.
On the other hand, the political-science term DOES explain this: corporatism is about trying to incorporate all aspects of society into all-encompassing, representative organizations that can then be regulated and bargained with by the state. The classical model is state, business association, national labor union all around a single table.
Corporatism can sometimes work well, but only if a very narrow set of circumstances hold. The United States does not meet any of them. Our business structures are not geared for easy coordination on the national level, even though we do have some industries organized along corporatist lines. Our labor unions do not see a confluence of interests between themselves and their employers. It is too easy to break away from corporatist arrangements via independent contracting, small businesses, and the like. Our financial system allows for relatively easy access to capital even if you are outside of the good-old-boys' network. Importantly, corporatism does not easily handle creative destruction in the economy.
Most importantly, the American state is far too powerful. Corporatism only works (assuming that it ever works) if business and the unions can constrain state power. Otherwise, what you end up with is something close to "organic authoritarianism," in which the corporatist bodies serve only as regulatory mechanisms for a dictatorial state.
Ron Paul does not understand any of this. Or, if he does, he'd rather pander to the ignorance of his cultists than educate them.
I think you are wrong. He does understand it. Why not use the current language against those who oppose liberty? Make them realize they have been completely fooled?
I think if you read more of Paul you will know where he comes from and that he does understand. We really need more of him.
Good post. Others are right, that it comes from Scalia is a little problematic. But just because he doesn't live up to his words and ideas, doesn't make them wrong. It just makes him imperfect- and like 99% of humanity.
More conservative than O'Connor and Kennedy, Reagan appointees. Could it be that the football field has, once again, been shaved in half and now everything at the 50 yard line is now a looney activist judge?
Yes.
According to Segal, the court has actually drifted righward over time. His data is there for all of you to see. Have fun!
His data is there for all of you to see. Have fun!
Which is more, 15 or 22?
You don't understand data analysis, and your "Have fun!" proves this point.
You know you don't understand it, but you'll run in, comment shit, run away, and call us the unthinking ones.
You didn't address a single conceptual point that Kevin was discussing. Because you can't. Because you don't have the ability to derive a conclusion using principles and logic.
You jump to a conclusion, and then lie, distort, and insist that you're right. (Example: "Obama is pro-gun! He voted to let retired cops have guns! Oh, and for a law that passed with no opposition, and has never once been tested and is impossible to enforce!")
Yeah. "Have fun!" indeed. Just admit you've lost repeatedly here. It'll do your maturity level good, and you might - might - learn something.
You didn't address a single conceptual point that Kevin was discussing.
With Obama in the White House and both houses of Congress with Democrat majorities, I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the next nominee will make the retiring "most liberal justice" look like Barry Goldwater.
Many concepts that went over my head? There was only one: nominate another Scalia. Anyone else will be an activist liberal judge who legislates from the bench.
As opposed to the conservative activist ones that legislate from the bench. Oh, wait...sorry. Only right leaning thinkers know the true meaning of the Constitution.
Markadelphia, if a left-leaning thinker actually FOLLOWED the Constitution, he by definition would not be left-leaning.
Left-leaning thinkers, I'm convinced, often know the true meaning of the Constitution. That's why they view it (accurately) as an OBSTACLE to their ends, and work assiduously to circumvent it. Right-leaning thinkers quite often do it too.
And no, I don't want another Scalia (even though he was confirmed unanimously). I want another Thomas. And I don't care if that choice is a disabled albino atheist lesbian so long as they actually UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution against the predations of both the Left AND the Right.
if a left-leaning thinker actually FOLLOWED the Constitution, he by definition would not be left-leaning.
Well, he might still lean left.
I wouldn't care, though. (Nor, I suspect, would you.)
If he THOUGHT there should be laws and things should work a certain way, and he ruled based on only what the law and Constitution said, who cares what his "leanings" are.
But Mark, as always, misses that point, and cheers on results-based issues, ignoring the systemic problems which will be coming right back. Cause, you know, you gotta think about that.
Kevin, as the data above shows, the court has shifted more right over the years. He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge...that is, of course, on a 100 yard football field. Since the field has been shaved in half, people at the 50 yard line or even the 40 are "liberal activist judges."
I predict that there will be the knee jerk reaction to whomever President Obama nominates and this person will be painted as a "crazed communist who wants to destroy the Constitution."
Nope. F. Show your work and you might get partial credit.
But no, that's not _data_. Or not _complete data_. It's partial data of the sort you love the best, and then to jump to a conclusion you can't defend.
He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge...
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a prediction! One that Mark, within 6 months, will ignore and refuse to admit he's made!
Let us see... is there any, oh, PREVIOUS ACTION we could look at to substantiate this prediction?
Gee....
I predict that there will be the knee jerk reaction to whomever President Obama nominates and this person will be painted as a "crazed communist who wants to destroy the Constitution."
I predict this person will be a very liberal sort who has the understanding of the Constitution that you have the meanings of verbatim, whether 22 is more or less than 15, or how to nut your sack up.
Unix, simple questions for you: are you a Constitutional scholar? Have you spent the same amount of time studying the Constitution as our president? Do you have the experience with the law that the nominees on the short list have?
If the answer is no, then I wonder what engineers of the world would think if President Obama or his possible nominees decided to discuss engineering with same "authority" you do in regards to Constitutional law. I don't agree with Thomas' or Scalia's decisions sometimes but they certainly know a fuck of a lot more than I do on the subject. Their experience means, by defintion, that they are more intelligent in this area.
In other words, you are entitled to whatever opinion you have on Obama's nominees but they are ones of a novice with a one sided and quite fervent agenda.
Unix, MArx will admit to this prediction because no matter the actual politics of the whichever leftard gets the nom, Marx will say he's NOT actually leftist, he's uh, lets see now, CENTRIST! Yeah, yeah, thats the ticket! Centrist, or maybe a little rightwing. Yes indeed, realty (?) as it exists in the mind of the leftard.
There is no American political left. In other words, Dennis Kucinich is a moderate.
When placed in that context, his remark is perfectly correct: "He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge.." You see? He could nominate William Ayers or Louis Farrakhan and it wouldn't be "a left leaning judge" within that context.
It's a perfectly safe prediction because in order to get a "left leaning judge" he'd have to import one, there are none in the US judiciary.
No, Kucinich is a socialist. There is no doubt about this fact. So is Sanders. Feingold is only slightly to the right of them.I'm sure there are a few other solid lefties in Congress but there aren't many. If there were, we'd have a single payer and universal health care system.
Remember, GOF, I'm not the one who shaved the football field in half. ;)
It's nothing new, Grumpy. He would have us believe he can predict the future, in this case a pick along a political spectrum, by re-defining the label to be put on the pick and re-labeling the spectrum on which it is placed.
It's just his Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
And you have "simple" questions for me. Well, they are "simple", but not in the sense you mean.
are you a Constitutional scholar?
I'm willing to be tested on that.
Have you spent the same amount of time studying the Constitution as our president?
To the best of my knowledge and ability to answer, I've spent far more. But you'll have to establish how much time the President has spent studying the Constitution. (Also, you're making your fallacy again ... that "studying" equals knowledge or competence. I realize that you want that to be true. But it's not.)
Do you have the experience with the law that the nominees on the short list have?
Ah, you've moved the goalposts from the Constitution to "The law". No, I Am Not A Lawyer. But you're being hypocritical (yet again) - you have no problem making arguments you have no experience in areas you haven't studied.
If the answer is no
Which answer? You asked more than 1 question. And it's not "no"
then I wonder what engineers of the world would think if President Obama or his possible nominees decided to discuss engineering with same "authority" you do in regards to Constitutional law.
You mean, like when they talk about "Global Warming"? Or Nuclear Power? Or Space Exploration or completely re-write the entire system for providing and paying for health care or....
Mark, they, and you, do that all the time.
I don't agree with Thomas' or Scalia's decisions sometimes but they certainly know a fuck of a lot more than I do on the subject. Their experience means, by defintion, that they are more intelligent in this area.
You are incorrect. First, it doesn't make them "more intelligent". You've shown you don't know what the word "intelligence" means. But even aside from that classic Marxism, think of this simple case to prove it even to you: If you were right, then all the SC decisions would be 8-0.
In other words, you are entitled to whatever opinion you have on Obama's nominees but they are ones of a novice with a one sided and quite fervent agenda.
A "Novice". And you base this upon....?
(Remember! Your answer will be used to cross-examine you later when you argue against me in an area where you're a novice!)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-supreme-court-justice.html (38 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And there you have it. Scalia:
If you believe, however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail; if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year; if you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society - if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I'm afraid to ask.
If that is what you think the Constitution is, then Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn't be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English - whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don't. So in principle, it's incompatible with the legal regime that America has established.
Markadelphia:
No doubt, Madison does appear to be saying what he was saying nor is what he is saying bullshit. It just depends on how you define general welfare and limited government. Madison was also not the sole voice in creating the Constitution. He was part of a chorus that created a document that, by its very nature, invited debate with the hopes of coming to a reasonable compromise and/or conclusion. A clause like "general welfare" was purposefully left to be vague in the document itself so future generations could decide what it meant.
I won't admit to knowing more about the Constitution than Madison does. Given his historical context, he defined what he thought was the best way to govern. I do, however, know more about the year 2010 than Madison does and can see that many of his basic ideas are still useful. Each state, for example, has their own education standards and given the variety of demographics in each region of our country, there are many advantages to this approach. Many would argue that it was NCLB that made things worse and if the states had been left to their own devices, things would've been better.
As I have mentioned before, health care was not one sixth of the economy and the for profit business as it is today. In my opinion, the federal government does have the right to regulate it not only because it's commerce but when the private concerns of these industries whir completely out of control as they have so clearly done. There is no way that Madison could have ever seen this happening so to use his writings as a framework/solution for our challenges today is in no way a solution.
Given such a perfect "compare and contrast", I can only find two words that seem appropriate to add:
Prosecution rests.
I think I may have just spotted tomorrow's QotD:
"Only Congress can spend more than an 'unlimited budget!'" - Wayne Rogers
If all the above had been written by Thomas, it would be worthy reading, but given Scalia's rulings on cases like Raich, Lopez, or Kelo or his disgraceful line of questioning in McDonald, he's a very fair-weather originalist.
A fair observation. Scalia has admitted to being a "fair-weather federalist" on at least one occasion. My SCOTUS dream picks are Randy Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, and Alex Kozinski.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
—Federalist Paper 45, by James Madison
Excellent uberpost, Kevin.
This was not an Überpost. It was a simple cut-n-paste from another post from five years ago that was also not an Überpost.
But thanks.
Oh, and on Stormy's observation: Yes, I'd have preferred it if the words had been Thomas's rather than Scalia's too. Scalia says the right things, but too often doesn't do them.
Just to insert, the Dred Scott court listed "those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people" and here I repeat Chief Justice Taney's listing of the rights that could not be conferred upon blacks, free or slave:
(Citizenship) would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
Those liberties. In 1856 the Supreme Court wasn't yet willing to reinterpret a "living Constitution," so instead the Court's members decided that excluding an entire race of people from its protections was perfectly valid. It's only a little damage, and it's for public safety, you know.
Hunh, damn. What would it take to win that suite of rights for myself today?
Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process [...] the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years.
Does he mean federally? Because, as far as I'm concerned, that's actually true, insofar as the Constitution grants no authority to ban such consenting activity between adults. Just because it used to be illegal doesn't mean shit.
Also, goddamn I love Judge Alex Kozinski. If I ever meet that guy, all his beer that night is on me.
Me too. My favorite Kozinski quote: "Of course, even judges can't make both sides lose; I know, I've tried."
Because, as far as I'm concerned, that's actually true, insofar as the Constitution grants no authority to ban such consenting activity between adults. Just because it used to be illegal doesn't mean shit.
Fortunately or unfortunately, with stare decisis it does mean shit.
Scalia claims to be (and insofar as I have seen, Thomas is) an "original understanding" originalist. If it was illegal when the Constitution was ratified, then it was not overturned by that Constitution, and the Constitution can't be used to overturn it later. You want to change the law? Change the law. Don't ask the courts to do it for you by fiat.
This is a point that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia keeps making time and time again in his public speaking.
Well, since the Scalia-bashing has commenced, my astonishment at this comment is abated. Scalia is not a faithful follower of the Constitution or he could never have penned Raich and Heller or conducted the line of questioning/rhetoric at Gura during McDonald as he did. He is a false flag friend of liberty - he is Catholic conservative to the core, Torquemada in a robe, and faithful only to himself. He is lying when he claims fealty to the Constitution.
I think he believes it, but he convinces himself that he's being practical or pragmatic. You can see it in his questioning of Gura on the topic of privileges and immunities versus due process. He KNOWS which one is the right argument, but for practical purposes he won't do what's right instead of what's expedient.
That is precisely the difference between he and Thomas. If Thomas were not on the Court, the act might be believable or certainly not as obvious as it is.
That's USSC politics rearing it's ugly head more then anything else, IMO. Kennedy would not have gone along with a broader Heller, and Scalia knew it. So instead of having Kennedy pen some kind of implied powers "moderate" affirmation of gun control that the Leftwing 4 would join, we got a pro-gun ruling, if not the trumpet blast shattering the walls of the antis "constitutional" Jericho.
I think Scalia tries to get 5 on his side, rather then a write a dissent that our little peanut gallery would quote approvingly. With Harvey Dent...I mean Anthony Kennedy...as the 9th, things we want the Court to strike down simply cannot be struck down. So it's really more a matter of taking what we can get.
Oh, I concur. He is being expedient. It pains me to know that there are four Justices on the Court who have no problem violating their oaths completely in the mistaken belief that they're serving some greater good, and only one wishy-washy Justice sits between the two groups.
It's enough to keep you up at night.
Yep (he posted at 230AM...)
What sucks the most is that Stevens and Kennedy were appointed by Republican Presidents. I'm just hoping Obama is a one termer and we rotate some fresh blood in on the right side of the bench. Maybe Ginsburg will retire during the next Republican President's term, and we can get a solid 5-1-3 breakdown. All I know is that a slow reversal of the ratchet effect will take a control of all three of the branches of government. It won't work without the Court overturning so many of the horrible rulings that distort the Constitution and enshrine collectivist beliefs and impulses into the law without the bothersome procedure of legislation.
OT:
Extremely annoying. Ron Paul actually gets one right, but almost entirely by accident:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/?mod=rss_WSJBlog
As I've noted before, Obama is in fact a corporatist. But Paul uses the popularized, entirely wrong definition of what corporatism is. This definition does not explain Obama's support for unions, which would seem to be against the interests of corporations.
On the other hand, the political-science term DOES explain this: corporatism is about trying to incorporate all aspects of society into all-encompassing, representative organizations that can then be regulated and bargained with by the state. The classical model is state, business association, national labor union all around a single table.
Corporatism can sometimes work well, but only if a very narrow set of circumstances hold. The United States does not meet any of them. Our business structures are not geared for easy coordination on the national level, even though we do have some industries organized along corporatist lines. Our labor unions do not see a confluence of interests between themselves and their employers. It is too easy to break away from corporatist arrangements via independent contracting, small businesses, and the like. Our financial system allows for relatively easy access to capital even if you are outside of the good-old-boys' network. Importantly, corporatism does not easily handle creative destruction in the economy.
Most importantly, the American state is far too powerful. Corporatism only works (assuming that it ever works) if business and the unions can constrain state power. Otherwise, what you end up with is something close to "organic authoritarianism," in which the corporatist bodies serve only as regulatory mechanisms for a dictatorial state.
Ron Paul does not understand any of this. Or, if he does, he'd rather pander to the ignorance of his cultists than educate them.
I think you are wrong. He does understand it. Why not use the current language against those who oppose liberty? Make them realize they have been completely fooled?
I think if you read more of Paul you will know where he comes from and that he does understand. We really need more of him.
Good post. Others are right, that it comes from Scalia is a little problematic. But just because he doesn't live up to his words and ideas, doesn't make them wrong. It just makes him imperfect- and like 99% of humanity.
Stevens is considered to be moderately conservative according to this:
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/in-context-stevens.php
More conservative than O'Connor and Kennedy, Reagan appointees. Could it be that the football field has, once again, been shaved in half and now everything at the 50 yard line is now a looney activist judge?
Yes.
According to Segal, the court has actually drifted righward over time. His data is there for all of you to see. Have fun!
His data is there for all of you to see. Have fun!
Which is more, 15 or 22?
You don't understand data analysis, and your "Have fun!" proves this point.
You know you don't understand it, but you'll run in, comment shit, run away, and call us the unthinking ones.
You didn't address a single conceptual point that Kevin was discussing. Because you can't. Because you don't have the ability to derive a conclusion using principles and logic.
You jump to a conclusion, and then lie, distort, and insist that you're right. (Example: "Obama is pro-gun! He voted to let retired cops have guns! Oh, and for a law that passed with no opposition, and has never once been tested and is impossible to enforce!")
Yeah. "Have fun!" indeed. Just admit you've lost repeatedly here. It'll do your maturity level good, and you might - might - learn something.
You didn't address a single conceptual point that Kevin was discussing.
With Obama in the White House and both houses of Congress with Democrat majorities, I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the next nominee will make the retiring "most liberal justice" look like Barry Goldwater.
Intellectual points indeed.
And which is more, 15 or 22?
For some reason, you don't want to answer that.
Me: You didn't address a single conceptual point that Kevin was discussing.
You: Intellectual points indeed.
I said conceptual. There were many concepts that went right over your head - and giving the point on it - that's high indeed.
You replied, and again proved the point that you're the "looney" here.
Just like being an engineer - you _could_ do better, you could prove a point and make an factual argument. You just are apparently _not capable_.
Many concepts that went over my head? There was only one: nominate another Scalia. Anyone else will be an activist liberal judge who legislates from the bench.
As opposed to the conservative activist ones that legislate from the bench. Oh, wait...sorry. Only right leaning thinkers know the true meaning of the Constitution.
Markadelphia, if a left-leaning thinker actually FOLLOWED the Constitution, he by definition would not be left-leaning.
Left-leaning thinkers, I'm convinced, often know the true meaning of the Constitution. That's why they view it (accurately) as an OBSTACLE to their ends, and work assiduously to circumvent it. Right-leaning thinkers quite often do it too.
And no, I don't want another Scalia (even though he was confirmed unanimously). I want another Thomas. And I don't care if that choice is a disabled albino atheist lesbian so long as they actually UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution against the predations of both the Left AND the Right.
if a left-leaning thinker actually FOLLOWED the Constitution, he by definition would not be left-leaning.
Well, he might still lean left.
I wouldn't care, though. (Nor, I suspect, would you.)
If he THOUGHT there should be laws and things should work a certain way, and he ruled based on only what the law and Constitution said, who cares what his "leanings" are.
But Mark, as always, misses that point, and cheers on results-based issues, ignoring the systemic problems which will be coming right back. Cause, you know, you gotta think about that.
Kevin, as the data above shows, the court has shifted more right over the years. He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge...that is, of course, on a 100 yard football field. Since the field has been shaved in half, people at the 50 yard line or even the 40 are "liberal activist judges."
I predict that there will be the knee jerk reaction to whomever President Obama nominates and this person will be painted as a "crazed communist who wants to destroy the Constitution."
Kevin, as the data above shows,
Nope. F. Show your work and you might get partial credit.
But no, that's not _data_. Or not _complete data_. It's partial data of the sort you love the best, and then to jump to a conclusion you can't defend.
He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge...
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a prediction! One that Mark, within 6 months, will ignore and refuse to admit he's made!
Let us see... is there any, oh, PREVIOUS ACTION we could look at to substantiate this prediction?
Gee....
I predict that there will be the knee jerk reaction to whomever President Obama nominates and this person will be painted as a "crazed communist who wants to destroy the Constitution."
I predict this person will be a very liberal sort who has the understanding of the Constitution that you have the meanings of verbatim, whether 22 is more or less than 15, or how to nut your sack up.
Unix, simple questions for you: are you a Constitutional scholar? Have you spent the same amount of time studying the Constitution as our president? Do you have the experience with the law that the nominees on the short list have?
If the answer is no, then I wonder what engineers of the world would think if President Obama or his possible nominees decided to discuss engineering with same "authority" you do in regards to Constitutional law. I don't agree with Thomas' or Scalia's decisions sometimes but they certainly know a fuck of a lot more than I do on the subject. Their experience means, by defintion, that they are more intelligent in this area.
In other words, you are entitled to whatever opinion you have on Obama's nominees but they are ones of a novice with a one sided and quite fervent agenda.
Unix, MArx will admit to this prediction because no matter the actual politics of the whichever leftard gets the nom, Marx will say he's NOT actually leftist, he's uh, lets see now, CENTRIST! Yeah, yeah, thats the ticket! Centrist, or maybe a little rightwing. Yes indeed, realty (?) as it exists in the mind of the leftard.
Remember the context in which Marxaphasia works:
There is no American political left. In other words, Dennis Kucinich is a moderate.
When placed in that context, his remark is perfectly correct: "He's not going to nominate a left leaning judge.." You see? He could nominate William Ayers or Louis Farrakhan and it wouldn't be "a left leaning judge" within that context.
It's a perfectly safe prediction because in order to get a "left leaning judge" he'd have to import one, there are none in the US judiciary.
No, Kucinich is a socialist. There is no doubt about this fact. So is Sanders. Feingold is only slightly to the right of them.I'm sure there are a few other solid lefties in Congress but there aren't many. If there were, we'd have a single payer and universal health care system.
Remember, GOF, I'm not the one who shaved the football field in half. ;)
Remember Mark, you are the one I quoted verbatim when I said "There is no American political left."
Remember, GOF, I'm not the one who shaved the football field in half.
No, you just move the entire field, goalposts and all, by comparing "moderates" like Nancy Pelosi to "extremists" like John McCain.
It's nothing new, Grumpy. He would have us believe he can predict the future, in this case a pick along a political spectrum, by re-defining the label to be put on the pick and re-labeling the spectrum on which it is placed.
It's just his Standard Response #8, the "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
Unix, simple questions for you:
Mark, you won't answer which is more: 22 or 15?
And you have "simple" questions for me. Well, they are "simple", but not in the sense you mean.
are you a Constitutional scholar?
I'm willing to be tested on that.
Have you spent the same amount of time studying the Constitution as our president?
To the best of my knowledge and ability to answer, I've spent far more. But you'll have to establish how much time the President has spent studying the Constitution. (Also, you're making your fallacy again ... that "studying" equals knowledge or competence. I realize that you want that to be true. But it's not.)
Do you have the experience with the law that the nominees on the short list have?
Ah, you've moved the goalposts from the Constitution to "The law". No, I Am Not A Lawyer. But you're being hypocritical (yet again) - you have no problem making arguments you have no experience in areas you haven't studied.
If the answer is no
Which answer? You asked more than 1 question. And it's not "no"
then I wonder what engineers of the world would think if President Obama or his possible nominees decided to discuss engineering with same "authority" you do in regards to Constitutional law.
You mean, like when they talk about "Global Warming"? Or Nuclear Power? Or Space Exploration or completely re-write the entire system for providing and paying for health care or....
Mark, they, and you, do that all the time.
I don't agree with Thomas' or Scalia's decisions sometimes but they certainly know a fuck of a lot more than I do on the subject. Their experience means, by defintion, that they are more intelligent in this area.
You are incorrect. First, it doesn't make them "more intelligent". You've shown you don't know what the word "intelligence" means. But even aside from that classic Marxism, think of this simple case to prove it even to you: If you were right, then all the SC decisions would be 8-0.
In other words, you are entitled to whatever opinion you have on Obama's nominees but they are ones of a novice with a one sided and quite fervent agenda.
A "Novice". And you base this upon....?
(Remember! Your answer will be used to cross-examine you later when you argue against me in an area where you're a novice!)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>