PDA

View Full Version : What do Democrat socialists really want in a judicial appointee?



Little-Acorn
07-11-2009, 09:54 PM
Some people say they want "tolerance". Others say they want "sympathy for the downtrodden". In the last few decades, belief in an ironclad right to have an abortion, has been high on liberals' radar screens for judicial appointees.

These and several other things have been emphasized by liberals and other socialists in picking judicial nominees. But none is really "the" quality they want in a court judge.

All of these qualities do have something in common, though. And that points to what the liberals really want in a nominee or judge.

Q: What do they have in common?
A: None of those qualities are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the document that gives the Federal government all its powers (and restricts it to ONLY those powers).

That may seem like a trivial coincidence. But in fact, it gets to the heart of what the liberals want. In fact, it points to the most basic issue in all of politics, and the fundamental conflict between liberals and conservatives.

The most basic purpose of the Constitution, was to RESTRICT the Federal government's powers. It created the Fed govt in is present form, and assigns each branch the powers it can exercise. And the assumption was made that, if it didn't assign a certain power, then the Fed govt was forbidden to have that power. That assumption was later "cast in stone" by the 10th amendment.

Conservatives are fine with that arrangement, and believe it is a vital characteristic that keeps government out of the way of the citizens except for the few things government MUST do.

Liberals profoundly disagree, and feel that the more govt does to "help" people, the better off the people will be. They ignore the second half of the quote from Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."

Liberals want the U.S. to become a country where the government does more and more for people. But the Constitution expressly forbids such expansion of government authority unless a long amendment process is followed. And since the job of Federal judges is to make sure laws conform to the Constitution, conservatives want judges who will do that, while liberals and other socialists want judges who will try to get around that requirement, and permit the expansion of government the Constitution was designed to prevent.

To put it another way, conservatives see the Constitution as a framework for small government and a set of restrictions that forbid going outside that framework. Leftists also see the Constitution as a framework for small government... but one that is an obstacle to be gotten around. And the liberals dearly want judges who will also see it as a nuisance, an obstacle to be defeated.

How do they know which judges will do that? If a judge has previously ruled in favor of the qualities mentioned above (extra support for minorities, abortion etc.), then it is clear that that judge does not believe in the strict rules laid out in the Constitution to prevent them. And this is the kind of "judge" the socialist Democrats want on the bench - one who will rule in favor of their attempts to expand government beyond the bounds laid out in the Constitution.

When liberals favor judges who permit abortion, it's not because they like abortions (although undoubtedly some of them may). And when they favor judges who support racist policies like reverse discrimination, it's not because they oppose white people (although some of them may). It's because those judges are more likely to favor the MANY sretches and outright violations of the Constitution, the liberals need to convert this country to the big-government Nanny State they desire.

Abortions are not the ultimate goal, official boosting of minorities is not the ultimate goal, harm to big business is not the ultimate goal, though the liberals favor all those things as they come up. The ultimate goal is the same one socialists all ove the world have had for centiries: To create a society where government takes care of people, and people serve the government instead of serving themselves.

Finding judges who support abortion or reverse discrimination etc., is merely one step in that long process. But it's a vital step, since Federal judges are in a position to defeat the liberal socialists' ultimate goal. If they believe the Constitution is a document that should be followed instead of evaded, then the liberals are uninterested in supporting them. But if a judge believes more in his personal idyllic vision of a government-controlled society, the liberals will fight hard to get him on the bench.

Our liberal socialists want judges who will permit their attempts to expand government in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent. Judges who have supported abortion or reverse discrimination, are merely examples of suuch people - good indicators that they might be permissive of unconstitutional legislation in general.

Kathianne
07-11-2009, 10:13 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but imho I'd like a SCOTUS justice that would rule along the lines of Constitution. Yes, that includes the elastic clause.

Gaffer
07-12-2009, 08:43 AM
Good post LA. The important thing is that the libs are going to get their majority on the SC real soon. Then they control all three branches of government, and anyone that thinks they will ever give any of those up without bloodshed is....a liberal.

emmett
07-12-2009, 02:48 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but imho I'd like a SCOTUS justice that would rule along the lines of Constitution. Yes, that includes the elastic clause.


Me too. In the current day of political agendas it would be nice to see at least the integrity of the US Supreme Court remain in tact....or at least at a level that clearly seperates itself from the "politics" of mainstream.

Essentially so long as the US Supreme Court remains to the most part an institution seperated from politics it is the "last hope" so to speak in any sort of parity to our forefathers America. Hopefully whoever is nominated in the future will gain an essence of conscious, such as did the supposedly conservative members who leaned to the middle who have been nominated in 7 of 9 instances since Reagen and during his administration. While these folks made some pretty unpopular decisions as far as I am concerned they were decisions I understand and feel compeled to think were made with their interpretation of the Constitution in mind.

I also somehow think our method of nomination for the Supreme Court might be ready for change. Why have a biused President make this choice. Why not let the members of the court make it? With 8 members choosing, say let the departing member nominate and the rest vote to confirm. It would take a 5-3 vote by proxy.

The integrity of the court is represented by each member. Given the current state of politics we rarely ever see criticism by one judge of another's decisions directly....only from a professional view, not a political one. Amazing really when you think what all is tempted to be said in some of their closed door meetings. They appear to be very respectful of one another. Obviously something our elected representatives are not capable of doing. Their petty greivances are aired like football gam es in the mainstream media every day.

emmett
07-12-2009, 02:52 PM
Good post LA. The important thing is that the libs are going to get their majority on the SC real soon. Then they control all three branches of government, and anyone that thinks they will ever give any of those up without bloodshed is....a liberal.


You may indeed be right however......I can't see the system of government in America ever reaching a point that people will not be capable of making change. "Real Change" if it were warranted.

Liberals may just have to learn this lesson the hard way. Once it has been seen that more government and more control does not necessarily make life better, change will take place. It may be a ride however to experience this but in my humble opinion this will be the only way.

Many of the huge voting block that just elected Obama are under 30. As they age and become more succesful (hopefully) and begin the feel the pinch of higher taxation and witness these foolish restrictive legislative moves, they will evolve into more conservative voters.

Little-Acorn
07-14-2009, 11:11 AM
I can't see the system of government in America ever reaching a point that people will not be capable of making change.
Of course they will always be "capable" of making the change back to sensible (i.e. constitutional, limited) government. It's not a question of being "capable". It's a question of WANTING to.

And that's where the rub comes in. Witness that Americans have been perfectly "capable" of making this change, any time in the last few decades. But have they done it? No. They've stampeded headlong in the other direction. They've persistently left government in the hands of people who "ought to" know the right things to do... and those people have gleefully shepherded them into more and more dependency and Nanny-statism.

Yes, they are "capable" of doing it right. But they have chosen not to, time and again, letting socialists have their way every time. And I do not see any predicted change in THAT tendency, in the forseeable future.


Liberals may just have to learn this lesson the hard way.
I'm afraid it's conservatives that have a hard lesson to learn: Being right doesn't guarantee success. The liberals are WINNING, and as long as conservatives don't figure out how (so far they haven't a clue), they can be as right as rain, and derive no more benefit from their insight than to witness the end of a great country.

Gaffer
07-14-2009, 03:56 PM
The liberals have never had this much power in washington at one time. The house, senate and sc are all in their hands. Don't assume that a simple thing like voting and elections are going to get in their way now. acorn is well established and will handle all elections from this point on. The libs will win all elections handily from now on with only certain rino's allowed to win occasionally for appearance sake. The media will be there showing how "honest" the elections were and that there was no problems with the over whelming liberal vote.

If I'm wrong I'll gladly eat crow.

Little-Acorn
07-14-2009, 04:37 PM
The liberals have never had this much power in washington at one time.
Actually, they did during FDR, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, Jimmah, and Clinton (first 2 yrs).


The house, senate and sc are all in their hands.
"sc"? Supreme Court? There's presently a 4-4 split between Constitutional and Big-govt justices, plus one weathervane. Hardly "in their hands", though the standoff between law-abiders and law-abusers is troubling. And the justices most likely to be replaced by Obama, are all extreme-leftists to start with, so his extreme-left replacements won't change the makeup of the court.


Don't assume that a simple thing like voting and elections are going to get in their way now. acorn is well established and will handle all elections from this point on.
ACORN (I'm pissed they hijacked a perfectly good and honorable name) caused some trouble last November, and mostly got away with it, but they didn't affect the outcome of the election. Liberals didn't win. Republicans lost, by not being conservative. IF (a very big IF) they get their heads out and return to a conservative platform, the relatively weak ACORN won't be able to withstand the tide of history and the desire of most American people for conservative government.


The libs will win all elections handily from now on with only certain rino's allowed to win occasionally for appearance sake.
It's always easy to predict disaster and dark conspiracy, especially when you have no way of proving it.


The media will be there showing how "honest" the elections were and that there was no problems with the over whelming liberal vote.
Unless conservatives win. Which litany will we then hear get recycled? "Angry white males"? "Temper Tantrum"? Not that it matters.


If I'm wrong I'll gladly eat crow.
Don't put the cutlery away just yet.

Gaffer
07-14-2009, 05:48 PM
All the administrations you mentioned had one thing in common. They weren't communists. With the exception of carter. They are not democrats any more, they are democrat socialists. The real democrats are all gone from the party.

I'm predicting doom and gloom because that's what lies ahead. I hope I am totally wrong and that you can laugh at me and make fun. Won't really know anything until after the 2010 elections. And keep in mind, the media is on their side.