Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on July 01, 2005, 01:57:35 pm
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100650_pf.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0701051oconnor1.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050701/D8B2LF300.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100890_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100770_pf.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20050627.shtml
http://www.moveonpac.org/schiavo-QT.html
Just a comment about this one, I can't believe liberals in this country want to try and lecture the people about the Gov't being too intrusive.
A comment in generals, I am really worried how this is all going to end up. Most likly the democrats in congress will try another fillibuster.
-
I hope they do, we don't need that assclown of a president filling each and every openin with his favourites. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Just a comment about this one, I can't believe liberals in this country want to try and lecture the people about the Gov't being too intrusive.
Why?
-
Probably because the "liberal" forces that be in this country have traditionally (in the last ~20-30 years, anyway, excluding the current administration) for "big government" which would presumably be more engaged in privacy invasion. Not to excuse the current batch of Republican leadership from doing just that, but in principle at least that's sort of a core Democratic principle.
I hate politics. :doubt:
-
Democratic does not necessarily equal 'liberal', though. Not in proper politicial definition; AFAIK liberalism (as an ideology) supports state involvement in the form of welfare (unemployment assistance, health service), but opposes it in other areas; primarily those which would infringe civil liberties/freedom.
I'm always quite perturbed how political labels (left wing, right wing, for example) become defined by the actions of parties purporting to be of that ideology, when in reality politics is more about populism than principles. It's quite annoying, because it means 'liberal' and 'conservative' have very different meanings between countries such as the UK and US, when in actuality they should be of identical meaning and we should define the parties by which parts of which ideology they are using.
-
While I do agree with you wholeheartedly aldo, I am in no position to do anything about our labels. I know that "liberal" in the US means Democrat, even if that isn't exactly true right now. And that there doesn't exist a true conservative party. But in the context of redmenace's statement, the assumption of political affiliation with "liberals" eschews Democrats.
I hate politics. :doubt:
-
It's not simply the difference between "big" and "little" government, it's what each side wants to be big and little. The left in America generally favors a government that is more economically involved in people's lives, but takes a minimal role in controlling social issues. The right is seen as the opposite, advocating a government that does not interfere economically, but upholds a specific set of moral values. But it's important to remember that it's more of a 360-degree compass than a linear scale; many people's beliefs include aspects of both main categories. And of course, these lines blur when the government is in bed with big business, as is the case in our country as well as many others, I suspect.
Concerning the main issue, I think it's a good bet that if Bush tries to push the envelope, (even Rehnquist objects to many of the people on the list), Congress will make sure there's a gridlock.
-
When I read this, I get the distinct image of two vultures, one red and one blue, circling around the Supreme Court, ready to swoop on the first one who expires, to rip his/her still-warm carcass apart and feast on the delicious political clout it will offer.
By the way, Liberalism = individual rights, which is today called libertarianism, because the meaning of the word has come to mean simply "leftist"..
-
Only one problem with that analogy: At this point, the best the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) can hope for is that they can prevent the administration from appointing someone to the right of Attila the Hun.
By the way, Liberalism = individual rights, which is today called libertarianism, because the meaning of the word has come to mean simply "leftist"..
A Libertarian in the United States is not entirely "liberal", because Libertarians advocate minimal economic interference on the part of the government as well as social. These words depend largely on the specific political context.
-
What I meant was that the Republicans and Democrats switch every few years, so should a Supreme Court member succumb to the ravages of age - BAM - they'll f*ck the corpse before it even hits the ground.
As for Bush's nomination, I just had a scary thought. Two words: John Ashcroft.
-
What you're looking for is called "socialdemocrat" I think... Or maybe Keynesian democrat...
-
I know it's just a fantasy, but God, I'd love another Scalia, someone who actually interprets the Constitution as it is, and not as they would like it to be. See the recent eminent domain case for the type of crap that I'm talking about.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I know it's just a fantasy, but God, I'd love another Scalia, someone who actually interprets the Constitution as it is, and not as they would like it to be. See the recent eminent domain case for the type of crap that I'm talking about.
LOL, If kazan were here he would call you and me ****ing morons and republican hacks. :p But he is not ;7
But anyway, I am a little wary about scalia. He has made some comments that worry me including how if bush wasn't made president he would never make Supreme court justice.
-
Sigh
well, here we go
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901518_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900138_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901647_pf.html
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/m2.asp?Issue=NYS/2005/04/15&ID=Ar00101&Mode=HTML
-
Comrade Stalin disapproves of this nomination, as does Chairman Mao.
(me == left enough to be commie)
-
<--- Libertarian: Drugs and Assault Weapons for All
Lets face it though, regaurdless who bush nominated, the democrats will be ****ting bricks.
-
No surprises that Bush would nominate a hardliner. The right has been salivating over a chance to make a grab for the supreme court. Now they have a chance to control the entire federal government. Good bye progress........
But you do realize that this is just to hide the Plame scandal that has been going on, don't you?
-
Progress being defined as what, exactly? Just curious...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
When I read this, I get the distinct image of two vultures, one red and one blue, circling around the Supreme Court, ready to swoop on the first one who expires, to rip his/her still-warm carcass apart and feast on the delicious political clout it will offer.
This is honestly probably a pretty good analogy of the situation.
Still, I dislike that Bush seems to basically be maneuvering things so that abortion gets struck down. Not so much that it's abortion, but because it sounds to me like Bush is rigging things to please his pro-choice voters. That may simply be the bias of the news sources coming into play, but I don't doubt that Bush would do it.
Ah, well, four more years and all that... :blah:
-
Actually, their prolife voters. and many prolife voters reconcile that Row vs Wade will never be struck down. The biggest fight in regaurds to abortion will be do parents of minors have to give their parental consent for abortion like all other invasive procedures?
-
Reading the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts%2C_Jr.) entry, I don't like this bloke. He seems to be the perfect match for the Bush government; pro Gitmo military tribunals, anti-environment, pro-business/anti-union and pro expansive presidential powers.
A judge whose case against environmental protection of an animal (frog), is based around criticising that animals choice of territory rather than the application of the law, strikes me as a bit dodgy.
Of course, that should come as no surprise to anyone whose paid attention to my opinions (all 3 of you :) ). Personally I'm of the opinion that governments shouldn't appoint judges at this level, but rather that they should be elected by their peers. Obviously that leaves scope for bias and political machinations, but IMO you're less likely to get the top level 'legal policy' makers to be elected for purely political reasons.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
A judge whose case against environmental protection of an animal (frog), is based around criticising that animals choice of territory rather than the application of the law, strikes me as a bit dodgy.
In other words he is in favor of property rights? Oh Lord we can't have that. Why should a land owner have to put his development plans on hold because of an endangered frog. aldo, in all honesty there is alot to enviromental law that is whacked. However, if the law also says that said frog is an endangered species. Then the law, although IMO is crazy, must be followed. However, this is the kind of behavior that you expect from all judges. They always let their political views conflict with the strict interpretation of the law.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Actually, their prolife voters. and many prolife voters reconcile that Row vs Wade will never be struck down. The biggest fight in regaurds to abortion will be do parents of minors have to give their parental consent for abortion like all other invasive procedures?
Er, yeah, pro-life.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
In other words he is in favor of property rights? Oh Lord we can't have that. Why should a land owner have to put his development plans on hold because of an endangered frog. aldo, in all honesty there is alot to enviromental law that is whacked. However, if the law also says that said frog is an endangered species. Then the law, although IMO is crazy, must be followed. However, this is the kind of behavior that you expect from all judges. They always let their political views conflict with the strict interpretation of the law.
Gee, perhaps because we have (in most countries that give a damn about the environment and its preservation) environmental laws that specifically focus upon animals within a limited and niche range. Because obviously an animal which is limited to a small range is more likely to be endangered, especially if its limited range is a direct result of human activity.
If that is the whole logic for opposition - because the"hapless" toad "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California" - it's simply missing the whole point of having these laws.
NB: the precise toad isn't specified; my guess is that it's the Arroyo toad, whose endangered status is the result of habitat destruction specifically due to human activity (urbanization, dam construction, agriculture).
If you're going to criticise environmental legislation based upon the very reason it exists, you might as well admit you don't believe in environmental protection. If you were to grant development permission on the basis of blaming the endangered species for the habitat it was forced into, then effectively you set a precedent to contest any form of protection.
Poaching of elephants bad? Well, why don't the elephants move somewhere else? Clearly it must be their fault, then.
-
Bloody elephants. They should carry guns and hunt the poachers and it's their own fault if they don't, right? :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Gee, perhaps because we have (in most countries that give a damn about the environment and its preservation) environmental laws that specifically focus upon animals within a limited and niche range. Because obviously an animal which is limited to a small range is more likely to be endangered, especially if its limited range is a direct result of human activity.
If that is the whole logic for opposition - because the"hapless" toad "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California" - it's simply missing the whole point of having these laws.
NB: the precise toad isn't specified; my guess is that it's the Arroyo toad, whose endangered status is the result of habitat destruction specifically due to human activity (urbanization, dam construction, agriculture).
If you're going to criticise environmental legislation based upon the very reason it exists, you might as well admit you don't believe in environmental protection. If you were to grant development permission on the basis of blaming the endangered species for the habitat it was forced into, then effectively you set a precedent to contest any form of protection.
Poaching of elephants bad? Well, why don't the elephants move somewhere else? Clearly it must be their fault, then.
I am not saying I am against protection of species, but I am against people purchasing property and then finding out after their investment that they can't to **** with it. I mean there is no compensation what so ever. There are additional problems with enviromental law. such as owners of a property have to pay for toxic waste cleanup regaurdless of whether or not they did it but based souly on the virtue that they own it.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am not saying I am against protection of species, but I am against people purchasing property and then finding out after their investment that they can't to **** with it. I mean there is no compensation what so ever. There are additional problems with enviromental law. such as owners of a property have to pay for toxic waste cleanup regaurdless of whether or not they did it but based souly on the virtue that they own it.
Well, it should be the responsibility of polluters, not landowners to clean up (where the two are seperate), as well as an onus upon the government to legislate against excessive (note the 'excessive'; I have no expectation that the US gov would be doing anything to actually cut or control overall emissions, etc, except where it has a measured public health effect/risk) pollution & unsafe waste disposal. Although I'm surprised the US doesn't operate a 'polluter pays' system, as most countries within the OECD (AFAIK) do.
That given, a fault within legislation does not automatically invalidate supporting or parallel legislation.
However, if you hold economic concerns as being of more importance than environmental, then there is no point in having environmental protection laws atall. If a developer intends to buy and develop land, then surely they have a responsibility to investigate the legality of that action? Caveat emptor, and soforth.
EDIT; apparently in this specific case, the developer was being requested to remove a fence.
-
Originally posted by Fenrir
Progress being defined as what, exactly? Just curious...
All the changes of the last 100 years. It is one of the goals of the neo-cons to turn back the clock 100 or more years in this country. They will do everything they possibly can to do it.
-
I hope they do, we don't need that assclown of a president filling each and every openin with his favourites.
If i recall correctly Bush won the Election... and guess what?! he gets to pick the people for the courts! I dont remember people making such a fuss about Clinton nominating anything but moderate people.
-
Well, errr, that's sort of because "moderate" is kind of what you should look for in a Supreme Court justice.
-
Perhaps people didn't feel their civil liberties were under threat from Clintons' picks? Or because of the current Supreme Court, the only 2 appointed by Democratic presidents were those appointed by Clinton? (one replacing a Republican appointed justice; so I guess at the time all bar one were appointed by Republican presidents, and that wouldn't be representative of the actual political opinions of the voting populace).
-
Well, errr, that's sort of because "moderate" is kind of what you should look for in a Supreme Court justice.
Um no, you want somebody who will interpret the constitution instead of using their personal policy preferences to determine the constitutionality of a law, or use foreign law as a basis. I dont think the Justices should be of any party affiliation, but should be originalists and not make up law where there isnt, like the way some activists do on the court.
And what civil liberties being under threat... private property?
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If i recall correctly Bush won the Election... and guess what?! he gets to pick the people for the courts! I dont remember people making such a fuss about Clinton nominating anything but moderate people.
As I recall Bush RIGGED the election. :p
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Um no, you want somebody who will interpret the constitution instead of using their personal policy preferences to determine the constitutionality of a law, or use foreign law as a basis. I dont think the Justices should be of any party affiliation, but should be originalists and not make up law where there isnt, like the way some activists do on the court.
Interpretation is a personally biased matter; just look at the myriad ways in which, for example, the need for a 'militia' has been analysed in the gun control debate. It strikes me that people prefer to assume bias in a judgement they disagree with rather than address the reasoning behind that judgement.
In the case of foreign law, I presume you include the likes of binding UN treaties; if these in particular broke the constitution, why would they have been signed in the first place?
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
And what civil liberties being under threat... private property?
Versus reproductive rights and the right to a fair trial, or press freedom (for example)? Not that you can associate the (****ed up) decision over land development with Clinton, really.
-
Considering that seven of the nine judges were appointed by Republican presidents I'd say it was their supporters should stop complaining about activist judges as if it was a problem the democrats created.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Considering that seven of the nine judges were appointed by Republican presidents I'd say it was their supporters should stop complaining about activist judges as if it was a problem the democrats created.
Facts don't matter to Republicans, only lies do.