Alito: Conservative or Liberal. It doesn't matter.

Melendwyr said:
The "adherence to the rule of law" thing sounds great - until you realize that, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, one of his primary functions is determining what the laws actually mean. As such, not only will be he obligated to define the laws, he will interpret which laws conflict with each other and the Constitution - and which should take precedence over the other.

Since writing clear, concise, and easily-interpretable law is beyond the best efforts of lawyers, we have a group of people who are essentially given the power to decide what law is. When those people aren't honest, impartial, and reasonable, we have problems.

We have problems.
Click to expand...
Also I'm looking into Danish constitutional law (for an exam), and legal theory in general, and judges do rule according to political criterias to some extend (what's "right" sensible" and "practical"). I don't think this is necessarilly a bad thing, but it's definetly something one should keep in mind.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
I like the process of the Constitution, there are areas where our government can do better but the process seems to be the working well.

It does make me laugh to hear some justices reffered to as 'liberal', judges are by and large conservatives, and the Supremes are the arch conservatives. The reason people get placed on the court is because the are conservatives,, it makes me laugh that Regan appointees are called liberal. Ginsberg is a conservative.

The thing that is importants, and why Bork got bounced , is judicial temperment, I am not sure how Thomas got through. Alito could be an arch conservative out to rework the court. It doesn't matter, because if it is his tempermant to follow the law and work within the boundaries of the case before the court, then his personal opinion may be used as a rationale for the outcome, but it shouldn't effect the outcome itself.
So I present that the bias of a justice does not matter as long as they act in good faith.
Click to expand...
If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
It's so cute when someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to. If you feel my assessment of the FL debacle is incorrect, you are free to have that faith.


By the way, still yearning for certain of your fellow countrymen to come to their end by means of a nuclear explosion?
Click to expand...
If the shoe fits ....

Unlike certain of my countrymen, what I'm yearning for is none of my fellow countrymen dying from the use of WMD -- or any terrorist act -- on US soil.
 
RandFan said:
Could you explain? "Arch conservatives"? Rarely am I so blindsided by a statement. How were so many landmark cases decided to the approval of liberals and opposed by conservatives? Civil rights, abortion, free speech, etc., dediced by arch conservatives? Even accounting for different definitions of the word "liberal" I don't think I understand.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you and I are of an age, perhaps not. When I was coming up in the world the terms liberal and conservative were almost never capitalized. When Dick Durbin was elected to the Senate from Illinois he was actualy considered by many of us to be a conservative, that is typical of democrats that carry the vote in Illinois outside of the great white north.

So when I say that judges are conservatives, I mean that as individuals they are conservative people, perhaps not the more recent ideaology tauted as 'Conservative', but still people who would by and large support the modification of the system in incremental amounts, support societal norms and feel that spending less government money is a good thing.
This comes from my limited experience in reading the campaign material of judges in Illinois and viewing and listening to many of them in court, perhaps 'establishmentarianism' would be a more accurate label than conservative. I just nelief that most judges who vote democratic are voting for conservative democrats, which there are fewer of than in the past.
Now coming up with a definition of liberal would likely take considerable debate, someone who bel;ieves than social welfare spending is a good thing and that changing the system in non-incrreemental steps can be very positive?
 
I can help, here. A liberal believes individual outcomes depend on society rather than on the individual.
 
A case of conservative "Results-based" expectations... the famous bit where a county(?) government wanted to seize land and sell it to commercial interests. The SC judges ruled, as far as I can tell, that existing law did not suffice to prevent it. That is not the same as approving of the practice.

However, because the result was unpopular, they got the worst press in recent memory. So it seems even the so-called "strict constructionists" prefer them to be result-based some of the time.
 
hammegk said:
What I really love is your continuing denial of reality.
Click to expand...

I am what you would call a liberal, and I do not agree with your original statement; therefore, your gross generalization is proven wrong.

So much for your version of "reality."
 
hammegk said:
In that case they decided their agenda should be to force FL to follow existing laws that governed election procedures, rather than re-writing laws to change procedures after-the-fact.
Click to expand...

Um, weren't those state laws? Who is the final arbiter of state laws? The state supreme court, not the US Supreme Court (unless it is a Constitutional question).

Lurker
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
Um, weren't those state laws? Who is the final arbiter of state laws? The state supreme court, not the US Supreme Court (unless it is a Constitutional question).

Lurker
Click to expand...
Yup, and I agree that had the election in question not been a Federal, Constitutional, issue rather than a State issue, The FL Supremes could have enacted all the Law they chose to and gotten away with it until the next session of the State congress, and possible impeachment proceedings.


DavidJames said:
You can add me to Mark as a liberal who doesn't adhere to your strawman about what liberals believe.
Click to expand...
I have no quibble with their "beliefs"; it's their actions-in-fact that I object to.
 
hammegk said:
I have no quibble with their "beliefs"; it's their actions-in-fact that I object to.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Changing our story now, are we?

And just what actions of mine and DavidJames' do you find indicate we believe "individual outcomes depend on society rather than on the individual." That was your statement. Back it up.
 
hammegk said:
Yup, and I agree that had the election in question not been a Federal, Constitutional, issue rather than a State issue, The FL Supremes could have enacted all the Law they chose to and gotten away with it until the next session of the State congress, and possible impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...

Um, recounts are followed by state law, not federal. Each state decides how to recount and how quickly. As far as I know, the US only mandates when the electors have to show up for the electiopn. You will note that the federal date mandated for electors had not arrived yet so the US Supreme Court was adjudicating State law which was not in its jurisdiction.

Lurker
 
Keep right on believing that; it makes no difference to me or anyone else worrying about reality. :)

Mark said:
Back it up.
Click to expand...
Go pound sand. Glad to discover you & your cohort are not "liberals". What are you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom