Judge Souter Pays the Piper

[Mark]

Thanks. I guess that lets us know who is lecturing us.

Political leaning isn't black and white. It's various shades of black.

And my simple request of you to lay out where the individual members of the Court stand according to you is apparently too difficult.

I find your argument to be confusing to say the least. You are requiring a black or white decision from me on which justices are liberal and which are conservatives....and then you complain that I am being black and white.

What?!?!?!

The honest answer is that I do not find any of them to be particularly liberal by my standards (which is what we are discussing here). On specific issues, certainly, some have made "liberal" decisions and some have made "conservative" decisions. I can think of none of the justices who have consistently voted one way or the other. I can think of none with whom I agree 100% of the time. Can you?

I suspect the real issue here was that you were trying to trap me into some kind of an answer to which you already had a response ready. Sorry to disapoint you, but I really do regard all the current Supreme Court Justices as (at least moderately) conservatives. You would prefer I lie to you?

Edited to add:
Perhaps part of the problem is that you are assuming I am using "conservative" in this context as a pejorative. I am not. Not in this context.

 

[aerocontrols]

I find your argument to be confusing to say the least. You are requiring a black or white decision from me on which justices are liberal and which are conservatives....and then you complain that I am being black and white.

What?!?!?!

I asked for your opinion as to which of them were conservative/moderate/liberal, in response to your lecturing us that political leaning is a bell curve. My desire was to see where you would put them on the bell curve that you brought up.

Your response was to say that they were all conservative. You have a right to that opinion. I've no doubt you're aware that it's not widely shared.

The honest answer is that I do not find any of them to be particularly liberal by my standards (which is what we are discussing here). On specific issues, certainly, some have made "liberal" decisions and some have made "conservative" decisions.

Really? I thought we were discussing what labels were appropriate. Mephisto called Souter a conservative justice. Conventional wisdom is that Souter is part of the liberal block of the court, which is why some of us took issue with that characterization. Then you lectured "many on the Right" about trying to "have [people] believe" in some black/white dichotomy, though I detected no such implications in anyone's posts.

If there is a difference between Rob saying "he's not a conservative" and you saying "Of course Souter is a conservative" then perhaps you could explain what that difference is. Or perhaps Rob wasn't one of those you were criticising in your post.

I can think of none of the justices who have consistently voted one way or the other. I can think of none with whom I agree 100% of the time. Can you?

Of course not. How is it relevant to the question of which SC Justices are liberal/moderate/conservative? If it helps, I do not consider myself 100% liberal or conservative? What would you call a justice that agreed with you 100% of the time? Is the problem here that I don't live up to your black/white-believing caricature? Taking their positions on average, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are conservatives, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens are liberals. Despite that sometimes they may vote against what a typical liberal may prefer.

Honestly, this bit of your argument is confusing to me, but the nearest I can make out is that it appears to me that you are of the opinion that everyone should use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' to mean 'to the left of [whoever is speaking]' and 'to the right of [whoever is speaking]'? I find that it's only the most extreme ideologues who use the words in that fashion.

I suspect the real issue here was that you were trying to trap me into some kind of an answer to which you already had a response ready. Sorry to disapoint you, but I really do regard all the current Supreme Court Justices as (at least moderately) conservatives. You would prefer I lie to you?

I was trying to get you to explain how you could justify calling Souter a conservative, given that most court-watchers agree that he's one of the Court's liberal bloc. Not the conservative bloc, not the moderate bloc, but the liberal bloc. Certainly the fact that you believe that all of the Justices are conservatives would explain your position, and demonstrate how far out of the mainstream it is.

Edited to add:
Perhaps part of the problem is that you are assuming I am using "conservative" in this context as a pejorative. I am not. Not in this context.

Why would I assume that? I assumed you meant the word 'conservative' as a fuzzy descriptor of general political ideology, as likely everyone else in the thread did.

 

[aerocontrols]

If there is a difference between Rob saying "he's not a conservative" and you saying "Of course Souter is a conservative" then perhaps you could explain what that difference is.

By this I don't mean to imply that the statements are not opposites, but that the statements don't appear to be different by type.

 

[Mark]

I asked for your opinion as to which of them were conservative/moderate/liberal, in response to your lecturing us that political leaning is a bell curve. My desire was to see where you would put them on the bell curve that you brought up.

Your response was to say that they were all conservative. You have a right to that opinion. I've no doubt you're aware that it's not widely shared.



Really? I thought we were discussing what labels were appropriate. Mephisto called Souter a conservative justice. Conventional wisdom is that Souter is part of the liberal block of the court, which is why some of us took issue with that characterization. Then you lectured "many on the Right" about trying to "have [people] believe" in some black/white dichotomy, though I detected no such implications in anyone's posts.

If there is a difference between Rob saying "he's not a conservative" and you saying "Of course Souter is a conservative" then perhaps you could explain what that difference is. Or perhaps Rob wasn't one of those you were criticising in your post.



Of course not. How is it relevant to the question of which SC Justices are liberal/moderate/conservative? If it helps, I do not consider myself 100% liberal or conservative? What would you call a justice that agreed with you 100% of the time? Is the problem here that I don't live up to your black/white-believing caricature? Taking their positions on average, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are conservatives, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens are liberals. Despite that sometimes they may vote against what a typical liberal may prefer.

Honestly, this bit of your argument is confusing to me, but the nearest I can make out is that it appears to me that you are of the opinion that everyone should use the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' to mean 'to the left of [whoever is speaking]' and 'to the right of [whoever is speaking]'? I find that it's only the most extreme ideologues who use the words in that fashion.



I was trying to get you to explain how you could justify calling Souter a conservative, given that most court-watchers agree that he's one of the Court's liberal bloc. Not the conservative bloc, not the moderate bloc, but the liberal bloc. Certainly the fact that you believe that all of the Justices are conservatives would explain your position, and demonstrate how far out of the mainstream it is.



Why would I assume that? I assumed you meant the word 'conservative' as a fuzzy descriptor of general political ideology, as likely everyone else in the thread did.

It's really quite simple: As others have observed (and which I find somewhat encouraging right now) being appointed to the Supreme Court seems to tone down people's own political bias to a certain extent. Souter seems to be a perfect example of this, actually. Once they get on the court, their rulings, in general, tend to be rather conservative; they tend not to lean too far in either direction (unlike me).

I am aware that my opinion on this is out of the mainstream. Which proves what? I should only hold opinions that the majority approves of? Doesn't happen very often with me, I'm afraid.

 

[aerocontrols]

It's really quite simple: As others have observed (and which I find somewhat encouraging right now) being appointed to the Supreme Court seems to tone down people's own political bias to a certain extent. Souter seems to be a perfect example of this, actually. Once they get on the court, their rulings, in general, tend to be rather conservative; they tend not to lean too far in either direction (unlike me).

That seems to me to be a misuse of the word 'conservative' as it applies to politics. 'Moderate' would seem to fit better, there.

I am aware that my opinion on this is out of the mainstream. Which proves what? I should only hold opinions that the majority approves of? Doesn't happen very often with me, I'm afraid.

As I said, you can hold whatever opinions you like. (Was I unclear on that point?)

My point is that lecturing the rest of us because we're using the common definition of 'conservative' rather than your personal definition is rather presumptuous of you.

I myself am well to the right of the mainstream in my opinions generally, but I recognize the utility of using the mainstream definitions of 'conservative/moderate/liberal'. It seems to me that if everyone judges who goes where by their own ideology, then the words become useless. By what you've said here, the word 'conservative' out of your mouth can only be deciphered by people who (1) know that you mean 'conservative compared to Mark' and (2) know where Mark's political ideology falls.

So you say 'Souter is a conservative' where most people would say 'Souter is more conservative than Mark'.

How tiresome.

 

[Mark]

That seems to me to be a misuse of the word 'conservative' as it applies to politics. 'Moderate' would seem to fit better, there.



As I said, you can hold whatever opinions you like. (Was I unclear on that point?)

My point is that lecturing the rest of us because we're using the common definition of 'conservative' rather than your personal definition is rather presumptuous of you.

I myself am well to the right of the mainstream in my opinions generally, but I recognize the utility of using the mainstream definitions of 'conservative/moderate/liberal'. It seems to me that if everyone judges who goes where by their own ideology, then the words become useless. By what you've said here, the word 'conservative' out of your mouth can only be deciphered by people who (1) know that you mean 'conservative compared to Mark' and (2) know where Mark's political ideology falls.

So you say 'Souter is a conservative' where most people would say 'Souter is more conservative than Mark'.

How tiresome.

Sorry I bored you. Perhaps you should stop asking me questions.

 

[aerocontrols]

Sorry I bored you. Perhaps you should stop asking me questions.

Not bored. Wearied. Words are only useful if they have a common meaning.

I'll take your advice to heart.

 

[Mark]

Not bored. Wearied. Words are only useful if they have a common meaning.

I'll take your advice to heart.

Rudeness is somewhat wearying, too. You ask me questions, I try to answer truthfully, politely, and clearly, and you then complain that I am being "tiresome."

I may perhaps be forgiven for thinking you wanted me to follow a script that you had in your head.

 

[Jocko]

Not bored. Wearied. Words are only useful if they have a common meaning.

I'll take your advice to heart.

Mark has exhibited this trait before, i.e. highly suspect applications of words that don't match their actual meanings.

 

[Mark]

Mark has exhibited this trait before, i.e. highly suspect applications of words that don't match their actual meanings.

Do you mean the time when you were using the least preferred definition of the word "Cheer" according to the dictionary? And then got mad because I wouldn't use the same definition?

How odd that you are still clinging to that.

 

[Grammatron]

Mark, here's the situation when you describe something with a word and most people to whom you're describing use the word differently you either have to explain your definition or chose another word. Otherwise the conversation goes nowhere.

I also see this constantly happen and that's why I ask for definition of terms in debates with you, which for some reason you dislike.

 

[Jocko]

Do you mean the time when you were using the least preferred definition of the word "Cheer" according to the dictionary? And then got mad because I wouldn't use the same definition?

How odd that you are still clinging to that.

Okay, Mark, let's recap your "inventive" vocabulary.

You posted quotes by chrstian fundamentalists who exploited, blamed and generally abased themselves over the causes of 9/11. No one cheered. You posted a five-part definition that didn't even fit your criteria, claimed victory (completely in error, natch) and withdrew.

Before that, you argued vociferously that Bush was a deserter, until it was hammered into your thick skull that he wasn't. Again, you mumbled something about the truth not being dependent on actually being true, a comment only Dan Rather could love, and again withdrew.

Now, you demonstrate that you have either:

A. No grasp of what a conservative is, or
B. No concern over the meaning of words.

In either event, you are not worth debating because you use terms dishonestly, a fact more and more people have begun noticing, in case that's escaped you.

Don't bother replying, I left my Mark-to-English dictionary at home today and wouldn't be able to decipher your actual meaning anyway.

 

[crimresearch]

And to get back to the OP, does this activist individual have enough money to pay for all the bonds, plans, environmental impact and feasibility studies, etc. that say, a Walmart or a Humana would have to foot the bill for, before *they* could persuade city council to approve such a plan?
And will he then be offering fair market value for Souter's property, and for everyone else affected?

Several million bucks up front should be enough to convince everyone that this isn't just empty grandstanding.

 

[Mark]

Okay, Mark, let's recap your "inventive" vocabulary.

You posted quotes by chrstian fundamentalists who exploited, blamed and generally abased themselves over the causes of 9/11. No one cheered. You posted a five-part definition that didn't even fit your criteria, claimed victory (completely in error, natch) and withdrew.

Before that, you argued vociferously that Bush was a deserter, until it was hammered into your thick skull that he wasn't. Again, you mumbled something about the truth not being dependent on actually being true, a comment only Dan Rather could love, and again withdrew.

Now, you demonstrate that you have either:

A. No grasp of what a conservative is, or
B. No concern over the meaning of words.

In either event, you are not worth debating because you use terms dishonestly, a fact more and more people have begun noticing, in case that's escaped you.

Don't bother replying, I left my Mark-to-English dictionary at home today and wouldn't be able to decipher your actual meaning anyway.

Since you are still attempting to contradict the dictionary, I'll just bet you don't want me to bother replying.

a) I admitted publicly that I was wrong and Bush was AWOL, rather than a deserter.

b) I proved you wrong with the dictionary regarding "cheer." As evidenced by the fact that at that point you withdrew from the debate.

c) Your comment "Again, you mumbled something about the truth not being dependent on actually being true" is nothing less than a bare faced lie. What I said was that even though the memos were forged, the information in them was correct---as evidenced by the testimonies of almost everyone who was there at the time. You are a liar.

d) I stand by my opinion that all of the current Supreme Court Justices are (at least moderately) conservative. Please name one (just one!) who is not and explain why.

 

[Jocko]

I stand by my opinion that all of the current Supreme Court Justices are (at least moderately) conservative. Please name one (just one!) who is not and explain why.

I'm not in the business of explaining YOUR delusions.

Perhaps you would be better served by identifying a politician you would describe as more liberal than yourself, so we can triangulate what political planet you live on.

 

[Mark]

I'm not in the business of explaining YOUR delusions.

Perhaps you would be better served by identifying a politician you would describe as more liberal than yourself, so we can triangulate what political planet you live on.

Let me get this straight: you blather on and on about how my saying all the Supreme Court Justices are to some degree conservatives, and then you can't even give ONE lousy example of a liberal Justice? That's pathetic.

That said, we press on: A politician more liberal than myself? Well, first of all, I reject the term liberal for myself since, despite the word's quite honorable history in American politics (look it up), the Right have hijacked it to the point of uselessness. I prefer Leftist. Although even that label doesn't apply to me very well since I am quite conservative in some areas (the death penalty, when there is 100% certainty of guilt, for example). Although I recognize that labels are very important for those who prefer not to think things through issue by issue...

Nevertheless...a politician who is further Left than me? Maxine Waters leaps to mind.

 

[Rob Lister]

Nevertheless...a politician who is further Left than me? Maxine Waters leaps to mind.

Would you say she is a great deal more left then you or just a tad more? Better asked: is there another politician between Maxine and yourself?

 

[MarksSock]

Would you say she is a great deal more left then you or just a tad more? Better asked: is there another politician between Maxine and yourself?

I had to answer with this account (which I set up for just this purpose) because the system is not currently accepting my regular password (I don't know why).

Anyway, I am becoming aware that the more I try to address these silly questions, the more are thrown at me. For what purpose?

You tell me, Rob:

1. Who is further Right than you?

2. Whoever you name, please give me more names.

3. Are they a little bit to the Right of you?

4. Or are they a great deal further to the Right?

5. Is there another politician between you and the one(s) you gave?

Since I already indicated that my own leanings are on a per-issue basis---not blind party loyalty, or ideology---I cannot begin to understand what you are trying to accomplish here.

 

[Major Billy]

Can you name three of the "many on the right" that have demonstrated a desire to "have us believe" that?

1. _________ Evidence: ____________________________
2. _________ Evidence: ____________________________
3. _________ Evidence: ____________________________

Let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist.

President Clinton blamed the vicious 9/11 terrorist attacks on you and me and all Americans.

The liberals then mean separation of church and state has now become anti-religion.

Need more Rob?

 

[JamesDillon]

Wow, that was a rather delayed response.

But, yeah, no way Souter is conservative. He's widely regarded as a traitor to the cause and a big mistake on Bush the Elder's part. A recurrent theme in right-wing circles during the last two nominations was "no more Souters."