What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative?

[Tominator]

<< Anywho, the lawyers are to blame. >>



They, Trial Lawyers, are the largest contributors to the Democrat Party!

When the prayer issue was addressed in the high school I graduated from and the idea that at each school sponsored gathering a different religious leader would lead a prayer, the state warned them that a lawsuit would immediately be filed. Front page news in the local paper.

How many times must I say that I would not be offended by somone saying a prayer from a different religious perspective WOULD NOT offend me! Or any one I know for that matter.



<< Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be unconstitutional? >>



The overthrow of the government is one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment! It puts power in the hands of the citizens.





<< I don't get simple writing too good. >>



Nothing new here. Simple thought and reasoning take a vacation when you post and it is often evident you have no idea what "We the People" really means. One trait of Liberals that you make quite evident is to clutter up space with meaningless words and thought in a effort to pollute the meaning of our most basic of laws. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was to be interpreted by Citizens through their elected representatives and the ideas therein fairly implemented by the judiciary. Those are two distinct functions. Simple enough?

 

[Moonbeam]

Tominator, in repsonding to, "Nothing new here. Simple thought and reasoning take a vacation when you post and it is often evident you have no idea what "We the People" really means. One trait of Liberals that you make quite evident is to clutter up space with meaningless words and thought in a effort to pollute the meaning of our most basic of laws. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was to be interpreted by Citizens through their elected representatives and the ideas therein fairly implemented by the judiciary. Those are two distinct functions. Simple enough?", I can only say you are probably on to something. I understood almost nothing of what you probably intended. For example, I thought the judiciary interpreted the Constitution and B of R, that the executive implimented it, and that the legislature made law, but then what do I know. I would need specific examples of clutter and meaningless words to understand that point too. I'm quite surprised to learn too that the 2nd ammendment was put there to facilitate a violent overthrow of the government. I thought we were suposed to change it with our vote. I guess I also don't understand what 'We the People" means. It sounds communistic. Maybe you can fill me in.

 

[Tominator]

We do not have the ability to change or take away "God given" rights with amendments. We can add to, but cannot take away. That is one of the reasons the process is so complicated. if it could be changed at will, in just a few short generations it would have no meaning at all.




<< I can only say you are probably on to something. I understood almost nothing of what you probably intended. For example, I thought the judiciary interpreted the Constitution and B of R, that the executive implimented it, and that the legislature made law, >>



We the people send Representatives to DC to protect our interest. If a law needs modified in it's meaning or implication it is up to those elected officials to do so. Make a bad decision or cross the people you represent and you are out of there next election.

The judiciary was not to 'interpret,' but to apply fairly and without prejudice the laws passed down to them. They can then refuse to apply a law based on the Constitution, and the decide to send it back for modification to the Representatives. But it is those Representatives that write the law.

What I'm concerned with is the everyday mis-interpretation of the Constitution and how it is applied to individuals or groups of individuals. That is where the term "Legislating from the Bench" comes from. It is patently illegal to do so, but Liberal judges do it every day.

The whole system was designed to be simple and effective with everyone aware what the other part of Government was doing. Severe limits are established in the Constitution as well, but these limits have been completely ignored and the whole system so bloated and meanings continually adapted at will to seek special treatment that it in no way really represents the people.

Can you get a 'fair and speedy trial?' Hell no you can't!



<< "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) >>





<< "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." (Samuel Adams, 1780) >>





<< "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) >>





<< "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28) >>





<< "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) >>





<< "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888]) >>



We are not only within our rights as Citizens to take up arms against a corrupt government, but it is our duty!

 

[GasX]

<< Religion aside, the Constitution gives the un-born the right to life. >>

sure it does. Just as it assures pedophiles to pursue happiness through child porn...


<< And what is so wrong with religious beliefs? What wrong with loving your neighbor or helping the needy? What's wrong with "Thou Shalt Not Lie" or "Thou Shalt Not Murder?" What's wrong with taking responsibility for your actions and raising your child after knocking up your girlfriend instead of getting an abortion? I simply don't understand what all this hate is about! I am truly sorry that you enjoy the evil that lives inside your heart. >>

There is nothing wrong with religious beliefs, but since when do religious people have a monopoly on one-liner moral aphorisms?

 

[Red Dawn]

Ok forget freedom of speech for a second, I just can't understand why being able to say a prayer at a Public function is so important? Why is it necessary to do a group worship ,why can't people just pray individually. From my perspective as an Atheist, group worshiping at public events is (or can be) rude and exclusive. A silent prayer would be more fitting and less exclusive.

Still the main reason why I would always be against allowing public Prayer at State Sponsored events is due to the fact that I believe a minority of those who follow the mainstream religion would take advantage of the situation to ostracize those who do not believe as they do. Not people like you Tom, but the fanatics, the ones who would say "I am truly sorry that you enjoy the evil that lives inside your heart". Of course this is just my personal feeling on the subject of Prayer in School and State Sponsored events not any interpretation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

That said, I can say that I wouldn't as bothered by group prayer at those events as Tom is about group prayer not being allowed at those events. But then I guess that's only natural since I'm an Atheist and I don't feel that I am being denied my rights.

 

[Tominator]

<< That said, I can say that I wouldn't as bothered by group prayer at those events as Tom is about group prayer not being allowed at those events. But then I guess that's only natural since I'm an Atheist and I don't feel that I am being denied my rights. >>



It is not that prayer is not said but that it is Government that makes the final decision that bothers me. If I had the freedom to take my tax money elsewhere and therefore the freedom to seek a religious environment dor my child's education, I could care less what they did there.

I do not think that Government is taking away my rights as much as offended that Government is making the decision to start with.

A large group of those going to private Catholic schools are not Catholic at all. The reason? They educate and don't indoctrinate. The proof is in the resulting quality in academics of their graduates who are better educated than their publicly schooled counterparts. The private schools do not get involved with political correctness. Many of them are not for school vouchers btw, as any influx of Government money risks Government control. They have a reason to be afraid!

 

[Athanasius]

Hi Moonbeam:

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I tried Saturday night but time it just didn't work out. As I've said before, you ask hard questions

I am not sure that I am the best one to respond to queries about how conservatives would respond to things. Throughout this thread, I've tried to be objective in distinguishing between conservatives and liberals. While I admit that my basic political philosophy is conservative, I am not a true conservative in some respects. Just when I almost line up as conservative or even almost libertarian, I embrace some normally liberal concept that stuns the people I normally agree with and leaves me wondering where exactly I am on this spectrum. Maybe I am just confused ;D.

You raised several points in your post that I will respond to.

Moonbeam quote:

<< It is my impression that most conservatives harken back to better days when there was less gov involvment and some of the social goods you wish to see the gov promote with fiscal incentives were in flower and earned the badge of 'proven effective.' >>



Well I don't look to the past history of our government or our society as some type of cure for our present situation. I think different eras of our past were more prosperous for different segments of society. If one is a white american male, I am sure the fifties seem like the ideal society. But I think it is impossible to turn back the clock. At the same time, I think certain principles are more enduring than any specific time frame. The key is to uncover those principles and find practical ways to apply them to people today. I think we can learn from history and that the more enduring principles should not be ignored because we decide for ourselves that we no longer need them. But I don't see those principles as imbedded in the past, or even encoded exclusively in one particular book. Though I am a Christian, I don't see the Bible (and especially the New Testament) as teaching any particular political system that humans can seize and implement today. In other words, the New Testament has no political agenda. It doesn't outlaw the perceived injustices of its day (like slavery). Rather, it recognizes that every human system has injustices in it and therefore teaches followers of Christ how to minimize injustices in whatever system they find themselves. Injustices are minimized by understanding appropriate authority and submission, faith, hope, and genuine love. By not tying itself to any political system, the Way of Christ is able to permeate them all and change society by changing people.
So, to me, "proven effective," is not so hard to determine. They have stood the test of time to show that they are not mere fads. Some might say "stood the test of time" is simply another way of looking to the past, but I don't see it that way. I see "stood the test of time" as evidence that there is something more timeless about these institutuions, like the traditional family unit.

Moonbeam Quote:

<< So how do we run down hill from a better to a worse place. Presumably, if we were to improve society up to the quality of the past, we would run down hill again to where we are today. >>



But I am not trying to look to the past as somehow being intrinsically superior to the present. I live and interact with the present. Hence the present is the most real thing I encounter. If the present is messed up, it is not because we have "turned away from our glory years," it is because we are failing to seize some timeless principle that is within our reach today.


Moonbeam Quote:

<< One other thing. A parrot can imitate human speach. Are there not similar problems in imitating Christ at least if he is more than human. >>



Well, I tend to think that, if we try to imitate Christ, we get help in the form of Grace. Thank God their is no "Distribution of Divine Grace Beuraucracy." Government is about law and authority and just society. Grace is about mercy and humility and healing those in every society that are left out of that society's justice. You talk about "collapsing the divide" but I see such a collapse as occuring only within individuals, not institutions. The best structure or "body" that can be established is one that has a right hand of law and justice and a left hand of mercy and help. But the right hand really doesn't need to know what the left hand is doing. The individual can use both hands. Divine Grace is the "Mind of Christ" that enables Gracious Individuals to use both hands effectively.


Moonbeam Quote:

<< I guess I wonder too about how your idea of fiscal incentive ties in with the major theme here as presented by Amused One that you need to strangle the gov's money to keep it small. >>



Well, that is simple enough for me. If the government gives tax relief, it never gets the money in the first place and thus keeps itself small. Tax relief is simply keeping more money in the hands of the individuals who earn it. Personally, if we could blow the whole tax code up and start over, I would be very interested in seeing how a "flat tax" system works. I might consider some relief for those individual social structures that contribute in the long run the most to the system. In other words, the child who has the most stable social structure will in the end pay far more into the system than the tax relief granted to secure that social structure. And government didn't have to do anything except keep itself smaller by granting that relief. But we can't blow up the system and start over, so we must do our best to make this system work. But I'm nopt in charge, I'm not an economist, and I'm not really frustrated by the current system because I don't look to any man-made system to really create a just society. I think both a socialistic state and a capitalistic one could be amazingly just societies if enough individuals were full of Grace. Then those individuals would "collapse" the divide you talk about.


Anyway, I'm out of time again. I'll check back in when I get a chance.

 

[Red Dawn]

I see where you are coming from Tom. I also agree with you about the School System Indoctrinating instead of Educating. In fact 2 of my 3 sons went to a Christian Private School and were much better because of it. They did do a lot of Christian indoctrination, especially when it came to their values. Of course when the values are sound I haven't a problem with that.

 

[Tominator]

Thanks for the validation Mike. Without my Christian parents instilling those values I would be dead. Of that I have no doubt.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

<< I think both a socialistic state and a capitalistic one could be amazingly just societies if enough individuals were full of Grace. Then those individuals would "collapse" the divide you talk about. >>



Just a thought: The US probably has the highest concentration of biblically orthodox Christians in the world. Could that be the reason why it is Earth's most successful country? I think there might be a correlation, though I'm not sure how the correlation actually situates itself.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Tom and Mike- Would you both agree that the public schools are there to "teach and not to preach"? And that the Constitution was written to protect the people from being told what religion they had to be? And in doing that the Goverment or any public institution had to be clear of even a hint of religious affiliation?

 

[Tominator]

Dave,

I cannot pretend to speak for Mike...



<< Would you both agree that the public schools are there to "teach and not to preach"? >>



I could agree if that was the case. Liberals are in charge of our educational system. They exclude God in any form, give out condoms and ask if there is a gun in the house. They preach right and wrong is subject to debate on any level. The higher you go, the more evident it becomes. No one wants religion preached in Public Schools, but they are turning our young against us!



<< And that the Constitution was written to protect the people from being told what religion they had to be? >>



Where has anyone suggested otherwise?



<< And in doing that the Goverment or any public institution had to be clear of even a hint of religious affiliation? >>



Affiliation? Or do you meant to exclude ANY reference to a superior being which was clearly NEVER the intent of our Constitution? Just having to ask this question shows how much control Government has over us. Again, the Constitution LIMITS how much control Government has over us and should not be able to prohibit the 'free expression of religion' in public or otherwise.

 

[Nefrodite]

Just a thought: The US probably has the highest concentration of biblically orthodox Christians in the world. Could that be the reason why it is Earth's most successful country? I think there might be a correlation, though I'm not sure how the correlation actually situates itself.


who happen to be concentrated in the middle/south of our country our "liberal coastal" areas have powerhouses like new york and silicon valley so no correlation.

 

[SuperTool]

Conservative:
Cleans the dryer lint screen before using it.
Liberal:
Cleans the dryer lint screen after using it.

 

[Tominator]

<< who happen to be concentrated in the middle/south of our country our "liberal coastal" areas have powerhouses like new york and silicon valley so no correlation. >>



And they've been migrating inland for years!

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< I could agree if that was the case. Liberals are in charge of our educational system. They exclude God in any form, give out condoms and ask if there is a gun in the house. They preach right and wrong is subject to debate on any level. The higher you go, the more evident it becomes. No one wants religion preached in Public Schools, but they are turning our young against us! >>



I personally don't have an issue with them excluding God in any form. I don't think it has any place in public education. As for the rest of it I have not personally experienced it, so I will not speak to it.



<< Where has anyone suggested otherwise? >>


Nowhere. It was just a segue into part 3.



<< Affiliation? Or do you meant to exclude ANY reference to a superior being which was clearly NEVER the intent of our Constitution? Just having to ask this question shows how much control Government has over us. Again, the Constitution LIMITS how much control Government has over us and should not be able to prohibit the 'free expression of religion' in public or otherwise. >>



Yes I do mean exclude any reference to a superior being. I don't have an issue with silent prayer time although I think that time could be better spent teaching my kids math. I am diametrically opposed to any faculty led student prayer sessions. Whenever my kids come home (and it's happened a few times) and tell me they talked about God in school, I am immediately down there talking to teacher and principal. I simply don't want them doing that.

 

[Tominator]

But you have no problem giving out condoms?:Q

 

[Moonbeam]

Tominator, It's interesting that Jefferson and Mao should think so much alike. The fly in the ointment that I see is, of course, what is determining what is just and unjust, good and bad government. Doubtless you wouldn't want me deciding when to have a revolution. For example, your concern about activist justices was just born out. Five members of the Supreme Coup just reversed their usual stand on states rights to rest the election from the rightful winner and give it to a conservative because some of them want to retire and didn't want to give their seats up to real judges. Everything you fear has happened, and by people who think very much like you.

Well, Athanasius, the good part about asking you questions is that you will answer; the bad part is that, as you say, you aren't really just a conservative and your answers always have that third, ameliorating, point of view. It is atypical not to look at the past as superior, for example. Tominator seems to bemoan a decline in understanding of true principles as liberal educators flood the school system. I still see a strong component of difference between liberal and conservative in their reaction to change. The conservative focuses on the negative effects of change, and the liberal on the negative effects of the status quo. Your answer, to focus on the present, can go either or both ways.

While tax relief may keep more money in the hands of those who earn it, it can also keep it out of the hands of those who may need it. We defend ourselves with an army because individually we can be picked off one by one. There is strength in numbers and great things can be done with organization not accomplishable by any one individual. Why would we not take the same approach to poverty?

You must also, I would think, understand that AmusedOne, who seems to have abandoned us, might think your notion of grace and the special positive qualities it might confer on individuals something rather elitist to rely upon as a place to ground a world view. But for me, the question posed by waht I think you mean by grace are involved just in the defining characteristic of grace, namely that it is a gift, the despensing over which we have no conscious control. I happen to believe that grace obeys its own laws statistically. It is a door that opens or stays closed for reasons of which most people remain unconscious, and it may open or remain closed to different individuals depending on their past experiences. In that I find great unjustice, because I don't happen to believe that we either choose or deserve our past. It is a randon fluke. But given that, I see the past as the key. Grace to me is the manifestation of the power to love. The power to love is what we witheld as children when we choose to shut down, to die psychically, to save ourselves from being killed physically if we didn't.

It is also the enormity of this dilema that makes political issues such a comparitive joke.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< But you have no problem giving out condoms? >>



As I stated this has not happened yet. When if/it does I will take a position.

 

[Tominator]

<< Tominator, It's interesting that Jefferson and Mao should think so much alike. The fly in the ointment that I see is, of course, what is determining what is just and unjust, good and bad government. Doubtless you wouldn't want me deciding when to have a revolution. For example, your concern about activist justices was just born out. Five members of the Supreme Coup just reversed their usual stand on states rights to rest the election from the rightful winner and give it to a conservative because some of them want to retire and didn't want to give their seats up to real judges. Everything you fear has happened, and by people who think very much like you. >>



That is not what happened. Florida Judges tried to Legislate from the Bench. They changed the obvious intent of the law and there were provisions within Federal Laws to stop this. They were prevented from subverting the law.

Without struggle, therein lies no value in success. Most poor folks are there not because of luck as many Liberal leaders would have us believe, but choice. There are plenty born into a poor environment that excel in life. I really get tired of the continuous complaining about the lack of well paying jobs. There are HUNDREDS of good jobs that remain unfilled in any city of any size at all. They see a job for $15 and want that pay nor ever wanting to actually qualify, but they are brought up to believe it is their right.
Most of them have no work ethic. It is not for lack of jobs.

 

[Athanasius]

Moonbeam Quote:

<< Well, Athanasius, the good part about asking you questions is that you will answer; the bad part is that, as you say, you aren't really just a conservative and your answers always have that third, ameliorating, point of view >>



Well, is the answer more likely to be found in the "third, ameliorating point of view?" Or perhaps not a final answer, but at least some type of motion in the right direction? I aske this because you seem to favor "collapsing the divide," but when it comes to political issues, you seem irrevocably liberal. For example, you say:

<< For example, your concern about activist justices was just born out. Five members of the Supreme Coup just reversed their usual stand on states rights to rest the election from the rightful winner and give it to a conservative because some of them want to retire and didn't want to give their seats up to real judges. Everything you fear has happened, and by people who think very much like you. >>



Yet you don't seem to give any credence to the principle of reasoning from existing law first, not specific cases. Furthermore, you talk about the Supreme Court being activist, yet make no mention of the fact that the Florida Supreme Court overturned the lower decisions of two Democratic Judges (Lewis and Sauls), or that the key vote in the Supreme Court was not necessarily the 5-4 decision but the 7-2 decision that the Florida Supreme Court had blown it. Once the 7-2 vote came down, the were precious few options left for resolving the election dispute. Furthermore, you don't even mention the fact that the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court strongly dissented from their own 4-3 ruling to overturn their own Circuit Court because he knew that it would not stand the test of appellate U.S. Supreme Court.

If a middle ground is to be found, I think that a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that the Florida Court blew it is pretty convincing. I am very comfortable with the 7-2 ruling. Only Ginsburg and Stephens dissented. Both are not just liberal, but extremely so. I am not comfortable with the 5-4 vote to stop all recounts immediately. It should have never come to that. But only the die-hard liberal cannot see that the Florida Supreme Court was extreme. It ignored the rulings of its own circuit court, democratic judges. It ignored the advice of its own democratic Chief Justice. And it was rebuked as being wrong by 7 out of 9 USSC Justices. All five "conservatives" and two out of four "liberals."

I am not interested in rehashing the whole presidential election again, except as an illustration of the tension between liberal and conservative. But, using the election as an example, I would ask you Moonbeam: where is your "ameliorating" third point of view here? It seems that "ameliorating" to you, in this particular case, equals Ginsberg and Stephens. No divide is going to be colllapsed with that methodology.

 

[Moonbeam]

Athanasius, what I think you are telling me is that the fact that the Supreme Coup reversed its normal deference to the states to right a wrong makes it right. That is the definition of activist judging. What I find interesting is that the way activism gets labled as activism depends on whose ox gets gored. Conservatives are every bit as activist as liberals and perhaps more dangerously so because of their pretense to be otherwise. The danger always is that people who are 'right' and have power can make decissions. You used the word humility before. Do you see any chance of its application. I have the suspicion that people are propelled in the direction of the exercise of power precisely because they have no notion of what that word implies.

As far as which court or which justices were right or wrong, I have two comments. The Bush team sent terrorists to threaten violence and disrupt the count, again, I think, because they truly believe they deserved to win. Gore won the popular vote in Florida. The votes that were counted and counted again were not counted again, they were just resubmitted. The opinion of the court is not how we elect people. It's by the will of the people.

The party that screamed and moaned about personal character and morality are the very ones that stole the elected office of the President or the United States.

Pardon my indignation.

Can you tell me where you see me pushing a liberal philosophy. Seems to me that I generally just critique the conservative one and that partly because it seems to dominate as the norm here. I think that many who call themselves conservative do so because they are selfish. They don't want to have somebody remove dollars from their pockets regardless of the reason. They wouldn't contribute a dime to save humanity if they could find a way out. From that first principle, what I earn is mine, comes all the refined rationalizations about the evils of government and human nature. In everything the 'I' comes first. Given our millions of year evolution as a social animal I would say it's part of an aberrant disease.

Oh we owe the world a living, la de da de did did de da.

You, of course make me feel guilty when you point out that in politics I am not very amelioratory. I know it's true and it bothers me even with my excuses. It's also a small indulgence I take for fun. I also learn some good stuff like about the ship the Isralaes sank and all those quotes Torminator just listed about violent revolution. If I were more modest, I wouldn't get that opportunity. I will reexamine my ways if you will help me to see how it really might make a difference. I still see politics as a pale reflection of our psychic conditioning with very little to offer in the way of hope for understanding ourselves. Since it isn't really a serious subject I have taken some liberties which perhaps I shouldn't. Do you think so? Remember all the attention a serious discussion draws.

"I consider him a man only, who can satisfy both the wolf and the sheep intrusted in his keeping."

 

[Phokus]

<< In principle:

Conservatives ask, "what can I do for my country?"
Liberals ask, "what can my country do for me?"

Edit: Huh-Hem [Clears his throat, pretends to be British]I say, o BlonewiseOne, care to have a go at this one?[/stops pretending to be British] >>




That's ironic GTAudiophile, considering it was John F Kennedy that said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

I think you need to get your head out of your ass.

Here's my take:

Liberals: Corrupted by sex
Conservatives: Corrupted by money, large corporations

Liberals: take away my money
conservatives: Take away my liberty, legislate my morality

Quite frankly, the greater of two evils are conservatives (they're also the most annoying posters here at Anandtech), IMHO, but there are still better alternatives (i.e. Green Party, Libertarian Party).

 

[Athanasius]

Moonbeam:

Well, the 5-4 decision can be debated as activist, but the 7-2 decision is not so easily labeled as such. I am convinced that the 7-2 decision was the core decision. I think if one reads the entire body of papers of all of the Justices carefully, one can piece back together how it unfolded. The delay in the USSC announcing its decsion was because the 7-2 overturn of the Fla. Supreme Court could not come up with any positive solution that could garner a majority. Scalia's brief was presented as the proposed "per Curiam" (and supported by Thomas and Rehnquist). But it was too assertive and could not get the five votes needed. The eventual 5-4 vote was, I believe, more a result of internal politics then any other factor. In such an explosive issue, it was hard to reach a consensus.

But the fact that the USSC was so clearly appalled by what the Florida Court did challenges any accusation of unbridled activism. The Florida Supreme Court had basically snubbed the U.S. Supreme Court in an act of pure defiance. So, the 5-4 decison may have been dirty politics, but the 7-2 decision was the tell tale vote. That 7-2 vote ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had blown it because there was no solution available that was consistent with already existing laws and the U.S. Constitution. In it, the Supreme Court used its legitimate appellate jurisdiction to strike down a decision that even two of its own liberals, plus several liberal justices in the state, viewed as inappropriate.

To label the 7-2 decision as activist is to take the extreme position of Ginsberg and Stephens. I am not questioning Ginsberg's or Stephen's character, only saying that their views on this particular issue are not likely to "collapse the divide."

As far as "stealing the office of the presidency," that very statement reveals your liberal view. By every existing law, Bush won Florida. It is true that existing law left tremendous power in the executive branch to set deadlines for recounts. It is also true that the executive branch, especially Katherine Harris, used that power in ways that many people don't like. It may or may not have been an abuse of power, but it was power lawfully entrusted to the executive branch (Harris in particular). Based on existing law, what could the courts really do? If the tables had been turned and Gore had won, I strongly suspect that the Florida Supreme Court would have said, "We don't like it but there is nothing we can do."

If the presidential fiasco was such an abusive event, then it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to change the laws. Is that happening in Florida? Are the people of Florida so wounded by this tragedy as to implement change? I would be interested to know what, if any, real reform comes out of this. I doubt that much will because it would be hard to craft a solution any more equitable than the existing laws. In other words, this was a largely isolated incident that was best settled by appealing to existing laws rather than persoan lsenses of injustice.

Lewis and Sauls, though Democrats and therefore more traditionally "liberal" in basic philosophy, ruled that the Gore camp had no legal precedent to overturn the official results, or at least no legal remedy that was more objective and impartial than existing law, which was established years before the election and therefore could not be construed as prejudiced or biased in its structure. So, rather than appealing to some personal sense of injustice, they accepted the wisdom of not having unelected officials legislate from the bench. In other words, they interpreted the presidential election in terms of existing law and the lawful spheres of judiciary, legislature, and executive branches.

The Florida Supreme Court turned all of that on its head, thereby infuriating the Florida Legislature. The Florida High Court is extremely liberal, and the legislature is conservative, so that only heightened the tension. But if politics is a game, and only a symptom of the real problem (and I would agree with you on that), then treat it as a game and play by the rules established before the game began.

The 7-2 decision was not reversing its normal deference to the states. The Supreme Court defers to the states unless it is obvious that the states are abusing their previously established authority. The extremely liberal Florida Supreme Court, in an obvious attempt to get the man all seven of them probably voted for into the White House, did exactly that and defied the highest court in the land. But even three of their own members couldn't stomach it. This "activism" is what propelled two liberals in the USSC into the conservative camp and produced the 7-2 reversal by the USSC.


As far as labeling you a "liberal," perhaps that is not an appropriate conclusion. And you are probably right: many conservatives probably are just selfish and see the loss of what is "MINE" as the greatest evil. Yet I wonder: is there anything about the conservative approach to politics that you find redeeming? If the Board were in your estimation more liberal, would you so consistently critique its political shortcomings? Playing devil's advocate can be fun and even bring out counter points to cause people to think. But is the devil a tool safely played with? I am hesitant to play games his way because I don't like his wages for the part he plays.

As far as the statement, "Changing ways if you can show me how it will make a difference?" I don't think I can show that it will make a difference. The only one guaranteed to be different by change is the one who changes, and only that One can say what difference the change makes.

 

[Tominator]

<< Conservatives: Corrupted by money, large corporations >>



By your definition CLINTON WAS A CONSERVATIVE! LOL!!!



<< conservatives: Take away my liberty, legislate my morality >>



It is Democrat Liberals tring to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Which Party is head over heals in love with McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform? That bill severly limits free speech...and EVERYTIME I see 'legislate my morality' I ask for specifics and never get any.