Who do you think will be the next conservative Supreme Court judge to retire?

[monovillage]

Personal attacks?

 

[fskimospy]

Personal attacks?

You're basically saying that my observation of how conservative Thomas is comes from a position of partisanship as opposed to reality. That's attempting to discredit my point by attacking the author instead of having to address that basically every legal analyst on earth considers Thomas to be very conservative. (that's because you can't address the merits)

 

[monovillage]

You're basically saying that my observation of how conservative Thomas is comes from a position of partisanship as opposed to reality. That's attempting to discredit my point by attacking the author instead of having to address that basically every legal analyst on earth considers Thomas to be very conservative. (that's because you can't address the merits)

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/10/justice-thoma-2.html

 

[fskimospy]

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/10/justice-thoma-2.html

Funny thing is that if you look at my original post I said that he was an extreme conservative in everything but one issue. That one single issue is discrimination.

You will also notice that the blog post talks about how odd it is that he is a swing vote in that case considering how conservative he normally is. Once again you are providing more links that are proving my point.

 

[cybrsage]

To esk, if someone is conservative at all, they are an extremist.

 

[fskimospy]

To esk, if someone is conservative at all, they are an extremist.

Hey look, you said something dumb again.

 

[monovillage]

In judicial philosophy Thomas is referred to as a "conservative" not VERY conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_philosophy

 

[fskimospy]

In judicial philosophy Thomas is referred to as a "conservative" not VERY conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_philosophy

That article does not distinguish between different levels of conservatism, it only states if someone is conservative at all or not.

Another link fail.

 

[cybrsage]

Hey look, you said something dumb again.

...engaging filter to translate rabid liberal to english...
...engaging secondary filter to translate eskimospese to english...
...processing...
...processing...
...filtering complete...
...transaltion being finalized...
...tranlsation complete...
...translation listed below...

"Hey look, you said something obvious to everyone but me again."


Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[monovillage]

You were really stretching with that personal attack bullshit also. No wonder I don't accept your definitions.

 

[fskimospy]

You were really stretching with that personal attack bullshit also. No wonder I don't accept your definitions.

What you did was the definition of ad homenium. You said my description was invalid because of my personal attributes, not because of the description itself.

 

[monovillage]

Damn and here I thought I was only refusing to accept your and craigs definition of Clarence Thomas. Yours that he's very conservative and craigs that he's radical right. I didn't know my refusal to accept anything you say is a personal attack. I feel kinda bad now. Are you OK? Can I call someone for you? Do you need a Doctor ? Sit down for a minute, i'll get you some tea.

 

[fskimospy]

Damn and here I thought I was only refusing to accept your and craigs definition of Clarence Thomas. Yours that he's very conservative and craigs that he's radical right. I didn't know my refusal to accept anything you say is a personal attack. I feel kinda bad now. Are you OK? Can I call someone for you? Do you need a Doctor ? Sit down for a minute, i'll get you some tea.

lol. I'll take that as an admission that you've looked around the web now and realized that you were wrong.

 

[monovillage]

OK, i've looked around the web and there's many, many, many more fairly reliable people calling Clarence Thomas very conservative in some decisions. Your point has been made pretty well. I can't say that craigs point has been made though, in fact I think he's much further off the mark then I was.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, i've looked around the web and there's many, many, many more fairly reliable people calling Clarence Thomas very conservative in some decisions. Your point has been made pretty well. I can't say that craigs point has been made though, in fact I think he's much further off the mark then I was.

Well thanks for being open to other information.

I don't even see why Thomas being very conservative is bad. I mean sure it's bad for me as I don't like his judicial philosophy, but it would presumably be good for you as I assume you do like it. Being out of the mainstream isn't inherently bad.

 

[Riparian]

In judicial philosophy Thomas is referred to as a "conservative" not VERY conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_philosophy

You seem to be playing the point of view game. Eskimospy is arguing that the majority view Thomas as being one of the most if not most conservative Justice in the court. You want to argue that if you go from the viewpoint of certain groups, Thomas would only be a moderate conservative. If we play that game, why not say that there are groups that would consider Thomas to be liberal in their eyes. All you would have to do is find someone that is even more conservative than Thomas and their viewpoint of his ideology will change. To a fascist, Thomas would look fairly liberal in his stances.

I think you may need to offer more evidence that the general public thinks of Thomas as a moderate conservative as opposed to very conservative.

 

[cybrsage]

If you put Michael Moore and Sen. Sherrod Brown in a room together with Barack Obama, Obama would be far right wing in comparison to the majority...

 

[Craig234]

My point is not proven by finding people who say the same thing in a google.

Part of the point is that the definitions are changed as a political strategy.

That's why Reagan couldn't hope for the nomination in today's Republican party, while he was considered 'far right' when he did.

Or gay marriage is now a mainstream issue, while it was 'radical' a bit ago. Find me any real public debate about gay marriage in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, even 70's.

People who understand a bit about the history of law in the United States understand that the Federalist Society has a right-wing agenda and we have 4 radical justices.

Our courts and constitution are under attack by this radical new ideology.

The media being hard wired not to call a justice a 'radical' and to divide the court into 'liberals' and 'conservatives' doesn't make their wording correct.

 

[monovillage]

You seem to be playing the point of view game. Eskimospy is arguing that the majority view Thomas as being one of the most if not most conservative Justice in the court. You want to argue that if you go from the viewpoint of certain groups, Thomas would only be a moderate conservative. If we play that game, why not say that there are groups that would consider Thomas to be liberal in their eyes. All you would have to do is find someone that is even more conservative than Thomas and their viewpoint of his ideology will change. To a fascist, Thomas would look fairly liberal in his stances.

I think you may need to offer more evidence that the general public thinks of Thomas as a moderate conservative as opposed to very conservative.

One of the points I was trying to make is that you can't allow your opposition to define your stance. Earlier in the thread someone quoted an article in Slate as definitive about Thomas. I don't accept Slate as an unbiased source. Neither would I accept some other media. Conservatives should define conservative and Liberals should define liberal.

 

[spidey07]

One of the points I was trying to make is that you can't allow your opposition to define your stance. Earlier in the thread someone quoted an article in Slate as definitive about Thomas. I don't accept Slate as an unbiased source. Neither would I accept some other media. Conservatives should define conservative and Liberals should define liberal.

Right. And adhering to The Constitution is a right wing/conservative trait. This is why the left calls Scalia and Thomas "conservative", because they follow the Constitution.

 

[Riparian]

Right. And adhering to The Constitution is a right wing/conservative trait. This is why the left calls Scalia and Thomas "conservative", because they follow the Constitution.

Neither Scalia nor Thomas consistently follow the Constitution. They definitely use the Constitution to justify their arguments when it's convenient but they have often departed from the Constitution when it does not meet their political views.

I should add that basically no Justice is an unwaivering Originalist nor is there a Justice that is unwaivering in following stare decisis.

 

[monovillage]

Neither Scalia nor Thomas consistently follow the Constitution. They definitely use the Constitution to justify their arguments when it's convenient but they have often departed from the Constitution when it does not meet their political views.

I should add that basically no Justice is an unwaivering Originalist nor is there a Justice that is unwaivering in following stare decisis.

They certainly do a much better job in terms of being strict constructionists then the 4 very liberal Justices though.

 

[Riparian]

They certainly do a much better job in terms of being strict constructionists then the 4 very liberal Justices though.

Why portray oneself as a strict constructionist when one is willing to depart from that viewpoint when it doesn't fit that person's viewpoint. All that really means is that we have 9 people who will use the Constitution when it is consistent with their viewpoint but discard it when it doesn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Why portray oneself as a strict constructionist when one is willing to depart from that viewpoint when it doesn't fit that person's viewpoint. All that really means is that we have 9 people who will use the Constitution when it is consistent with their viewpoint but discard it when it doesn't.

I don't really buy this either. It's not like it's split between people who use the Constitution and who don't, or even people who use it some of the time but not others. The Constitution is insanely vague and all the easy questions were answered a long time ago. The questions that come before the court now are always about extremely complex issues where the Constitution is unclear or it applies poorly.

There are many reasonable and legitimate ways to interpret a 200 year old document, particularly when applying it to things the authors never even had a dream could exist. Reasonable people come to different conclusions on these, and of course for the USSC Presidents select based on what opinion these judges have. It's never so simple as just 'following the Constitution'.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love the cybrsage contention of'

"...engaging filter to translate rabid liberal to english...
...engaging secondary filter to translate eskimospese to english...
...processing...
...processing..."

As the cybrsage processing once again proves the principle of GIGO. Cybrsage Garbage in, garbage out. As the input never encounters a rationally functioning cybrsage brain at any point in the process.

Pardon me if I make an observation about you cybrsage, as you seem to be a poster child for the principle, "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." And then you go the extra mile, if a little cybrsage bullshit is not enough, much more cybrsage bullshit is required.