Media falsely claim Obama said he doesn't want a justice committed to following the law
SUMMARY: Media figures and outlets have falsely suggested that President Obama said that he will seek a replacement for Justice David Souter who demonstrates the quality of "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, in that statement Obama said that his nominee will demonstrate both.
Following President Obama's May 1 statement in which he discussed the qualifications he will use to select a Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, media figures and outlets have falsely suggested that Obama said that he will seek a replacement for Souter who demonstrates the quality of "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, in that statement Obama said that his nominee will demonstrate both. Other media have stated or advanced the claim that, in the words of a May 4 National Review editorial, "[e]mpathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism." But two recent studies of Supreme Court justices indicate that by their measure, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were also among the most activist. Moreover, several former Republican senators have previously cited "compassion" as a qualification for judicial nominees.
In his May 1 statement, immediately after stating that he saw the "quality of empathy" as "an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes," Obama stated that he would "seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role":
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
In some instances, media figures and outlets have ignored Obama's full statement and suggested he took the position that "empathy" and adherence to the law are mutually exclusive. For example:
- On the May 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, congressional correspondent Major Garrett aired only the portion of Obama's May 1 remarks in which Obama said: "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." Garrett then said: "That aggravates those who believe justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent."
- On the May 1 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham asserted: "Empathy, identifying what the average people's lives and hopes and dreams -- again, that is not in the Constitution." She added: "That is not the role of the Supreme Court justice [...] The role of the justice is to faithfully review the Constitution, the applicable federal laws, and determine an outcome. They're not representing. Congress is supposed to be representing."
Additionally, in a May 6 Washington Post article, staff writers Scott Wilson and Robert Barnes wrote that "[a]s White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it, Obama is looking for 'somebody who understands how being a judge affects Americans' everyday lives.' Congressional conservatives have reacted anxiously to that qualification, fearing that it means a nominee who is more interested in making the law than in interpreting it." But the Post did not note Obama's statements indicating that he supports a nominee who "honors our constitutional traditions" and "respects ... the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
Moreover, echoing National Review's claim that "[e]mpathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism," in a May 4 article, The Associated Press reported: "When he was discussing the qualities he would seek in Souter's successor, Obama said he wanted someone with empathy for average Americans. Conservatives fear that means the president would consider 'judicial activists' for the seat." Similarly, in a May 5 article, Roll Call reported: "Conservatives and Senate Republicans are already casting wording such as 'empathy' as code for liberal, activist judges. They hope to frame the debate over the nominee even before Obama's selection is announced."
But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, it is a myth that conservatives cannot be judicial activists. Indeed, a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.
Also, a recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism -- the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial activism" while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."
Further, several former Republican senators, including Strom Thurmond (SC), Al D'Amato (NY), and Mike DeWine (OH), have previously cited compassion as a qualification for judicial confirmation. For instance, during the confirmation hearings for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thurmond stated that "compassion" was one of the "special qualifications I believe an individual should possess to serve on the Supreme Court," adding that "[w]hile a nominee must be firm in his or her decisions, they should show mercy when appropriate." Similarly, during the confirmation hearings for Justice Stephen Breyer, Thurmond said "compassion" was among "the special criteria which I believe an individual must possess to serve on the Supreme Court."
Similarly, during the September 30, 1997, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the confirmation of several judicial nominations, D'Amato stated: "I predicted to this committee, almost five years ago, that Judge [Sonia] Sotomayor would be an exemplary, outstanding justice. She has demonstrated that, repeatedly. She has shown compassion, wisdom, one of the great intellects on the court." Additionally, during Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation hearing, DeWine stated: "We need you to bring to the court your compassion and your understanding for the lives of others who haven't been as successful as you have been. " DeWine continued: "We need you to bring to the court your strong commitment to equal justice for all. And we need you to always remember that your decisions will make a real difference in the lives of real people."
From the May 6 Washington Post article:
He has indicated that he wants a candidate who has a less traditional résumé, in order to bring diversity to a high court now filled entirely by former appellate court judges.
As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it, Obama is looking for "somebody who understands how being a judge affects Americans' everyday lives."
Congressional conservatives have reacted anxiously to that qualification, fearing that it means a nominee who is more interested in making the law than in interpreting it.
From the May 4 National Review editorial:
The papers are now full of speculation about Souter's replacement, complete with fine distinctions among different species of liberals that will make almost no difference in how the eventual justice votes. President Obama says that he is looking for someone who will have "empathy" for, among others, single mothers and gays. He is not looking for someone with empathy for small-business owners: Empathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism. Obama announced during the campaign that he would also look for someone loyal to Roe v. Wade rather than to the Constitution it traduced. "News analyses" stress that Obama is a "pragmatist" who does not care about high-flown legal theories. Just so: He cares about getting another vote for liberal results.
From the May 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Senator Durbin, with so much on his plate, should President Obama shy away from a fight on a Supreme Court nominee and pick someone who appeals across party lines?
DURBIN: Well, there doesn't have to be a fight. And I think what the president said when he spoke to Justice Souter is an indication of what he's looking for.
He's looking for someone who has the right legal credentials, someone who is honest and forthright and understands their responsibility on the Supreme Court.
I might disagree a little bit with my colleague, Senator Ensign -- hard to imagine someone, after 30 or 40 years of experience in the law, who hasn't taken a position on some issue. That's going to happen.
We just need to make certain that person is using sound reasoning to reach that position, and that they're fair in the way they approach it.
And when I take a look at the names, even those from Illinois, they are extraordinary that may be considered for this. But I don't have any inside information in terms of who it might be.
WALLACE: Let me ask you -- let's follow up on that, Senator Durbin. The president talks about wanting somebody with empathy and understanding -- his words. Whatever happened to just applying the law?
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: Empathy -- but I just want to be clear. Empathy, identifying what the average people's lives and hopes and dreams -- again, that is not in the Constitution.
RICHARD GOODSTEIN (Democratic attorney): No.
INGRAHAM: That is not the role of the Supreme Court justice, Richard.
GOODSTEIN: Of course.
INGRAHAM: The role of the justice is to faithfully review the Constitution, the applicable federal laws, and determine an outcome. They're not representing. Congress is supposed to be representing.
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
GARRETT: Mr. Obama spoke to Souter after receiving this letter saying the justice would resign at the end of the court session in June. In saying farewell to Souter, Mr. Obama appeared to delight in his record of disappointing conservatives.
OBAMA [video clip]: He never sought to promote a political agenda, and he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task: reaching a just result.
GARRETT: The evident pleasure the president and his advisers took in the prospect of filling the Souter vacancy is likely to rankle conservatives even more, especially in light of this description of how the president hopes his nominee will interpret the law.
OBAMA [video clip]: I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.
GARRETT: That aggravates those who believe justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent.
From the July 20, 1993, confirmation hearing for Ginsburg (retrieved from the Nexis database):
THURMOND: Over the years I have determined the special qualifications I believe an individual should possess to serve on the Supreme Court.
First, unquestioned integrity. The nominee must be honest, absolutely incorruptible, and completely fair.
Second, courage. A nominee must possess the courage to decide tough cases according to the law and the Constitution.
Third, compassion. While a nominee must be firm in his or her decisions, they should show mercy when appropriate.
Fourth, professional competence. The nominee must have the ability to master the complexities of the law.
Fifth, proper judicial temperament. The nominee must have the self discipline to base decisions on logic, not emotion, and to have respect for lawyers, litigants and court personnel.
Sixth, an understanding of the majesty of our system of government. The nominee must understand that only Congress makes the law; that the Constitution is changed only by amendment; and that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
These are the essential qualities which determine the fitness of an individual to serve on the court, and it appears to me that Justice Ginsburg possesses them.
From the July 12, 1994, confirmation hearing for Breyer (retrieved from the Nexis database):
THURMOND: Over the years I have determined the special criteria which I believe an individual must possess to serve on the Supreme Court, and they are as follows:
First, unquestioned integrity. A nominee must be honest, absolutely incorruptible and completely fair.
Second, courage. A nominee must possess the courage to make decisions on different issues according to the laws and the Constitution.
Third, compassion. While a nominee must be firm in his or her decisions, mercy should be shown when appropriate.
Fourth, professional competence. The nominee must have mastered the complexity of the law.
Fifth, proper judicial temperament. The nominee must have the self-discipline to prevent the pressures of the moment from disrupting the composure of a well-ordered mind and be courteous to the lawyers, litigants and court personnel.
Sixth, and understanding of an appreciation for the majesty of our system of government. It's separation of powers between the branches of our federal government; it's division of powers between the federal and state governments; and the reservation to the states and to the people of all powers not delegated to the federal government.
[...]
While I may not agree with Judge Breyer on every issue, I have found him to be a man of keen intellect and he appears to possess the necessary qualifications to serve as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
From the September 30, 1997, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of three federal judges (retrieved via the Nexis database):
D'AMATO: As it relates to Justice Sotomayor, what can one say but "only in this country." The daughter of a humble working family has risen by way of her legal, scholastic stewardship to the highest trial court in the federal district of, and premier district I might add with some prejudice, of the Southern District of New York where she has distinguished herself.
And I predicted to this committee, almost five years ago, that Judge Sotomayor would be an exemplary, outstanding justice. She has demonstrated that, repeatedly. She has shown compassion, wisdom, one of the great intellects on the court.
Her experience, both as a prosecutor, civil litigator, and federal trial judge, makes her an exceptionally qualified candidate for the Second Circuit.
From the September 14, 2005, confirmation hearing for Roberts (retrieved via the Nexis database):
DeWINE: I think this country needs you to remember how you got here and who you met along the way. We need you to bring to the court your compassion and your understanding for the lives of others who haven't been as successful as you have been. We need you to bring to the court your strong commitment to equal justice for all. And we need you to always remember that your decisions will make a real difference in the lives of real people. When you put on that black robe and assume your spot on the Supreme Court, you will surely bring with you your heart and your soul, the values you learned from your parents and others that you learned as you grew up in the wide, open fields of your youth.
Those values are strong, they are true. The president saw them when he nominated you. And we are certainly seeing them this week.
I must say, sir, they must never leave you.
Each and every federal judge takes the following oath"
-- “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ______under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” --
In view of that oath...I'll take my SC justices in the Roberts mold:
-- "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them...I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat." -- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts
Prophesy is always dangerous but I predict that, if this country ever breaks free of the shackles of Corporatism (which, according to Mussolini, is the true name of Fascism), the case referenced below, in which the Roberts Court overturned Alaskan Supreme Court decisions and found for Exxon, will be considered as egregious as the Dred Scott
debacle.
And a judge like Roberts (Alito and Thomas as well) certainly sees things that way... or there was no way on Earth that George Bush would have ever considered to nominate him or Alito!
With a dash of empathy for multi-billion-dollar corporations?...
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
[...]
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
You know, it's all about blaming the poor and minorities with these virulent cons. Never blame the greedy, unprincipled and reckless millionaires for their unscrupulous behavior in the consequence free Wall St. environment. They're just savvy capitalists and damn those dolts they swindled.
I didn't say it was right or wrong, just interesting. It is also interesting how hypocritically you apply such principals. When it's ACORN it's okay. When it's Exxon they're to blame, not because they are any more wrong, but because they're not on your side. I shudder at the thought of the damage your side will do in its arrogance.
I heard a sickening report from Greg Palast about this very subject. They were negligent BEFORE the tanker hit by not having safety sensors operating. The blame was cast upon the captain, but he was just one chain in a long string of negligence by Exxon. And after all time, they've done literally nothing to take responsibility for what they did to the landscape and the native people. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of their opinion.
Roberts is wrong. Real life is very different. In baseball when you steal a base the umpire just decides if you were successful or not. He has no interest in why you did it or whether it was an important steal in a close game or not---he doesn't JUDGE you, he acts simply as an impartial arbiter of fact.
In real life judges have to take all kinds of things into account including intentions. In order to do so he HAS TO BE empathetic (not to be confused with either compassion or sympathy). He has to decide whether someone, say in a murder trial, likely THOUGHT his own life was in danger; or did he have good reason to THINK he'd kill the man when he pushed him so as to cause the man to fall and hit his head, etc. Guilt, and of what specific charge, would depend on the picture that all the facts of the particular case paint in the judges' mind. The correct INTERPRETATION of those facts DEMANDS that the judge put himself in each of the parties' shoes as best he can.
-- Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts. --
When asked about changing laws and empathy:
-- The criterion of constitutionality is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good...When we know what the source of the law has said it shall be, our authority is at an end...I am not at liberty to consider the justice of the Act. --
It is the responsibility of American citizens...in personal or business matters...to follow the law. It is the job of the SC to determine the legality of such actions...determined by the constitution.
If a person does not like the law...it's a matter for our elected representatives to change the law...balanced by the SC's determination of legality. That's the beauty of the founders decision to provide for 3 co-equal parts of our government.
Yes, indeed it is the responsibility of the SC to be umpires and apply the rules of the game...not change the rules...for reasons of empathy or any other emotion.
"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
Fox in the clips above has, of course, completely ignored that in favor of the "empathy" clip which they are using to frighten their viewers into thinking that Obama is planning to stack the court with lawless flower children.
If you were more thorough and less knee jerk partisan...you would have easily found that these quotes were "lifted" from the book written by Holmes entitled, "The Essential Holmes"...easily located and procured at any bookstore.
The book contains all the context and specific case law that concerns these quotes...that's why the quotes are making the rounds.
I'll not bother to enlighten you further. Make a small investment and you might learn something about ole Ollie.
And I would challenge you to prove that the people (besides Thomas Sowell) read Holmes' book before they passed around those quotes. They don't know the context, and even with Sowell's commentary, one doesn't know the context of the individual sentences.
It makes no difference to me who has or has not read the book. Your assertion is a weak attempt at deflating something you know little about...so I'll do my own carnac impression and guess that you haven't read the book or for that matter know little about Holmes.
Ain't America wonderful! Anybody is free to espouse a position on any subject...without knowing a thing about it.
But the quotes aren't making the rounds because people know the context of the quotes because they have read the book. The quotes are making the rounds because of Thomas Sowell's column, which provides snippets from Holmes only, and no link to the original source to check on the context of those remarks.
Lame attempt to justify your nonsense, Wesley.
Otherwise you might as well cite the above chart in support of your argument. Come to think of it, that makes more sense. You got caught--get over it.
I did this during my breaktime at the asylum.
It is undeniable by any reasonable person to assert that the intentions of a person committing an offense is relevant. Just like it's relevant the intentions of SERE trainers showing US soldiers torture techniques versus US Interrogators pushing those same tortures upon detainees and suspected terrorists.
Judges should demonstrate, and do demonstrate, empathy, all the time.
"Empathy...schmempathy."
FOX, et al are entirely correct in their analysis of the threat Barak Obama's statement presents to freedom and justice in America. Of course, since most of the Left is comprised of the legions of those who don't understand the concepts of limited government and free enterprise and how they work to provide American society the first genuine system in which humans could be free, little of what they say will make sense to you.
Unable to understand and perceive the true nature of Conservativism, like this site and most of its fans, you can see only the option that "Progressivism" and similar regressive movements provide. The "Conservatives" you take shots at and whose potential for success you fear aren't even the Conservatives. They're our erstwhile allies, the conservative wings of the Progressive movement. And your fear of them is well justified. Like the Left, they would establish a system in which the government has the power to solve our problems and make life better for us. But you fear that they would do so badly and make life worse and more filled with problems. You may be right. I believe you are. If you give that kind of power to government you are also giving them the power to increase your problems and make things worse. Which is why the Conservatives, as opposed to the conservative Progressives want to restore the system founded by our ancestors in which the government was denied that kind of power.
Surely the at least slightly more insightful among you must have taken some pause when the author of this article referred to: “… it is a myth that conservatives cannot be judicial activists. Indeed, a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.”
The Conservatives on the Court are most likely to enforce the restrictions of the Constitution in order to strike down Congressional legislation that violates those restrictions ?!?!?!? How Orwellian can you get? The Activism of the Liberal justices allowed them to let legislation that violated the Constitution to stand while the Conservatives struck it down. So for not being “Activist” the Conservatives can be labeled “Activist.” Didn’t that set any of your hackles to rising? While you’re seizing on every error and deception the Right might have made, doesn’t it ever occur to you that the Left might be able to err and lie as well?
You aim to crush effective government. You shrink, shift and shaft. You shrink essential government programs, shift the tax load from the upper to the middle class and shaft local economies with budget shortfalls. That's true conservatism. The real agenda of conservatism, and you won't see it because it's wrapped up in a very appealing me first materialism, is to redistribute as much income upward as possible.
So save your we don't understand free enterprise crap. Plenty of liberals fare very well within capitalism and we understand the importance of protecting working people from the predatory capitalists. Not to mention it was liberalism, with its all American principles of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility that oversaw the greatest surge of capitalism and greatest expansion of middle class in the history of the world.
And you want to talk about the constitution? It was a group of radical liberals, seeking to break with the conservative hierarchal rule of the crown, who wrote the constitution. So just save your blather for your fellow bitter partisan hacks who have nothing left but enmity and jealousy for our current government.
A hierachical rule like that of the crown is what Progressives/Liberals seek to re establish in that "effective" and "essential" government you want to see. Your rulers will be elected, but they'll still be your rulers.
And it's clear from your statements that you know virtually nothing about Conservativism, in spite of your rather typical assumption that you do. The Conservative agenda is to eliminate as much as possible of the tax load for everyone, rich and poor alike. It's you big-effective-essential-government Liberals that have built the role of government into a tax burden. (And before you yell, "Bush!" Bush showed himself to be a conservative-Progressive in his support of big government spending and regulation programs. Curse that all you want. I agree. But it's not Conservativism.)
You don't have to believe me at all. You probably think everything I say is a lie or the blathering of a fool. But be honest with yourself. Can you really say that you've studied and understood the ideas and reasoning that inspires Conservativism? Or have you relied upon those who disagree with what they think it is to give you your impressions?
I can say that I've lived through it, and have seen and felt the effects of it, just as millions of others have. No studying necessary.
Let's face it, Socailism is winning in America and has taken over the minds of a majority of the people. The people have become very weak, dependent creatures. This is not by accident very powerful forces are behind the demoralization of America.
You may call yourself a liberal in America, but if we compare what you believe to the ideals of Socialism/Marxism/Communism/Facism we see that they are close if not the same. Let's get real.
I don't listen to Rush. He's boring...too political. It's not about politics. politics is just a means. The issue is what is in the minds of the people and how did it get there. How did we change from a country that hated Communism to one that embraces most of the ideals and goals of that system. Were we wrong to hate it and have now awakened. I think not.
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.
Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Great liars are also great magicians.
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
It is not truth that matters, but victory.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
Marxism took parts of Socialism and added others, Communism did the same, Fasism is entirely different. But; what the heck, lets lump them all together and say that this is what the POTUS is pushing as his agenda. Again, it doesn't make it true but; hey, it does make for a good sound bit.
The Modern Conservative movement was founded post WWII as a revival of the principals of the 18th Century Liberals, (called the Federalists), who authored and shaped our Constitution. They've only had two candidates for President, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Only Reagan actually gained office. Others, like Nixon and the two Bushes claimed the title of "Conservative" because Consevativism has become a significant influence in the Republican party. But their policies after election show them clearly to have been conservative-Progressives, (better understood as "slow-change" Progressives vs. Liberals who are "fast-change" Progressives.) During that time the alliance of Conservative and "conservative" Republicans have never had a controlling influence on Congress and Conservative Republicans have never had a controlling voice in the Republicans in Congress.
So, no. Just having lived in the last 30 years doesn't give you the knowledge to understand Conservativism.
"My name is Howard Bannister and I'm from Ames, Iowa. It all started when I bumped my head in the taxicab on my way in from the airport. I went to the drugstore for some aspirin and he tried to charge me for a radio because she said her husband would pay for it. But I didn't of course. Anyway, she ripped my jacket and then Eunice, my fiancé, came along. But she kept calling me Steve. Not my fiancé, my wife, or rather the one who isn't my wife.
"Well, anyway that night at the banquet she was there again and everyone was calling her Burnsy. That's short for Burns, Eunice's last name. But Eunice wasn't there. Burnsy was there. Or rather the one who isn't Burnsy. That night I went back to my room and she was there taking a bath. Well, Eunice walked in and the drapes caught fire and the room burned and they asked me to leave the hotel. I really don't blame them. Then today, Mr. Larabee asked me to come to his house and to bring my rocks and bring Eunice. Or, rather Burnsy, the one he thinks is Eunice. Is that clear?"
(stolen from "What's up Doc?")
I think this explanation fits your narrative nicely.
The Founders did not have your radical view of the role of government as mommy and daddy. Nor did they establish a Consitution for people of your type of radicalism? Under your theory anytime the the courts want to change the law they should as long as what 51% of the people agree with the change? No! The legislature changes the law. You don't believe in the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, do you?
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
You can argue that means they meant it only for defense and law enforcement if you want to. I think that argument ludicrous. The precepts are there and its pretty clear they wanted a society. Not a large group of people living in the same geographic area not caring one whit about what happened to their neighbor
The role of government (power of Congress) is defined in Section 8 of the Consitution, in their writings AT THE TIME (e.g. The Federalist Papers) and the laws OF THE TIME including the State laws/consitutions. It certainly wasn't thier idea for the Fed government to insure garantee a domicile/horse/food/doctor/clothes/childcare/education/job/retiremnet/fund state government debt/corporations and on and on.
It sounds like you want the Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" not only in Washington D.C. but throughout the entire nation, where state are wholly owned subdidiaries of the United States Government.
What about the proper role of a judge in NOT making law, separation of powers?
Your last sentence isnt really very coherent. What is the role of a judge in not making law? You want to try that in English? Let me take a stab and say judges dont make law they interpret the Constitution and enforce the law. Usually limiting government power. Whatever point you thought you made was just too incoherent for me to see.
If you must be so silly then change "horse" to "transportation" since you couldn't figure that out.
My question about the proper role of a judge was for Roadhouse who seemed to beleive that judges SHOULD make law.
Hey genious. What powers does Congress have other than those in Section 8 of the Consitution? Which one of those powers give the Congress the authority to nationalize health care?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp. I understand you desire to interpret the Constitution for the outcome you desire. But that's simply wrong.
""But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever."
Is that clear?:!"""
Helloooo....Answer the main point: {The powers of Congress are in Sec 8, right? The meaning of a word(s) in the Consitution if ambiguous are determined by the language, laws, culture, and tradition of THAT time, right? Or do you interpret a word term like "general welfare" by todays meaning.]
and yet, you expect to be taken seriously.
Helloooo....Answer the main point: {The powers of Congress are in Sec 8, right? The meaning of a word(s) in the Consitution if ambiguous are determined by the language, laws, culture, and tradition of THAT time, right? Or do you interpret a word term like "general welfare" by todays meaning.]
...Ted and I easily outflank you at every turn and:
"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad. They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion. We blocked Solon inside the city. His rear is blocked. Desperate Solon. He is defeated."
Sounds familiar. Brought to you by the Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf Institute of Public Relations at FreeRepublic. Can't wait till you start throwing your shoes.
Help you neighbor pay his bills!
Keep worshipping Ebenzer Scrooge. Keep trying to find the rationale why your selfishness and greed are the epitome of public good. The holy grail of con philosophy. I am sure it will show up any day not. Most likely at the fountain of youth next to Godot and that unicorn
Ask the Supreme Court justices who based thier decisions on original intent how they do it. I gave you my thought on it. Look at the laws, writings, comentaries, customs, traditions, morales, and language OF THAT TIME when an issue is "debatable". But since that method does not comport with the end you wish to achieve, then you debase our Constitution by making it what you want it to be.
Helloooo....Answer the main point: {The powers of Congress are in Sec 8, right? The meaning of a word(s) in the Consitution if ambiguous are determined by the language, laws, culture, and tradition of THAT time, right? Or do you interpret a word term like "general welfare" by todays meaning.]
Then you are trying desperately to say that you want us to determine our course of action according to the language, culture and tradition of when the Constitution was written?! Like the slavery thing, perhaps? The Constitution was deliberately written with broad statements of principle, so that the country could evolve and improve over time. Jefferson had many things to say about that very thing.
I disagree with you. I think we SHOULD look at this as we are all in this together. THat society has an obligation to assure that at least you have a right to LIVE. Right now 18,000 people a year die from lack of access to healthcare. We pay more and get less than the other first class industrial nations that DO have a national healthcare plan. The thing is this is a democratic decision. What you or I alone think isnt going to make that decision. You make YOUR arguments which I hope are better than. I dont want to help my nieghbor, I will make mine our side will do the same on a larger playing field and let the best vision win the day what we DONT need is the dishonest argument that there can BE no discussion because it is unconstitutional. No, it isnt.
When a judge can't rule on the basis of the laws alone because the laws that are on the books just don't address the particular circumstances of that case, then the judge has to look for past similar cases to see how those were ruled on. And he will generally rule the way the previous judge(s) did. But if he can find no past case close enough, then he has to make a precedent setting ruling of his own. And this ruling will be used by other judges who may run into a similar situation in the future.