Conservatives vs. Judiciary

[MRT144]

how old are you? the beautiful thing about my friends is i know 3 of them will never get married and ill probably be the first one

[Seeker]

A quarter. It's tough. At least I don't have those awful middle-aged man balls yet.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Conservatives vs. Judiciary

Originally posted by Whoha
So do you deny that the impeachment process is a legitimate check on judicial power as it was designed?

It's about as legitimate as the Congree impeaching the President for vetoing a bill or as the President sending troops into Congress or the Supreme Court to make sure they vote correctly.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

A quick question; When a Yank congressman that's Republican calls' a view "Liberal" does he intonate they really are Liberal (in true meaning), or is he using the word to indicate a Democrat view?

Another question: Why, in the US, can't a person be both liberal and Republican? (With "Liberal" meaning it's true meaning). Do all Repulicans therefore have to be defined as intolerant?

I'm Liberal on many subjects, and vote for the (UK) Labour Party (Democrat), but I like some policies of the Conservative Party (Republican).

If a Bill is presented in Parliament in the UK that is considered to be a personal moral issue, the Government, and all opposition Parties will allow a free vote on it, then liberalism/dogmatic views on an issue comes to the fore.

Has the meaning of the word "Liberal" been hiijacked by the Republicans to describe any Democrat in a negative manner?

Toby?

[Zkribbler]

Once upon a time, both major U.S. parties had liberal and conservative wings. President Ford's VP, Nelson Rockefeller, was a liberal Republican. The "South" [the old Confederacy], although very conservative, was a Democratic bastion.

Then, first starting with Goldwater's campaign in 64, accelerating with the election of President Reagan in 80, and culminating with Newt Gingrich's rises to the Speakership of the House of Representatives in 92, the two parties have become more and more polarized.

I don't think "liberal" means the same in the U.S. and in Europe. Here, it tends to refer to people wanting strong governmental programs: such as Social Security, Medicare, state-run schools, etc.

Conservatives traditionally have wanted much smaller government: private pensions instead of Social Security, out-of-pocket spending or private insurace for medical care rather than anything supplied by the govement. Remeber's Reagan's saying the "Government isn't the solution to the problem; government is the problem." Two big exceptions: conservatives like bigger military and less restrictions on the powers of the police. (Edit: oops, three exceptions -- they also want government to dictate how people should have sex and with whom.)

And finally, yes, Republicans have hijacked to word "liberal" and used it as a perjoritive to describe Democrats. Even Democrats are shying away from its use, with some calling themselves progressives.

[Ted Striker]

Progressives

[Toby Rowe]

Cheers mate!

Alas I sense a trace of bias within your reply, like my own posting, even though I tried not to be so, as it now seems to have been well and truely taken over (the meaning) by Politics.

I'm lucky in that I have a 1959 Oxford University Dictionary, which I've just looked at, so ignoring the few arcane meaning within it it states:

"generous. open-handed, not sparing of; ample, abundant, not rigorous or literal; open-minded, candid, unprejudiced;

(Pol) [edit;Political] favourable to democratic reforms & abolition of privilege (esp. L~ party; [Liberal]
cf. CONSERVATIVE L~ conservative, member of Conservative party not ill desposed to reforms"
[don't forget the UK has no constitution, unlike the US]

It states on the word libertarian:

"Believer, believing, in free will (opp. neccessitarian); advocate of liberty"

It also has the word "lliberticide" which apparently means "Destroyer, destructuctive. of liberty" as we would expect with cide as an ending.

Finally it describes the word "libertine" [although I think a part is already arcane] thus:

"Free-thinker on religion; licentious (man); free thinking, antinomanian[? what!!]; chartered ~e, person allowed to do as he pleases."

Reading all the meanings vis 1959, I've come to the conclusion that Politics has well and truely stolen away the real meaning of the word, at least in the UK, we can discuss a non-political like Fox hunting etc, and then argue our case for or against.
It appears the real meaning of Liberal is pretty well forgotten.

I heard President Bush use the word "leftfield" or "sits on the leftbank" when describing his rival on my BBC News during your elections, fine, we all know left and right in Politics, liberalism is seperate to all parties.

I want life to mean life in prison for murderers in the UK, (they currently serve 11 years on average), whilst I believe heroin addicts that commit a crime to feed their addiction should be sent to a rehabilitation centre, not a prison.

I think both these views Liberal as I'm thinking about society first, not how a political party acts for votes.

In matters religious, I should be free to criticise any religion I choose, unfortunately the Labour Government is about to make it illegial. Religion is a belief, not a dogma we must all bow down to, although I'm agnostic.
I don't want my right of free speech tempered.

A free thinker is a Liberal.

Toby

[Agathon]

If you guys had your way we wouldn't be able to get Uzis

That's after the revolution knucklehead!!!

[Ted Striker]

I thought you wanted them to use the AK-47???

[Agathon]

We can use potato peelers if we want, as long as the captialist scum are left entertaining the birds.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Seeker
it's total blahs-ville. Both of my best friends are ...ugghh..married...or getting that way.

I've been getting a lot of 'gee, we'd love to but ____ wants to ____, so MAYBE LATER'

The Grim Reaper of Cherubs (or whatever you call the wedding-spirit) claims another one this July. It will be my third best manning in a year. At least I'm getting a lot of use out of my suit.

I'm also moving again. It's the usual choice between cheaper vs better. I'm still back at school for the MA and boy does it suck being back at school. I feel so ****ing old with all these fuzz-cheeked 'hee hee I can get DRUNK' types running around.

Damn man, you've got to get back to Asia. Seoul's been fun these days, especially since my new job ****ing rocks.

[Seeker]

Any openings?

It's SAT prep isn't it?

[Guynemer]

This is

****ed

up.

[Ned]

The Federal Judiciary may have stayed out of the Schiavo controversy for a number of reasons. One of them clearly was bad lawyering by the Schindler's attorney for not raising the proper issues. But it does strike me as somewhat wierd that the judiciary has bent over backward defending the rights of criminals not to be put to death for multiple reasons, including incapacity (the most recent example is that retarded people could not be put to death) but chose to give a blind eye to the appeals for the life of Terri Schiavo, a person who, everyone agrees, was more than retarded after her "event."

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
The Federal Judiciary . . . chose to give a blind eye to the appeals for the life of Terri Schiavo . . .

...the appeals by her parents, not by Terri herself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a factual finding earlier on that Terri had left oral instructions she didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, presumably including a feeding tube?

Usually, a court of appeal can only look at the trial court's ruling on legal questions. The only time it can overturn a ruling on a factual question is if no evidence supports it. These weren't wacko left-wing judges looking at this. They were IIRC judges appointed by Bush and Reagan.

(Of course, this doesn't explain why Schiavo's husband waited until after he'd collected on the medical malpractice case before carrying out her wishes.)