Conservatives vs. Judiciary

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They don't need substantive due process for the right to privacy, etc. They can simply rely on the 9th Amendment. And in order to get rid of right to privacy, etc, you'd have to abolish the 9th Amendment and say the rights in the Constitution are exclusive federal rights.

Maybe. However the original cases admit the origin of the doctrine is "substantive due process."

[Ned]

Just a point on liberal vs conservative and party affiliation: We seem to make distinctions between economic liberal and social liberal -- at least from the Republican Party point of view. The thing that unites the Republican Party is economic conservatism -- an emphasis on the private sector, individualism and having a general pro-business emphasis. The party has two wings on the social issues. The religious wing are social conservatives. But there are many who are social liberals, i.e., are in favor of abortion (but maybe not to the extend of the Democrat Party), affirmative action, etc.

Democrats seem united on economic issues as well. But more than anything else, they have a hard litmus test on the social issues in order to be supported by the party apparatus as a candidate or court nominee. As a result, economic liberals, but social conservatives, such as Joe Lieberman, are having a hard time staying loyal to the party.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned

Democrats seem united on economic issues as well. But more than anything else, they have a hard litmus test on the social issues in order to be supported by the party apparatus as a candidate or court nominee. As a result, economic liberals, but social conservatives, such as Joe Lieberman, are having a hard time staying loyal to the party.

That is why we need a multi-party system and PR.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But there are many who are social liberals, i.e., are in favor of abortion (but maybe not to the extend of the Democrat Party), affirmative action, etc.

Democrats seem united on economic issues as well. But more than anything else, they have a hard litmus test on the social issues in order to be supported by the party apparatus as a candidate or court nominee. As a result, economic liberals, but social conservatives, such as Joe Lieberman, are having a hard time staying loyal to the party.

Ned, Ned, Ned... you look at things with right-winged glasses.

Social conservatives having a hard time staying in the Dems, but social liberals not having a hard time staying in the Reps? Ask people like Senator Chaffee, Senator Spector or many other Congressmen who had to stave off brutal, brutal challenges in the primaries because they weren't 'conservative' enough

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Odin


That is why we need a multi-party system and PR.

PR simply increases the power of the parties to force its membership to toe the line. If they don't, then they'll be relegated to a low spot on the party list.

At least as it stands now each member runs by himself. He is only responsible for gaining the plurality in his riding.

[realpolitic]

This is just DeLay's attempt to stay out of jail, he's hoping that he can get rid of any judges that might want to convict him.

Originally posted by Whoha
You should be more afraid of the likes of Bush, hes made the calculation that the judges are going to be the sole authority, and on that assumption is attempting to pack the judiciary with as many of his people as possible.

Anybody notice that Bush's approval is 45%? He'll add judges, but while in office things will continue to deteriorate, like rising gas prices. When he's out, more crimes will continue to surface, and the cons will be so unpopular, it will be easy for Congress to expand the court.

[mindseye]

Yet another chilling development. Sometimes I wonder if can ever live in my home country again.

By the time I want to return, being gay or atheist will be illegal.

[Dinner]

To hear some Republicans say it poor Tom Delay is just the victim of a vast left wing conspiracy against him and only a "political hack" would even consider investigating the charges of bribery and deliberately breaking federal political action funding laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
PR simply increases the power of the parties to force its membership to toe the line. If they don't, then they'll be relegated to a low spot on the party list.

This would be a good thing. Then people could be sure of what they are voting for.

[Agathon]

PR simply increases the power of the parties to force its membership to toe the line. If they don't, then they'll be relegated to a low spot on the party list.

Not if you do it right. We have mixed member PR so that half the seats are chosen in the traditional manner and the lists go to make up the proportions.

It's an excellent system with one great virtue: political parties can die under it.

The great evil of modern politics is the 2 main parties BSing because they know no-one has an alternative. PR allows you to choose from 2 or 3 parties that share your views, so you almost always have an alternative.. and they know it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But there are many who are social liberals, i.e., are in favor of abortion (but maybe not to the extend of the Democrat Party), affirmative action, etc.

Democrats seem united on economic issues as well. But more than anything else, they have a hard litmus test on the social issues in order to be supported by the party apparatus as a candidate or court nominee. As a result, economic liberals, but social conservatives, such as Joe Lieberman, are having a hard time staying loyal to the party.

Ned, Ned, Ned... you look at things with right-winged glasses.

Social conservatives having a hard time staying in the Dems, but social liberals not having a hard time staying in the Reps? Ask people like Senator Chaffee, Senator Spector or many other Congressmen who had to stave off brutal, brutal challenges in the primaries because they weren't 'conservative' enough

Irman, you have a point. But also consider that Bush paraded Giuliani and Schwarzennegger at his convention. Both are social liberals.

Name one social conservative who spoke at the Dem convention?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Name one social conservative who spoke at the Dem convention?

Um.. Joe Libermann. You even brought him up in your last post. Libermann spoke on the 4th day (the one where Kerry was announced as candidate. John Breaux, Senator from Louisana (and someone Bush was trying to court from the Dems to vote with him) spoke on that day as well.

http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=130848

And anyone can 'parade' people at your convention. The question is what do you do when they are under attack by ultra conservative candidates. Most moderate Republicans are left on an island when attacked for not being true Republicans in their primaries. It's very sad.

[Ned]

Well, Imran, what do you make of Hillary's move to the center? She is making many socially conservative noises these days.

[Ned]

And, BTW, I, as a social liberal, or better, libertarian, would like to see some moderation in the Republican Party in this regard. It is a problem, though, as social conservatives are a critical part of what makes the Republican Party the majority party today.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This would be a good thing. Then people could be sure of what they are voting for.

Pardon me if I'd rather have a real politician representing me instead of a party hack.