steven787 said:
The funny thing is, that our country has matured to the point that on any one issue, a significant majority of people will have a similar opinion. We are so polarized by such a small degree that everything is blown out of proportion. We argue over degree. Examples: War. Most Americans ARE moralist, they believe our military should be used to make the world better. The question is to what degree. In 2003, enough people thought that meant invading a coutry. Abortion. Most Americans support some type of abortion. Very few are against the morning after pill, most are against partial birth abortions. But this is really a bigger issue of health care and morality, but it is the one area. Taxes. Most Americans believe in some type of graduated tax system. Eminent domain. Most Americans think that should the government should be able to force land sales in some cases, but where is the line draw. Is it okay for a highway? for national security purposes? for education? for economic stimulation? etc. The point is that, we argue over the details. Because we don't have much to talk about we think it's the end of the world all the time. American conservatism and liberalism aren't too far apart. They both like a strong military, they both support some type of health care subsidy, they both support graduated taxes, they both support some type of gun restrictions, they both support sometype of goverrnment interference in markets. It goes on and on. The left calls the right fascist (which some on the right are, but most aren't) and the right calls the left socialist (which some are, but most aren't.) Now, voting in line with the party doesn't make the person "more left" or "more right" it makes them in line with their slighty off center party. Voting against their party may mean they are lining up with the opposite side, but it also may be extremist...For example: the left leaning and right leaning members of congress who voted against the "bail out"(not the ones who voted against it because they are in contested districts). Okay, when Roberts was chosen, everyone thought that he would take on abortion. Once he got on the supreme court, what did he say, it's "settled as a precedent." Crazy right? Wrong, you don't move up that far, in anything relating to law, by letting your opinions effect your interpretation of the law. Even on the DC handgun issue, the "liberal" justices and some "conservative" lower court judges were against the "conservative" decision because the hand gun ban was voted in by a voter initiative. The constitution protects the rights of citizens from the government, not necesarily from themselves. If a super majority of the population can't decide on a law, then who can. That decision could have far reaching impact. Like Am.2 in Florida, a gay marriage ban. Will the people pass it, and then the court over turn it? Who knows, but Heller v. District of Columbia may have set a liberal precedent, by Conservative judges. The issues are not always so simple as liberal v. conservative or Republican v. Democrat, we live in a very complex society, with a range of opinions that can't be labled left and right, right and wrong, or black and white. In other words, don't worry, the world isn't going to fall apart around you for the next 4-20 years with a liberal controlled government, it didn't fall apart for liberals over the last 20. It may be kinda bad, but this is no Great Depression or WW. We just like to bitch. |
This is why Roberts really isn't that bad of a guy, way better and more fit for the job than Alito. I obviously prefer liberal justices to conservative justices because of my own political leanings, but Roberts is totally qualified and is a very talented judge.
I hate this term so much as most people who use it don't even really understand that judges are supposed to make law, and that they HAVE to make law (common law) if they are doing their job, but Roberts doesn't "legislate from the bench."
That term is thrown around so much it isn't even funny. People pretty much claim someone is legislating from the bench when a court makes a decision they don't agree with, which is just bullshit. Anyone who bitches about judges legislating from the bench really doesn't understand how the judicial system works. Judges can legislate from the bench at times, but people bring up the issue way too often.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
