funjumper101 15 #1 May 29, 2009 The Rs have managed to get Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito confrirmed, in spite of their far right views on most issues. Roberts even ended up as Chief Justice. These folks have already swung the court way far to the right. To counterbalance these extreme views of these folks, Obama should have appointed a William O. Douglas type, instead of the centrist Sotomayer. The rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #2 May 29, 2009 QuoteThe Rs have managed to get Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito confrirmed, in spite of their far right views on most issues. Roberts even ended up as Chief Justice. These folks have already swung the court way far to the right. Do you have some specific decisions that indicate the court is far right? Rasmussen reported 33% believe it's too liberal, 23% believe too conservative, and 37% say it's about right. QuoteTo counterbalance these extreme views of these folks, Obama should have appointed a William O. Douglas type, instead of the centrist Sotomayer. Again, do you have anything tangible to argue she's centrist or that the justices listed are extreme? QuoteThe rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different. That's quite a claim for someone who was literally the most liberal person in the Senate. Reality includes the world outside of your personal views. The reality is that he's one of the most liberal Presidents in history. It's all relative, I guess. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 May 29, 2009 Quote QuoteThe rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different. That's quite a claim for someone who was literally the most liberal person in the Senate. By what measure do you come up with that? I think you got a lot of folks with a greater claim to that title in the Senate - left wingers that actually did something in their time. He wasn't there long enough to make any mark. Boxer (well, also ineffectual) Feingold Kennedy Schumer And going back to those terms, the antiwar types, not all of who are still present. By any measure, Obama has been rather centrist so far. He's mostly continued the Bush policies with minor tweaks. To the far left, he's been pretty disappointing. It's still early to conclude - he could change as he grows into the job. Or it may not. He may be a centrist now that he's not representing just Illinois. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 May 29, 2009 QuoteQuote QuoteThe rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different. That's quite a claim for someone who was literally the most liberal person in the Senate. By what measure do you come up with that? Obama ran for president. The rule is that the Democratic candidate for President is ALWAYS declared to be "the most liberal senator/congressman/governor" or whatever. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 May 29, 2009 Quote Obama should have appointed a William O. Douglas type Douglas, to me, epitomized the activist judge. Ever read his opinions? Ever read anything the guy wrote? The guy was the essence of a Justice who used his position on the SCOTUS to craft his personal ideals of what the social and political mores of the courty should be. I actually agree with most of his political aims. But that was my problem - he had political aims and used his position to make political and social policy. He really didn't do much in terms of citing existing law. I'll put it this way - prior to 1939, the SCOTUS overturned a previous decision a total of 48 times - roughly once every 3 years. Between 1939 (when Douglas was seated) and 1975 (when he retired) the SCOTUS overturned itself 103 times - roughly 3 times per year. Clearly, there are times when the Court should correct a bad decision. On the other hand, stare decisis is important because the People are on notice of what is legal and what is not. Imagine if you will conduct that has been protected by the Constitution since 1827. You engage in the conduct and get arrested because of a new law. You know that there is no way that this law will pass Constitutional muster because the 1827 case has been reaffirmed many times. So you challenge it and the SCOTUS says, "We have been wrong for the last 180 years. Considering the present circumstances, which were not foreseen then, we think that people should no longer be doing what you did. We hold that Constitution v. Court, which held that the Constitution is Supreme, must yield under these circumstance and is hereby overruled. See ya in 10 years when you get outta jail." Do you really want a lifetime appointment for a benevolent dictator social engineer? Or would you rather have elected leaders making these decisions? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #6 May 29, 2009 QuoteQuote QuoteThe rightys squeal about how "liberal" Obama is. The reality is quite different. That's quite a claim for someone who was literally the most liberal person in the Senate. By what measure do you come up with that? Voting records, based on the votes he made in the Senate, while he was there, as rated by The American Conservative Union (a conservative PAC). In general, of the (several) groups doing ratings like that, Obama wasn't quite the most liberal senator during that time. He generally ranked somewhere around the 10th most liberal. There's an article here that discusses those rankings, and says that Obama was actually the 10th most liberal Senator in the 2006 and the 16th most liberal in 2005.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 May 29, 2009 Quote Douglas, to me, epitomized the activist judge. Ever read his opinions? Ever read anything the guy wrote? The guy was the essence of a Justice who used his position on the SCOTUS to craft his personal ideals of what the social and political mores of the courty should be. I actually agree with most of his political aims. But that was my problem - he had political aims and used his position to make political and social policy. He really didn't do much in terms of citing existing law. I'll put it this way - prior to 1939, the SCOTUS overturned a previous decision a total of 48 times - roughly once every 3 years. Between 1939 (when Douglas was seated) and 1975 (when he retired) the SCOTUS overturned itself 103 times - roughly 3 times per year. Clearly, there are times when the Court should correct a bad decision. On the other hand, stare decisis is important because the People are on notice of what is legal and what is not. Imagine if you will conduct that has been protected by the Constitution since 1827. You engage in the conduct and get arrested because of a new law. You know that there is no way that this law will pass Constitutional muster because the 1827 case has been reaffirmed many times. So you challenge it and the SCOTUS says, "We have been wrong for the last 180 years. Considering the present circumstances, which were not foreseen then, we think that people should no longer be doing what you did. We hold that Constitution v. Court, which held that the Constitution is Supreme, must yield under these circumstance and is hereby overruled. See ya in 10 years when you get outta jail." Thanks for the summary. Can you recommend a short (<75 pages), reasonably accessible piece on his legal thought and rulings? Thanks. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #8 May 29, 2009 You're just not Machiavellian enough. Haven't you heard that the ends justify the means? In modern American politics, that's been re-crafted a bit to become "if you oppose our methods, you must be working against our goals." It's fascinating, to me, to see it slung from both sides.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 May 29, 2009 Quotethe ends justify the means? In modern American politics, that's been re-crafted a bit to become "if you oppose our methods, you must be working against our goals." It's fascinating, to me, to see it slung from both sides. the words 'fascinating' doesn't begin to describe it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 May 29, 2009 Quote In general, of the (several) groups doing ratings like that, Obama wasn't quite the most liberal senator during that time. He generally ranked somewhere around the 10th most liberal. For an Illinois (or Cal or NY or MA) senator to rank only 10th suggests he's quite far from the most liberal around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
