Government by Star Chamber?

[gaijindabe]

No longer will I make fun of California.

One of New York's Judges has just decided that gay marriage is to be legalized. She found it in the State Constitution. Funny how nobody else saw it there for 200 years..

Another group of Court-appointed referees have concluded that NYC school spending will be raised by $5.63 Billion per year in addition to a $9.2 Billion in capital spending raise over the next five years.. Seems the students are not getting a "sound and basic" education on $12,000 per kid, per year. More $$$$$ is apparently the only solution considered..

Was I asleep that day in civics class?? What about state legislators? What about elected school boards? What about the state executive? When and how did all this become the courts job??

[Overpaid Slacker]

Now you know why Democrats fight tooth-and-nail for judicial appointees. They can't win in the legislatures, so they've got to end-run the expressed will of the people through judges.

Why didn't anyone see the "Right to Privacy" in the US Constitution for almost 200 years ... until it was convenient to discover in "emanations" and "penumbras". Yeah.

What kills me is that Bloomberg gets pilloried for not rushing to City Hall to preside over gay marriages, but says "look, let's wait for this thing to play itself out before one judge's opinion causes everybody heartache if it's overturned".

But, whatever happens, don't stop picking on California. That's how they know the rest of the country loves them.

JP

[stevepaa]

Thank you, OS.

My father in law (RIP) used to say that all the nuts and fruits fell left to California.

A coworker at the subase in Georgia used to say he did not want people moving to Florida and Georgia from California becasue he didn't want them to Californicate his area.

I warn anyone who thinks of coming here to California that the earthquakes are terrible.


As for the courts, I think sometimes they are there to give stability to the gyrations of the electorate whether in the executive or legislative branch.

Of course our founding fathers would be appalled at the power of the Presidency now. They viewed the president as an admistrator of a federal goverment with the legislative branch determining policy that the president would administer. That's why only Congress was given the power to declare war, then the president would act as commander in chief to wage the war. That's something that seems to have been forgotten in the last century.

[vash]

i remember the GAP looking for a new home for a large portion of their corporate office. apparently, operating in california was getting too $$$. i think the last few choices were el paso, tx, and alburqueque, NM. the mayor of EP voiced his concerns. he didnt want them in his town because he felt it would bring in people of "alternative" lifestyle. so the GAP went to new mexico. i cannot believe the mayor didnt see the potential of corp type jobs, and let his beliefs get in the way of progress. what a dicck. el paso is a depressed city.

bottom line, i am not gay, i dont want to be gay, never will be gay, and i dont feel i even have an opinion whether gay people should be married or not. because i am not gay. what difference does gay even make on this world?

i also dont think the founding fathers would imagine the house passing a bill on indecency. lame.

[kach22i]

The stacking of right-wing judges has been going on for a long time. The attack of the judical system (and public schools) by the right wingers is well documented.

If you care to read about it (and gloat), click on the link.

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html

[Overpaid Slacker]

Steve -
I think the founding fathers had a lot of power in mind for the President; read any Hamiltonian Federalist Paper, for instance. And Jemmy Madison was pretty strong too. But those are arguments for we paleolithic "constructionists" that like to base our interpretations on silly things like contemporary writings of a document's contributors and authors.

I'll stipulate that it is more fun to "project back" onto the Constitution the "isms" that were created well after the Constituion, that the founding fathers therefore could not have been familiar with/influenced by. But that alternate-reality fiction deserves a place on the "What if Hitler had won" or "What if Mao were gay" shelf of the library.

Vash -
I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement; but for a reason you probably don't like. The FF could never have imagined the need for such a bill, living within what was a very homogenous, pious society. I believe it is safe to say that such a bill is as far beyond what the FF would have conceived as is the Internet.

Virtually unrelated rant follows...

FWIW, I smirk when I hear some unhinged, history-deprived moonbat screeches about how capitalism is "conservative." This is the most categorically untrue statement I've ever heard that even tangentially relates to "economics," and it's susceptible to almost instantaneous disproof (assuming the other side will listen, which is stretching things in many instances).

Capitalism is value-neutral (even amoral) and thrives on new ideas, whatever their nature. It succeeds the more options there are -- ideological, spiritual, fashion, technological, whatever. I can't think of a more potent force for "progressivism" and undoing of conservative ideals than capitalism.

Consider theocracies -- very conserative, no? I frequently refer to Islam's Mullahcracies as 12th century theocracies -- their leaders manage their power through refusal to admit of new ideas, technologies, philosophies, etc. Why are these theocracies universally among the worst economic countries? B/c they suppress capitalism in order to suppress the influx of ideas that it brings. These oppressive, theocratic dirtbags understand capitalism (well, what it does...) better than many self-annointed cognoscenti in the West.

Capitalism is not "Liberal" in the American political sense, but it is anti-conservative in just about any sense (political, social, theological) of the word "conservative".

OK, enough rant for now.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

Kach -
If the right is stacking judges, why is it attacking the judicial system? I'm not commenting on the relative number of judges who hold X or Y political opinion, but simply on why the Left uses its rabid, destroy-at-any-cost tactics to keep Republican/conservative judges off the bench.

The left's agenda loses when it's put to the public; so in order to "win" you've got to overturn the opinions of those uneducated, unclean, benighted morons, the public, and make sure they do things your way anyway, b/c you know better.

Next time that foul miasma Schumer says, in his blithely dismissive manner, that a judicial nominee is "out of touch" with or "out of the mainstream of" the US public, do yourself a favor and check that person's history against US public opinion polls. What they're actually "out of touch" with is his (Liberal) agenda, and they'll likely fall squarely within what the majority of Americans believe, according to national polls ... and no, not VRWC polls, but run-of-the-mill, "normal" polls. Somewhere at home I have a piece that printed out a grid of 3 Bush nominees accused of having been outside the mainstream by Schumer and 10 of their positions, cross-referenced to public opinion polls. He's lying and you're believing him (well, I don't know if YOU are, kach, but I suspect you believe him).

As far as attacking academia -- absolutely. And the right is beginning, maybe, to make headway against that bastion of Liberal indoctrination and its practices.

JP

[vash]

slacker, i actually agree with you. but times ARE changing. i have found that it is always better to go forward than back. back in the day, i bet ben franklin didnt even know where the american lanquage was going to head. you cant limit free speech just a "little bit". it is all or nothing. the bill doesnt even label what is indecent! it gives the powers that be, too much power. kids these days are very sophisticated. the definition of decency has changed. i just want to live and let live.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Oh, I can agree with you, having read only 2nd hand commentary, that this particular iteration of a bill to cover this particular topic is sub-optimal. No doubt.

This is one of those areas in which I believe the "average" American claims to "want" something they really don't want, or fully understand. My view is, rather than legalize everything (as a Lib might) is to leave it alone (as a Conservative in the true, ideological sense should).

An academic point, but one worth 2 lines -- you can limit "free speech" "a little bit" and in fact, you and I live with such restrictions every day.. but we accept them. The illegality of, and penalties for, slander, libel and other defamatory "speech" is just one way in which "free speech" is limited.

JP

[Superman]

JP, no doubt you know more about FF matters than I, and I appreciate the information you bring. On the matter of capitalism being conservative, this falls back on something I feel I do know about, and that is, that arguments usually, in fact nearly always, boil down to definitions. Your statements are completely open to dispute, depending on how terms like "conservative" and "capitalism" and "liberal" are defined. I notice that the overwhelming majority of folks who consider themselves "conservative" these days, are vigorously supportive of the economic system we have here, which is commonly referred to as "capitalism." So, liberals seem to gravitate toward socialism, and conservatives seem to gravitate toward capitalism. Regardless of what definitions you are using. And if that makes me an unhinged, history-deprived moonbat then, again, it boils down to your definition of moonbat.

And as far as political appointees goes, that gives me an idea for a thread. In the meantime, you proud conservatives are just going to have to pump yourselves up with back-pats for a bit, since the rest of the world seems to be filled with educated, compassionate and circumspect people who have to wear the embarrassing title of "liberal."

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Kach -
If the right is stacking judges, why is it attacking the judicial system?

Because fairness to everyone is not on the extreem rights agenda. They attack even conservative judges for not being extreemist to the right.

The attacks come in the form of lobby groups and the media controlled/influence by the right wingers (radio etc...).

It very active, well funded and well organized..............you guys should be proud of yourselves. Well shameful, but pround.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe, from my p/o/v it's the libs (and largely academia) that need back-pats in order to get by; and therefore heap them liberally on one another.

I can't gainsay "educated or compassionate" but "circumspect?" Teasing, just teasing.

As for your first paragraph; I whole heartedly agree that those political labels are especially susceptible to manipulation. I try to use them in a constant fashion, consistent with what I believe to be their classical definitions... even if I'd have to wrestle with a cogent exposition of those definitions. Which is not to say I won't use any or all of those terms ironically. One thing I try very hard to ensure is that I use capital-C Conservative, capital-R Republican, capital-L Liberal and similar terms very specificially distinctly from their lowercase (and often definitionally distant) cousins.

A liberal worldview would like the multi-culti dividends of capitalism. I'm a Conservative and I certainly enjoy such dividends too; but they should not supplant what has been our history, nor derail an incremental, accretive development thereof as we move forward. Conservatives are absolutely NOT anti-change (well some people who are BOTH Conservatives AND total jackasses are anti-change).

Rather than paraphrase and try to act like this was my idea, I'll just quote Disraeli:

In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in defference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract prinxiples and arbitrary and general doctrines.

How I wish I'd said that; but he lived 150 years before me and had a head start.

IMHO, Liberals and Conservatives are virtually equally progressive. But Liberals are (in the classic definition) rational internationalists who worry what the French or the UN would say. Conservatives worry what our forefathers, to whom we owe the heritage that got us this far, would say.

The ironic part of what you say, Supe, is that Socialism does not foster new ideas/theologies/ideologies/etc. It is, in its practical form anyway, very anti-those things b/c they tend to show people there is another way; without "forced" Animal Farm equality. Witness how quickly Socialist states (not nec. Marxist or Communist) have moved (whether in whole or large part) to capitalism once they've had the chance. Capitalism wins whether you're standing there to declare it the winner or not.

Capitalism is a rough, sharp, pointy thing, however... and part of the compassion is to dull the knifedges and put marshmallows on the pointiest bits. (But why does Ruprecht have a cork on his fork?)

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

kach -
There will ALWAYS be some people further out on the political spectrum ends that snipe at those nearer the middle than they. I mean, some of the Leftist-ist nutjobs out there continuously harrass even very Liberal judges/Senators/Congressmen for not being Left enough. Those loonies don't wind up on the news quite as much as the farthest Right-Wing moonbats, though b/c we're not supposed to be "scared" of the far Left.

Seriously, when in the MSM was the last time you heard any person or group referred to as "Left Wing". If there even is a "last time" it happened.. b/c it might also be the "first time" it happened. But you can't evince even a hint of a sympathy for the logic behind a Conservative argument without being branded Right Wing -- even if you disagree with the conclusion that the Conservative argument is trying to make.

Look, there are Right Wing Whackos out there ... not that you need me to tell you that. But too often they're presented as the standard bearers for Conservatives or Republicans, and way too often you guys believe it.

FWIW, I don't think fairness to everyone is a principle that's even visible from the Left's agenda either; though that's what they tell you. We're a little more blunt about what we believe, and that puts some people off at least as much as what we believe.


JP

[lendaddy]

The number or percentage of judges with a particular political or ideolgical bent is of little importance. The judicial system is truely one that can be poisened by one infected part. Judges are to interpret the law, not create it. Liberal judges have a tendency to CREATE law. I (and I'm sure JP) can list off countless examples of this. Hell I don't even think they deny it! Show me a conservative judge who has done this and I will show you a charleton. Conservatives, almost by definition, do not do this. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It efffs up the whole balance of power.

One of the lefties on here once told me he "liked activist judges, because they sped up change" AHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG

[stevepaa]

I find very few Conservative worrying about what our forefathers would say. Most of them, IMHO, worry about how it will affect their pocketbook more.

On some issues, it certainly is true that Conservatives want to take a literal view of forefather documents while Liberals see a changing document.

How on earth did the Conservatives ever let women have the right to vote, because that surely was never in any forefather's mind? Nor was the idea of ending slavery.

Both of those changes came from a changing liberal view.

[stevepaa]

lendaddy
Can you give a good example of a created law that you do not support?
thanks

[Overpaid Slacker]

Steve? Do you actually read what I write, or squint at the screen and try to pick up a few items to be snidely contrary about?

Conservatives are not anti-change. I realize you've been told different, by everyone from your school-marm through the only deities Liberals acknowledge -- the media; but it's not true.

JP

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stevepaa
lendaddy
Can you give a good example of a created law that you do not support?
thanks

This is an attempt to change the subject. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not, it matters if the integrity of our system remains intact. Why you would assume change is only possible through the branch of government prevented from doing so is beyond me. We have proper channels for these things.


Are you under the impression that slavery was abolished by a liberal activist judge?

[Superman]

I've worked essentially in the "public" sector for a decade and a half now, though I am not on the payroll of a public agency currently except as a consultant. I've watched and participated in a number of court cases that were headed for a (state) supreme court review, and then read those reviews.

Again, a judge's viewpoint depends on his or her personal politics, usually. And then the decision hinges on interpretation of a passage in law, or a definition. That is, the judge finds an interpretation that meshes with the decision he or she WANTS to write. Lawyers understand this, and so they fill the briefs with options for the judge to consider. When you review the various briefs the judge considered, from both sides, you see this clearly. They are diametrically opposed, and even after you toss out the longshot ideas, you are still left with two or three very good arguments that attempt to lean the decision in a particular direction.

Frankly, part of what I am saying is that there is a misguided notion here. And that is, the notion that there is a clear, objective winner in these cases, and sometimes judges find it, and sometimes they miss it and make a bad decision. That's just not the case. No-brainers do not go to court. Or at least, then do not get appealed for two years and them bubble up to the supreme court.

Stuff that does get to the supreme court is stuff where the interpretation is going to count in the future. This court straightens the directions of stuff, so that in the future we do not end up with court cases, both apparently correct, that conflict. So, supreme courts are, yes, whether you like it or not, they are policy-making courts. The only alternative to that would be to have the legislature do their work, and believe me, you don't want a legislature doing that work. As partisan as you like to think courts are, they are from the planet Vulcan compared to legislative bodies.

And generally, as a rule, courts get more "liberal" (if you need to think of them that way, which is a bit of an oversimplification) than lower courts. They are also smarter. Yeah, that's a liberty you expected me to take, but it's also true. Lower court decisions are all over the place, and often enough, they are just dead wrong. Some of the most embarrassing decisions I have ever seen have come off the benches of the most conservative superior court judges. In some instances, you have to believe their law degree came from a box of Cracker Jacks. Upper courts are there partly to prevent superior court judges from being lynched.

And also, like it or not, upper courts are more circumspect (second time I've used that term today). They view the issue from a couple of steps back. They very frequently base their decisions on legislative intent, rather than the letter of the law. This is because the letter is not conclusive.

I have said before, and will say here again, legislatures often construct a law to be deliberately vague. That way, it is harder to pin them down and accuse them of decisive legislation (wouldn't want that, right?). They deliberately leave the hard part up to the courts.

[Superman]

Just read my post, and think a quick illustration might help. I am in labor relations. There are laws which protect workers. Often when the interpretation of a worker-protection law bubbles up to my supreme court, one party is hoping to use the law to protect the worker, and the other party is hoping to use a twist in the law to protect the employer. The supreme court courteously listens to oral arguments, which make the case seem complicated. It strikes you as a good question, and a fair fight. The supreme court has less trouble with these than most folks. They listen courteously, they glance at the briefs, and they say:

"This law was enacted to protect workers. And that's how it will work."