Accusing SC Justices of partisanship and prejudice. Isn't that hyperbole?

[Stratocaster]

@kaylasdad99

I really wish that more Dopers would join me and LSLGuy in our preference for denying radicals the use of the term “conservative” for themselves and their policies.

As a recovering conservative, current bleeding heart, I can sympathize, though it may be a lost cause. Not sure. It seems somewhat analogous to the “Christians” who find Christ’s actual teachings woke nonsense.

If terms just mean whatever the in group says they mean—and that may certainly be the case—terms become so amorphous as to be meaningless. The Ministry of Truth had nothing to do with truth, MTG seems to be unaware of what Christ actually commanded his followers (as straightforward as it was), and “conservatives” espouse a philosophy that doesn’t bear a strong resemblance to how conservatism has traditionally been defined.

For those below a certain age, this 63-year-old can tell you that at one point there wasn’t a huge amount of daylight between liberals and conservatives, except at the margins. Really.

[Aeschines]

@HMS_Irruncible

There is no “social conservatism” or “fiscal conservatism”, these are just different ways conservatives describe how they’re willing to treat others to conserve their own power. We all need to be clear that this was always just Reaganite whitewashing over conservatism’s uglier realities.

Dunno about this. I don’t agree with social or fiscal conservatives, and it may ultimately be the case that their worldview has the effects you say it has, but I think the concepts themselves are at least roughly coherent.

Also, not all self-labeled conservatives have hereditary money or power, and not all, of course, are even white.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Aeschines

Dunno about this. I don’t agree with social or fiscal conservatives, and it may ultimately be the case that their worldview has the effects you say it has, but I think the concepts themselves are at least roughly coherent.

“I like being responsible with money” is a pretty anodyne and meaningless sentiment in itself. Everybody thinks they’re responsible with money! But responsibility depends on the underlying value judgment of the thing being bought. Claiming “fiscal conservative” is a way to push that value judgment while pretending it’s just a bookkeeping exercise.

Relatedly, “social liberal” is not a distinct dimension of liberality. It’s always deployed as an ambiguously positive moral valence to offset the ambiguous negative valence of “social conservative.” In this way you can see that “social liberal/fiscal conservative” is not an actual ethos, it’s evasion and deflection rolled into one.

@Aeschines

Also, not all self-labeled conservatives have hereditary money or power, and not all, of course, are even white.

It’s immaterial. You don’t need to be part of a power structure to be invested in it. Lots of people who aren’t white or men can benefit from helping white men stay in power. Ask Clarence Thomas. More depressingly, lots of people believe they stand to benefit from the white male power structure. Ask any self-described southern white person who thinks the immigrants are taking all the good jobs.

[Atamasama]

Is this still the Supreme Court thread?

Or did my browser glitch?

[Aspenglow]

Moderating:

@Aeschines

Sure, but the self-labeled fiscal conservative may feel that the government isn’t being responsible with money and that a better job can be done.

@Irishman

Ok, I won’t speak to history. What I will say is that if my labels are Reaganite myths, there are a lot of people who bought those myths and believe those distinctions sincerely. I have a few friends of my age cohort that believe such.

@The_Librarian

We are all saying that those are values than no conservative ever practiced.
Reagan exploded the US deficit.

@HMS_Irruncible

What I’m saying is that Republicans, with the goal of conserving hereditary power, are phrasing that narrative differently so that it will resonate differently around the kitchen table.

While all this is interesting, it has nothing to do with the current makeup of the Supreme Court or whether they are now acting in overtly partisan ways. Please take this discussion to a different thread if you wish to continue it.