By your last post, Bricker, you seem to be admitting that, at least in some cases, a “liberal” SCOTUS would be superior to a “conservative” SCOTUS.
There was no appetite in the US for integration at that time. The idea that a handful of “liberals” (if that is even meaningful when comparing ideas over 100 years ago) could force the country to integrate simply isn’t in the realm of reality. Remember that in the early 19th century, Eugenics was a position held by many folks who were considered liberal at the time.
The SCOTUS can only get so far ahead of the nation as a whole.
Let’s roll the tape…
IIRC, Jim Crow-style segregation only began en masse around the 1880s. Before then, it wasn’t ubiquitous in the South (IIRC), nor for the rest of the country. Even afterwards, it wasn’t ubiquitous (though it was common) through the country, and I think it’s reasonable to believe that late 19th century Massachusetts, for example, wasn’t as invested in white supremacism as George Wallace and his ilk were in the 50s.
I’m not saying it would have been problem-free, just that it would have been less messy (especially if done right after the 14th amendment), and caused a lot less suffering, had this stuff been overturned much earlier than it actually was.
Uh, John?
From our good friends over at Daily Kos, a collection from her Greatest Hits compilation…
Anyone know what “homosexual privileges” means in that context? The cite sadly doesn’t go into any more detail.
Most, if not all, of the quotes are from Ms Shafly’s Eagle Forum publication. I assume you can get more there.
:smack: Yes, 20th century. early 1900s/ early 20th century.
Not to mention that Separate by Equal wasn’t exactly a thing in the early 19th century…
It’s always important to put forward a good argument in these instances.
Doubtful, but by definition (I guess), the liberal judge would tend to be the one wanting to re-interpret the constitution to meet new social demands and the conservative judge would be the one resisting such a re-interpretation.
Whether or not the liberal judge’s reasoning is faulty or seeking to correct a fault is something of a matter of opinion. If you can cite 50 examples, why not show us some?
We would require more than 50. I cited two examples of 5-4 right-wing SCOTUS rulings of such an appallingly activist nature that SA himself agreed they were “a faulty constitutional interpretation”, and I also explained exactly why. Right off the top of my head I can think of at least four more that eviscerated yet more campaign finance laws on the same principle as Citizens United, so on the claimed ratio of 50-to-1, SA should be able to cite for us at least 300 SCOTUS decisions that were egregious examples of appalling liberal activism and easily explained as obviously unconstitutional.
But let’s be generous and just stick with those two right-wing travesties I cited. SA only needs to cite 100 SCOTUS decisions demonstrating obvious liberal judicial activism and explain, as I did, why it’s a blatant misreading of the Constitution. I’ll wait.
Wow!! It’s like the pronouncements of a specially constructed Stupid-Bot with all the hate, misanthropy, and bigotry options dialed up to 10!
I believe in that context it refers to “the right to exist”.
Minor note: “antebellum” typically refers to the years before the Civil War. The period you’re describing - after the CW (and Reconstruction) up until the Civil Rights Era - is often called “The Solid South”.
Oops. Actually, I was thinking “postbellum”, though I’m not sure if that’s used very commonly.
What did I say in that thread? What did Shodan say?
The death penalty for parking violations is superior to the $25 fine… if the analysis begins and ends with whether parking violations decrease.
But a liberal SCOTUS could have gotten Plessy v Ferguson correct, and could have overturned Jim Crow laws before the CRA and VRA. If you think it would have been too “messy” in the 19th century, what about the early 20th? What about in the 40s, with the support of FDR? Would you agree that such an “activist” SCOTUS determined to overturn such discriminatory practices in the 1940s would have produced a better long term outcome than waiting another 20 years?
I think a strict textualist interpretation of a hypothetical principle like, say, “No Person shall, without the consent of the Owner, park his horse, cart, or other contrivance but in a manner to be prescribed by law”, one could easily support the interpretation that no penalty would be too great to preserve this sacred right of the owners of parking spots, even if the horse, not actually on such spot, happens to shit upon it.
The core question always seems to me to boil down to the ability to use one’s brain, filtered through the perspective of contemporary social values and mores, to arrive at a rational interpretation of how principles elucidated 240 years ago should apply today.
It was a big problem in the 1970s in MA. I can’t imagine it would have been better 80 years earlier.