An unborn child is hardly an example of a minority.
That is it! I am going to pull an andros. Why should I answer such a hijack?
Oh, dear lord, please let’s not start down that road.
I dunno, do you think we could get Senator Hatch to do what he did with all the Clinton appointments in '99?
(from here)
Democrats have blocked ten of Bush’s appointments. Ten. That’s less than 5% of the 229 that pretty much got rubber stamped. Lessee, how many appointments got blocked from, say, the last administration? Hmmm…it would appear they blocked 48. In the first two years of an 8 year administration. Well. I can certainly see how the claim can be made that conservatives have a higher interest in upholding the constitution. No WONDER they’re decrying the possible upcoming fillibuster!
The actions taken by Republicans as regards Clinton’s judicial nominees was absolutely abysmal, unjustified, and without any justification.
And when it was happening, I condemned it.
Well, FINE~! If you’re going to be reasonable, then I have absolutely no bloody recourse. 
P.S. taps watch It’s July, buddy. And there was only half a challenge last time, and that was wayyyy back in February.
Who has the role of deciding what ‘basic human rights and freedoms’ are?"
You, personally?
Me, personally?
Judges?
What will be your position on that question if President Bush selects the next three Supreme Court justices, and the Court then decides that an unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?
You advanced the position that “The will of the people” is an invalid argument. I’m asking you now to tell me whose will DOES answer these questions. It’s not a hijack - it’s directly relevant to this thread.
So tell me. Who has the role of deciding what ‘basic human rights and freedoms’ are?"
Just curious: given that we’re talking about lifetime appointments here, don’t you think it’s perfectly reasonable for one political party to block the 5% of the most extreme nomimees the other side puts up? I’ll tell you this: if the situations were reversed, I’d absolutely expect the Republicans to filibuster the ideological fringe of a Democratic president’s nominees. After all, (and here you may disagree) the country is best served if our judges are not from the far ends of either political extreme.
-P
Considering we’re three pages into an argument about a nominee who hasn’t even been named yet, I confidently predict this will be the worst SCOTUS nomination battle ever.
I agree.
What will your position be?
Whatever the GOP’s talking points are, no doubt.
Doesn’t have to be. A moderate conservative would probably be very acceptable to the Dems, if only to reduce their investment in stress medications. Would be acceptable as well to the public at large, I have little doubt. Why then not reach for this perfectly obvious compromise?
Because the Bushiviks are beholden to the extreme right. Because if he doesn’t pay them off on their social issues, they will ditch him. And, perhaps most importantly, he cannot lose if he nominates a social conservative extremist.
If, by some miracle, the Dems blocked such a candidate, the Tighty Righties will say as they have said for years: “We tried out best, but those liberals just keep thwarting God’s Will. One more election will do it, a few million dollars more. No, no, this time for sure!”
And if it suceeds, well, he’s paid them off.
Of course, if we had a President more concerned with the nation that with his Party’s agenda and future electoral prospects, he might nominate a center-right candidate that might be confirmed without bloodshed, if he were concerned with consensus building rather than polarity mongering. If he were, you know, a uniter, rather than a divider.
I find this a little disingenuous, Rick. All of these things are subject to prevailing public opinion and mood. At one time blacks were considered ‘unworthy of basic human rights and freedoms’.
Ditto latinos. Ditto indians. Ditto jews. Ditto Irish. Ditto japanese. Ad nauseum.
The simple fact is that such definitions change in the body politic at all times in all ways. It’s the brownian motion of human freedom. And sometimes it’s the courts that recognize that fact prior to the legislature. I have no problem with that under our system of government.
It’s a moving target. To insist that the whole ‘penumbra’ thing doesn’t exist and isn’t in play is naive, at best. And I know you’re not naive. I respect you too much for that.
As for this I freely predict that if this comes to pass the shortsightedness of it will bring regret to the party that enacts it sooner than most would believe.
Would you have liked this during Clinton’s first few years in office?
There are a few other little things too. Your home can be searched without any need to tell anyone (including you) that it was searched, and without going through the process of getting a normal search warrant. What books you check out of the library can be recorded as “evidence”. You can be whisked away to Gitmo, and held incommunicado, and you might (some day) actually get a trial / tribunal. There’s plenty there, and this was all hashed out before. No need to do it again.
If Bush nominates a moderate or centrist, everyone will (or should) be happy. If he wants to be a uniter, that is what he should do. However, if he tries to nominate a far right extremist, then all bets are off. It is one thing to placate the radical religious right with a few kind words here and there, it is another to install one of them (worst case scenario) on the Supreme Court. As much as I thought I disliked Scalia, I prefer him, a strict “reader of the constitution” to anyone who would invent interpretations out of thin air (i.e. the recent mutation of eminent domain).
Um, actually I was asking about your usage in the quoted sentence, but at this point, it’s pretty irrelevant.
After 3 pages, I’m starting to see a trend of sorts.
Some keep insisting that the MA decision was legislating, and forcing the legislature to do something, and forcing a change on the citizenry.
Others then show that the decision forced the legislature to do nothing, that it only denied the constitutionality of the law, and legally restored rights which had been abrogated.
The first parties then ignore the evidence provided, or re-writes the wording of cited references, and continue to talk about “legislating from the bench”.
Going in circles isn’t debating, nor is it entertaining (except for NASCAR, of course). Even if it were entertaining, it isn’t getting us anywhere.
Oh, and let me try and answer this:
Our basic rights and freedoms are currently delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That decision has already been made. Occassionally, from the legislature or the courts, there are clarifications.
The MA court decision did not grant rights, it restored rights which had been taken away improperly.
As to the last, take that bleep to a new thread if you really want to hear some answers. It is not germane to the discussion at hand.
My position would ne that such a decision would be a nightmare. While it would get to a result I believe is ethically and morally correct - no abortions - it would get there by a route that is awful: a court re-writing the Fourteenth Amendment to mena something it never was meant to mean. (Note that I could say, “Hey, the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons, and unborn children are people, so they’re not rewriting anything!” I COULD say that, but it would be untrue, because although that’s what the words say, they were never intended to be read in that manner. I love the idea that they be read in such a manner, but the impetus for that change should come from the legislature).
Now, to answer rjung’s well-thought-out rejoinder… I doubt it. I suspect that if the GOP were confronted by a Court that ruled that unborn children are deserving of Fourteenth Amendment protection, most of them would embrace it. One has only to look at history to conclude this: the same GOP voices that are now speaking so piously about how each nominee is entitled to an up-and-down vote in the Senate were singing a different tune when Mr. Clinton was the one nominating. So I assume that, for the most part, their convictions are as malleable as most of the Democrats.
My convictions, however, do not change based on the party in power. Nor are my positions in lock-step with the Democrats. For example, I’m an ardent opponent of the death penalty, which the GOP (and many Democrats) support. I’ve spoken out against it on this board many times.
What positions do YOU hold, rjung, that are conservative in nature and not in lock-step with the liberal crowd?
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that no person within its jurisdiction can be denied the equal protection of the laws. Yet every state forbids ten-year-olds from getting drivers licenses.
Ten-year-olds are not being given the equal proection of the laws that 20-year-olds are.
Is it for the courts to decide that this is wrong?
Maybe, the reason is to protect all of us from 10 year olds in cars. Driving is a privilege, not a protection.
Didn’t ask for the reason. Asked whose call it is.