Redstate

Do the Democrats really want to confront conservative orthodoxy head-on? Only if they have a death wish. It would be a great opportunity to instruct the nation about the nature of the two parties and their philosophies, as well as notions of personal responsiblity and equality before the law. By all means, "bring it on", as they say.  

... Krugman touched on these themes (as part of perhaps the wackiest op-ed page The Times has ever permitted.)  

The premise is:  Katrina-gate is the fault of a smaller federal government.

Yah.  That's it.

In my opinion, there seem to be two themes here which have are prevalent throughout all of the talk in the MSM and the blogosphere about the Roberts nomination:

1. The MSM loves conflict, (which the Right interprets as automatic bias) but finds itself facing a confirmation of a new CJOTUS with 70-80 votes, (not a great story) and is trying to come up with any justification whether it be the hurricane, Rehnquist's death, etc to come up with new and interesting ways to say "Now we're going to get the fight we've all been waiting for."
   
2.  The President's conservative base is itching for a fight, a) to reshape the court becuase it has a conservative president and a 10 member matjority in the US Senate and b) shove it in the face of the Left, in particular Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer et al.

Therefore, given that there is no feasible way in my opinion that Roberts doesn't get a minimum of 64 votes (55 GOP plus, Nelson (NE), Dorgan, Konrad, Baucus, Landrieu, Pryor, Salazar, Lieberman, Johnson) and I personally think he'll get nearly 80, it seems to me that the Right in general, and some on this site included, is looking for anything in the world to turn this Roberts fight into World War III, under the guise of standing up against this Liberal/Media conspiracy.

If someone can prove to me how the Roberts nomination gets derailed by the screaming of Sens Kennedy, Schumer and Boxer, the editorial pages of the NYT and Washington Post or Daily Kos, I'd love to hear it.  

Roberts is going to get 70-80 votes, put it in the bank, and I just think for all of the raging conspiracy theories about the MSM and the Democrats, the energy spent going into hysterics over every news article about democratic tactics, or press release from the DSCC could be much better placed.

you're missing the point.  Despite all of those people that you just named shreiking at the top of their lungs about how bad Roberts is, we all know that he's going to be confirmed easily.  Given that, we'd like those shriekers to just shut up and realize that he's going to be confirmed.

must be Saruman, Harry Reid is the mouth of Sauron,

Pelosi is an orc. and Ted Kennedy is the dark lord himself.

My Dream Team from here on out is Jones, Luttig, and Garza, in that order.  What's the chances Ruth and/or John Paul will step down in the next 2 years?  Better get the most solid ones in before the '06 election.  

I think American democracy is broken.For one thing,The polititions are in perpetual election mode.The midterm elections are just as important a s general elections.So everyone is always running for for somethingPlus the US is divided and shows no sign no sign of uniting any time soon.I think the parlimentry system works better for the people.Whoever wins the most seats controls everthing.They get four years.If the people ar not happy,you throw them out and give the other side a go.

There is shrieking coming from both sides.

So WE THE PEOPLE have no direct control over who our executive is? American-styled democracy, as mapped out by the genius of our founding fathers, has given rise to the greatest nation this world has ever known. And you want to throw that out so we can be more like those "good friends" in Europe?  

have as difficult a confirmation as I would hope. I doubt he will be forced to answer questions about a constitutional right to privacy, the rights of the individual over the rights of the corporation, and the limitation of government from enacting laws that prevent individuals from doing no harm to others, regardless of the harm they might do to themselves.

It will be the same old thing, with Roberts winning confirmation. But he will further contribute to our government's erosion of personal freedoms.

limitation of the government from enacting laws that  prevent individuals from engaging in activities that harm no other persons, regardless the harm they might do to themselves.  

while conservatives have long advocated a less activist government

To this

while conservatives have long advocated a selectively less activist government.  I see very little out of Washington Republicans to indicate less activism and, frankly, many social conservatives do not appear to want less action from government -- they simply want different action from government.

I'm all in favor of reducing the federal government's roles to select areas and then ensuring it is resourced and managed properly.  I suspect it will be a long time before I see such advocates from any national leaders in either party.

Should be getting a unanimous yes vote. Not to be picky, but most justices are confirmed unanimously, or at least with more than 70-80 votes. The most right-wing justice on the court, Thomas, recieved 52 yes votes back when the Dems controlled the senate, and the only reason for such a low vote were the sexual allegations against him. Roberts isn't controversial morally or ideologically, but many dems still want to scream and put up a fight. They're using litmus tests, and that's unprecedented behavior just to satisfy the extremist progressives on the left who hijacked their party from the Clintonites long ago, and that's why we despise their attitude so much.

"Conservatives" want a traditional marriage with Our Constitution--love and obey, till death do us part. "Liberals" want an open marriage--wed for now, till something more satisfying comes along. Not better, just more satisfying, and more convenient than having to convince "the People" to be likewise satisfied.

The House of Representatives is

A.  the most idealogically/politically contentious of the two legislative chambers.  ("driven by passions")

2.  in a parliamentary system the body whose majority would select the Prime Minister (President) and Ministers-with-Portfolio (Cabinet).

and

III.  at the moment controlled by Republicans.

Unless, of course, you'd like to see Tom Delay as Prime Minister.  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

It seems to me that the takeover of the SCOTUS so desired by the right, may be the best thing that could happen to the left.  They will no longer have to keep trying to scare the public.  The public will see with their own eyes what that means.

Hillary Clinton is.  Kennedy is Wormtongue!

Many people on this site seem to think the President ought to use litmus tests (on Roe v. Wade in particular) in deciding who to nominate.  Yet you decry the use of litmus tests in deciding who to vote for.  I'm not sure I see the difference.

Ideally speaking, there wouldn't be litmus tests on either side and we'd look at whether or not the candidates would make capable jurists.  I think that both sides are now looking for outcomes as opposed to qualifications.  Having said that, I think Roberts is exactly the kind of well qualified nominee that I would hope that both sides would look to nominate and confirm, regardless of ideology.

Incidentally, Rheinquist received 26 nay votes when he was initially appointed to the Court in 1971, so these little spats aren't anything new.  Bryer only got 87 votes in favor in the last go-round.  I'm not sure Roberts is going to end up getting a whole lot less than that.

What it means ... is that now leftists will have to fight their battles--to turn tradition on its head--in the legislatures, State and Federal, and no longer just in back rooms of the Supreme Court. If I were a leftist kook, God forbid, I'd be frightened at the prospect too.

Is 32 years long enough to be a tradition?

That you need more than a few generations to have tradition.

Plessy was older when it was overturned.

What makes you say this?

I think the parlimentry system works better for the people.Whoever wins the most seats controls everthing.

Which parliamentary form of government do you think has done a better job for the people than the tripartite American system?  I'd genuinely like to know what the metrics are that you are using.

Me personally... I find parliamentary government to be more entertaining (ever watch the British Parliament on C-SPAN, with all the booing and the catcalls and such?) but more effective or better for the people?  I don't know.

-TS

Ever watch Taiwanese parliamentarians kicking and punching one another in a scrum the Podium?

Good for a larf, and maybe Ted Kennedy could use a bucket upside his head, but not doing much for the People's Business.

It's too bad that the left wing of the Democratic party doesn't realize that their so-called principles of "fairness", a "living Constitution", and generally touting equality of outcome over equality of opportunity mean that they actually have no principles at all.

The Kelo decision is a perfect example of the problem with the left and the reason that we need more judges who are strict constructionists:

When the liberals decided that they could simply redefine "public use" to mean "public benefit, even if unclear what or how large it would be", they trampled on a truly fundamental right: the right to private property, and particularly your home.

It took a decision as bad as Kelo for some liberals to realize the ultimate result of being blissfully free of principle, although I'm certain they will not extend that lesson past the eminent domain discussion.

So, bringing this back to Roberts' confirmation: When they ask him about their leftist agenda and how he will "protect" the people, he should have a simple answer ready: "The Constitution protects everyone. Thus the primary goal of the Court should be to defend the Constitution. We have recently seen what happens when they don't."

Here's a short piece I had written on the subject:

http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a/2005/08/17/are_judge_roberts_views_ra
dical

. . . unless you really want to defend the principle that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- or, even, on federalist grounds, that Congress doesn't have the ability to intervene and solve problems in their communities like guns in schools.

While it is always fun to watch the snarkiness of Parliament, the British system is superior in some ways.

Since they have essential control over their entire government, the government has to perform.  They can't blame the opposition for holding anything up, they have to take full credit or blame for any and every decision and the voters can choose to maintain the majority in power or kick them out.

In our system with the Senate having their antiquated rules and the b.s. collegiality, things get stymied too easily and the majority can never really govern as effectively or expansively as it wants.

Where exactly is the 'right to privacy' in the Constitution?  Or the bill of rights?  Nothing comes up in the word search.  

Judge made law is not automatically in the constitution, despite what Kennedy-Schumer-Leahy-Specter may think.  It may be legal, it may be 'constitutional' insofar as the judges have determined it tso to be, but it is not 'in the Constitution'

As for the superiority of the argument of whether Congress should be the national nanny or States should have some control themselves, we are certainly a sclerotic nation but most folks would ultimately want control at their state level, given enough examples.

You cherry pick the infamous 'guns in schools' case which was overturned because there was no direct connection between k-12 education and interstate commerce.  Those states that want to pass a gun free school law within the confines of their state and their own constitutional order are certainly free to do so.

But would you be pleased on Congress tried to use that same nebulous authority to allow concealed-carry at the national level?  Many states have laws that allow that, and you could probably scrape together a majority in both chambers to support a national bill (depends on the day).  Would you agree that it is automatically a good thing because Congress decreed it to be so?

Go ahead and start having Republican leaders tell people that there's no right to privacy in the Constitution; see how well that works.  There is a reason why the President and others always phrase the argument in terms of method ("strictly interpret the Constitution", "not legislate from the bench") and not in terms of the resultant judicial outcomes.

Americans overwhelmingly believe there is a right to privacy; the question is just as to the contours of that right.

Both sides are definitely hypocrites on all of these major issues.

Democrats want expansive government intrusion in every aspect of our lives through tax policy, welfare policy, health care policy, etc.  But god forbid we let government intrude on reproductive policy or end-of-life issues.

Republicans want the government to leave everyone alone and stay out of their businesses, their private organizations, their hiring practices.  But they also want to define marriage, prohibit sexual activity between consenting adults, and regulate drug use.

(Obviously I'm dealing in extreme examples.)

The only consistency is the inconsistency.

But semantically the 'right to privacy' argument is not much of a winner for Dems.  Reps have been very successful in ensuring that the country automatically equates 'right to privacy' with 'abortion on demand' and a vast preponderance of the country isn't there.

I will never understand why the Dems (and here I'm talking the leadership and the fringe, not the run-of-the-mill Dem voter) can't accept, even rhetorically, the concept of limiting abortions.  Why are parental notification laws bad?  Why are 24-48 hr waiting periods bad?  Why are laws prohibiting transportation across state lines bad?  Why can't society limit the partial birth abortion  procedure strictly to the physical health of the mother?

(And please, please, don't tell me St. Hillary agrees with those positions.  Until she votes for Bush's judges consistently, agrees to appoint judges that would hold those same positions, or votes the right way on bills, I ain't buying the garbage she's tryign to sell.)

At the same time, I don't understand why the Reps can't allow States to establish civil unions.  I agree that marriage has a special place in law and religion and as a Catholic its offensive to me to have folks try and tell me that my 2000 year old religion is wrong.  But administratively, why not civil unions?  If those folks want to commit to each other, buy a house, visit each other in the hospital, whatever, I don't care.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Anyway, I'm off topic.  But so long as 'privacy' still equates to 'abortion on demand' the reps win, Dems lose, and thank goodness.

at least not according to the Framers.

According to them, we were endowed with certain inalienable rights by OUR CREATOR (not a constitution, or a government).  In other words, unless the Constitution says it can, the government may not infringe upon ANY of those rights inherent to us as people.  As a conservative/libertarian, I hold this particular principle to be of the highest priority, and believe the Framers did, as well.

You are correct, the word "privacy" is not in the Constitution.  However, that DOES NOT mean that we do not have a right to it, or that that Constitution does not protect it.  

For one thing, the Framers went to some lengths to protect privacy in one's property - proscribing unreasonable search and seizure, forbidding the quartering of military personnel in homes, etc.  

For another, the fact that this discussion is being engaged in confirms the fears of those among the Framers who objected to the very idea of a Bill of Rights.  They weren't afraid to write a Bill of Rights because it would give too much freedom - they were afraid that some idiot (or tyrant) would construe the omission of certain rights from such a bill as evidence that said rights do not exist!  

'Sound familiar?

The fact that "things get stymied too easily and the majority can never really govern as effectively or expansively as it wants" is, I believe, exactly what the Framers intended.  While they wanted to have aspects of democracy in our system of government, they (correctly, in my estimation) did not trust the masses to run things in a prudent or measured fashion.  Therefore, they created a system that deliberately slowed the ability of the federal government down, to limit is expansiveness.

The Framers firm understanding of human nature has since been confirmed: the federal government has spent every moment, since the Constitution was ratified, trying to overcome its Constitutional  limitations.  That is the nature of beaurocracy and the corrupting influence of power.  

All I meant was American democracy is broken,and as an alternative we could try the parlimentry system.Not that it would happen.I am just tired of the perpetual election cycles,Both sides treating the other as the enemy.And the never ending blame game.

Amendment I: effectively establishes religion as a private, individual matter.

Amendment II: If the NRA thinks waiting lists and registrations are unconstitutional, it is because they violate a right to privacy.

Amendment III: Establishes a private property right.

Amendment IV: Protects against search and seizure. Doesn't that imply a right to privacy?

Amendment IX: Says that just because a right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

She had her "precious" (co)presidency, it permanently warped her, and she'll do anything to get it back.

presumably, by recommending the Parliamentary System, as opposed to Military Dictatorship, or Theocracy a la Iran, or Cult of Personality a la North Korea, you believe at some level that parliamentary systems are better than our "broken" system of American democracy.

I'd just like to know why you think so.  What parliamentary system has proven more effective -- by any measure one might commonly measure a government by -- than our broken American system?  Let's try a few measuring sticks:

Personal Liberty

Protection of Minority Rights

Economic Well-Being

Security

Law and Order

Whatever else you'd like to use.

-TS