The incoming generation

[Nym90]

Conservative, obviously. After growing up in the current ultra-left-wing gay era, they will rebel against liberal judges and recoil in disgust. Especially when they find out they can't keep a decent percentage of their pay check, smoke cigarettes without being taxed to hell, or start a business without obsessive government regulation.

Yes, this era is so ultra-left wing. The liberals clearly have such dominance over government. They control the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, though, I just can't understand conservatives complaining over liberal dominance of the country. That would have been like liberals complaining in 1968 about conservative dominance of America. The bottom line is that the Republican party pretty much controls America, so if someone thinks the country is too liberal, you'd best blame the GOP. At some point the Republicans have to realize that they run the country, and can't keep blaming everything on the Democrats.

As for the question itself, it's hard to say. I think that young people are quite a bit more socially liberal than previous generations, though economically they might be slightly more conservative. It remains to be seen if this will hold up.

[Nym90]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

Well, then, like I said, blame the Republicans for having nominated 7 of those 9 justices.

[Nym90]

You realize you're backing up my point, right?

Yes, Congress does have a role to play, that's very true.

They have generally only shot down the most extreme nominees, however, and this is true of both parties. Both sides have done it, and neither has really abused the power in my opinion. I think it's good that Congress has the power of judicial review; the President shouldn't have dictatorial power to make appointments. The more checks and balances within the system, the better, generally speaking.

I know it's not easy to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, disagree with your view on judicial appointments.

[Nym90]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

I would definitely agree that the courts have gone too far in many cases, yes. I would favor reducing the power of unelected officials and putting more into the hands of directly elected ones, if possible without upsetting the balance of checks and balances that is in place. I'm not sure that can be easily done, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

[Nym90]

Well, to some extent this is true. If you look over the long arc of history, the world has gotten more liberal over time, both socially and economically. Now, over the last 30 years the country has gotten more economically conservative, but we still are a lot more economically liberal today than we were in the 1920's, and there doesn't seem to be much chance that the entirety of the New Deal will be repealed, nor do most Republicans even want it to be.

Things that are taken for granted today, and that even most ardent conservatives would not support repealing, like the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, paid vacation time, safety and health regulations for consumer products, child labor laws, CAFE standards, etc. were all, at the time, advocated by economic liberals and opposed by economic conservatives. Likewise, ideas such as equal rights for women and blacks, even at the basest level, were at the time advocated by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives. Of course, if you go back to thousands of years ago, there was a much, much larger gap between rich and poor than is true today; Opebo would have been spot on in many of his theories if he lived 100 years ago, and 1900 was extremely economically liberal compared to 1000 or 1200 or 1500 or 1700. And of course, socially, those who differ from what is considered "normal" used to have little to no rights at all.

Now, I don't believe this will continue in perpetuity, nor should it; I think that it's an exponential function, that will eventually slow down and for all practical purposes stop, once we achieve an ideal balance. Of course, unfortunately the balance has to be achieved in the average, as when things swing too far in one direction, they tend to swing too far in the opposite direction in response, and the cycle tends to repeat itself. Those in power get arrogant and overreach, and those out of power wise up and moderate, and eventually control of government changes hands.

So yes, over the long run, conservatives have been on the defensive, though in the short term, liberal frustration with an insufficient rate of progress has caused a backlash which can help conservatives when liberals go too far.

So yes, both parties have tended to move left over time. And it could be argued from a conservative perspective that change has tended to happen too fast, and the pace of it should be slowed. That's definitely an argument that has merit.

But, my point was that the Republicans are, at the moment, in total control. So it's basically put up or shut up time; conservatives can't keep complaining about things anymore. They have to face the facts that if they can't undo liberal changes in the current climate, then maybe these liberal things aren't as extreme as they thought.

As just one example, take Roe v. Wade. If a Supreme Court with 7 Republican appointees on it refuses to overturn this decision, then it seems kind of silly,, from a completely neutral perspective, to say that it was an extremist decision; you are obviously in the minority and a bit of an extremist if you are arguing that the current Supreme Court, with mostly Republican appointed justices, is way too liberal.

[Nym90]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

[Nym90]

Well, to some extent this is true. If you look over the long arc of history, the world has gotten more liberal over time, both socially and economically. Now, over the last 30 years the country has gotten more economically conservative, but we still are a lot more economically liberal today than we were in the 1920's, and there doesn't seem to be much chance that the entirety of the New Deal will be repealed, nor do most Republicans even want it to be.

Things that are taken for granted today, and that even most ardent conservatives would not support repealing, like the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, paid vacation time, safety and health regulations for consumer products, child labor laws, CAFE standards, etc. were all, at the time, advocated by economic liberals and opposed by economic conservatives. Likewise, ideas such as equal rights for women and blacks, even at the basest level, were at the time advocated by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives. Of course, if you go back to thousands of years ago, there was a much, much larger gap between rich and poor than is true today; Opebo would have been spot on in many of his theories if he lived 100 years ago, and 1900 was extremely economically liberal compared to 1000 or 1200 or 1500 or 1700. And of course, socially, those who differ from what is considered "normal" used to have little to no rights at all.

Now, I don't believe this will continue in perpetuity, nor should it; I think that it's an exponential function, that will eventually slow down and for all practical purposes stop, once we achieve an ideal balance. Of course, unfortunately the balance has to be achieved in the average, as when things swing too far in one direction, they tend to swing too far in the opposite direction in response, and the cycle tends to repeat itself. Those in power get arrogant and overreach, and those out of power wise up and moderate, and eventually control of government changes hands.

So yes, over the long run, conservatives have been on the defensive, though in the short term, liberal frustration with an insufficient rate of progress has caused a backlash which can help conservatives when liberals go too far.

So yes, both parties have tended to move left over time. And it could be argued from a conservative perspective that change has tended to happen too fast, and the pace of it should be slowed. That's definitely an argument that has merit.

But, my point was that the Republicans are, at the moment, in total control. So it's basically put up or shut up time; conservatives can't keep complaining about things anymore. They have to face the facts that if they can't undo liberal changes in the current climate, then maybe these liberal things aren't as extreme as they thought.

As just one example, take Roe v. Wade. If a Supreme Court with 7 Republican appointees on it refuses to overturn this decision, then it seems kind of silly,, from a completely neutral perspective, to say that it was an extremist decision; you are obviously in the minority and a bit of an extremist if you are arguing that the current Supreme Court, with mostly Republican appointed justices, is way too liberal.

I actually think that we're more economically conservative now than in the 1930s and 1940s, at least as far as government policies go. Back then, things like price controls were accepted, and there was much more of a sense that government could control the economy than I think there is now. Maybe liberal/conservative is not the right axis, but we seem to believe more in the free market than we did then. Can you imagine even a Democratic president today making an speech in which he excoriates Congress (as Harry Truman did) for failing to renew wartime price controls after the war, and says that price controls are the answer to inflation? The last serious presidential candidate to even mention price controls on a broad scale, as far as I can remember, was Ted Kennedy in 1980, and he was soundly defeated by the hapless and unpopular Jimmy Carter.

Social mores have shifted back and forth between liberal and conservative over the ages. I think both extremes cause damage, and when the damage becomes obvious, the pendulum shifts the other way. In that regard, homosexuality has also moved in and out of acceptance over the ages. I think it's a mistake to say that history has always moved in the "liberal" direction because that implies that liberals always equals progressive, when at times it can mean reactionary or defensive. In my mind, progress should be positive, not negative, and much of what liberals have given us is negative in my opinion.

As for Roe vs. Wade, I think this decision was an example of judicial activism at the time it was made, and the Supreme Court upheld it because they are loathe to reverse recent decisions that they have made, except in extreme cases. As I've said earlier, I don't believe judges should be making social policy, but as a person who dislikes the feminist movement, it could be said the Roe vs. Wade was a benefit in that it has forced the feminists to mortgage almost their whole movement to defending it on an ongoing basis, something that wouldn't have been necessary had the decision been made through the democratic process.

I see your point. Courts tend to like to stick up for each other; they don't like to overturn each other. Judges are kind of a clique in a way, even if they don't agree with each other. You see the same thing with cops; if you go to court to fight a traffic ticket, the judge is biased towards the cop, and the cops will often lie to back each other up. So yeah, there is some cliquishness there, but not as much as some people would have you believe.

Still, the point stands; if these "extreme liberal" decisions are wildly unpopular with the public, then it makes no sense for conservatives to fear overturning them; doing so could only be in their best interest politically, right? If they fear overturning them, does that not at least provide a tiny shred of evidence for the theory that they might not be so extreme after all? That maybe they are not overturning them in part because they fear a political backlash?

[Nym90]

I agree, courts overreaching definitely can create a backlash, even if the majority supports the decision. An angry and organized minority can be more powerful (and it can well be argued that they should be more powerful) than a contented and apathetic majority, no doubt about it.

My view is that pro-lifers often understand the risks of a backlash that you speak of, and they realize that overturning Roe v. Wade would tilt the balance of energy on the abortion debate to the pro-choice side. Politics matters just as much as principle in many of these cases; a lot of times, special interest groups want to keep an issue in the public view, rather than solve it. Of course, this happens on both sides; I'm definitely not accusing only the pro-life side of doing this. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a reality of politics.

I agree, though, that judical activism should only be used in extreme cases. The courts should act as a stopgap to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, but the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to strike down the will of the majority. The courts are a necessary check and balance against legislative and executive power run amok, but should not be legislating from the bench.

[Nym90]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

Hah! Your idiotic post is exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution dismissed it as ridiculous:

http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/federalist/default.asp

It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the history of the Constitution, and frankly, have no business talking about it.

Well, that's my view on it. It may or may not disagree with what the original framers intended, and I don't necessarily believe that their intentions can be ascertained with 100% certainty, but I don't believe in a literal translation in any event.

Interpreting a written document in a different way than the author did does not make the alternate view foolish or ridiculous. If the author wanted to remove all ambiguity, and only wanted people to view it in a rigid manner, they should have made it more clear, so as to remove all doubt from reasonable minds. They should have gone ahead and said "The federal government can do this and only this, nothing more" in the Constitution itself. The fact that the large majority of people choose not to interpret the Constitution in an extremely literal way does not prove in and of itself that this is not a foolish viewpoint, but it certainly is a strong bit of evidence.

My points still stand about the reason why the document was written in the first place, and they don't just apply to the Constitiution, they apply to all laws.

What is the purpose of the law, if not to serve the best interests of the people? That, to me, is the true issue at stake here. That is the question that moves this outside of the realm of an academic exercise and turns it into a real problem that truly affects people in a profound way everyday.

[Nym90]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

So you agree with Jefferson on this manner, and I side with Hamilton. I guess that's what it boils down to, eh?

[Nym90]

I agree, courts overreaching definitely can create a backlash, even if the majority supports the decision. An angry and organized minority can be more powerful (and it can well be argued that they should be more powerful) than a contented and apathetic majority, no doubt about it.

My view is that pro-lifers often understand the risks of a backlash that you speak of, and they realize that overturning Roe v. Wade would tilt the balance of energy on the abortion debate to the pro-choice side. Politics matters just as much as principle in many of these cases; a lot of times, special interest groups want to keep an issue in the public view, rather than solve it. Of course, this happens on both sides; I'm definitely not accusing only the pro-life side of doing this. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a reality of politics.

I agree, though, that judical activism should only be used in extreme cases. The courts should act as a stopgap to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, but the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to strike down the will of the majority. The courts are a necessary check and balance against legislative and executive power run amok, but should not be legislating from the bench.

With your last paragraph, Eric, you sound like a Republican.

I am often troubled by the fact that an angry, organized and energized minority can have more power than a happy and apathetic majority.  There are some cases where this can be good, such as when the majority favors blatant racial discrimination, or something like that.  But I don't think it can be ASSUMED that this is a good thing, as many "progressives" do. Often, a movement that starts out being something good turns bad, and it often takes a long time for the majority to recognize and react to it.

Yes, the power of the Dark Side is difficult to resist.

Otherwise, you are pretty spot on again. There should be a balance, though unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) we can't control the basis on which people vote. If people care about one issue only, and insist on voting on that issue alone, well, that's their perogative in a democracy. That's what I was mostly getting at with an angry, organized minority having great power, in that if they vote on one issue alone, they can have enormous power out of proportion to their numbers. Also, those who have money to contribute to candidates, and care passionately about an issue, obviously have a disproportionate impact. I would like to see greater public funding of campaigns to help minimize this problem, and more free airtime for candidates, but that's probably a debate for another thread.