RIP Scalia

Quote: beachbumbabs

Maybe it's different personalities, but I would say it's harder to be moderate than either, and easiest to be conservative. Conservatives are status quo, don't change anything people, no thought required, just say No. Moderates weigh the merits of the particular idea more, and go on that, whichever way seems best. Liberals want to change everything.

So you are saying conservative means you are in favor of keeping abortion law as it is? Were against welfare reform?

Sorry, your definition is incorrect.

Best way I ever saw it put it that liberals are for equality in outcome an if the outcome differs then government should work to equalize it. Everyone should live as equal as possible. Conservatives are for equality of opportunity, but the outcomes will differ and it is not for government to change that.

So back to my point, liberals will say every job should pay a "living wage." This is an easy position to have, who does not want people to make a living wage. Conservatives will say, "not every job is supposed to pay a living wage." Now, this on the surface sounds mean, who thinks someone should work and still "be in poverty." But the conservative understands not all people are working for a living wage. Some are moonlighting. Some are new workers with few skills. There need to be jobs that do not pay well so you can get the skills to get the job that pays better later.

Moderates tend to weigh little and just go with whoever sounds better at the time. Most I have met do not know the issues and know how "American Idol" works better than how a bill becomes a law.

Quote: rxwine

It's a lifetime appointment; they don't have pressure.

Obviously, critical thinking just leads to more liberal views.

So there.

Not really, see above. You will have to provide a better answer for why liberal views require more critical thinking than saying "so there." I find it the opposite.

Liberals never seem to examine the dynamic effects of a thing. For example, they assume if you raise taxes that people will work the same amount as before and not decide it is not worth the effort at some point and take time off. Conservatives give better examples than "so there." (see previous two sentences for example.)

Quote: AZDuffman

So back to my point, liberals will say every job should pay a "living wage." This is an easy position to have, who does not want people to make a living wage. Conservatives will say, "not every job is supposed to pay a living wage."

I remember the stories coming out of
the Soviet Union in 50's-80's. There
was zero unemployment, you were
guaranteed a job. Pay was equal and
very low because the gov't paid for
healthcare, college, it was almost
a nanny state. A typical day in a
factory had a high rate of people not
showing up, they can't be fired so
why go in. Machinery was always
breaking down. Some people were
literally asleep at their work station.
And on any given day, 40% of the people
who were there were legally drunk.

It was a depressed and depressing country.
No incentive to do better, no place
to go if you did do better.

Wasn't your response that the Supreme Court becomes more liberal because it's hard to make the hard decisions?

And I pointed out in a counterargument , that they have lifetime appointments. EXPLAIN where the pressure is to not do what they want, they can become even more conservative if they wanted. If the chart is correct, that's not the trend.

If you give me a lifetime appointment, I can make my decisions any way I want -- as long it's not breaking some rule of law.

And if you want to know where the critical thinking comes in -- heck, that's what they do all day there examining arguments of law and interpreting the Constitution in some manner that can be put into an argument of support for or against.

Quote: rxwine

Wasn't your response that the Supreme Court becomes more liberal because it's hard to make the hard decisions?

And I pointed out in a counterargument , that they have lifetime appointments. EXPLAIN where the pressure is to not do what they want, they can become even more conservative if they wanted. If the chart is correct, that's not the trend.

No, my response is that it is easy to be a liberal because you just have to be in favor of whatever is popular. The lifetime appointment has zero to do with it. Most people want to be liked. One way to be liked is to say "yes" to requests. Another is to go with popular opinion. Remember the cries of the GOP being "the party of 'no'?" Conservatism means you have to say "no" very often.

The big split lately is on how the Constitution is supposed to be read. Liberals somewhere came up with the fuzzy feeling idea that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document." Conservatives correctly understand this is not true, the Constitution is a contract. Contracts do not change over the years because meanings of words change, the intent is the intent. An example is the First Amendment. "Establishment of a religion" was about a state church like the Church of England, it was not about banning religious groups their same right to use property their taxes paid for. But it is being used for just that.

"The pressure" as you put it is to go with what is popular. To be liked. To not be accused of "being on the wrong side of history." Lifetime appointment has nothing to do with any of that.

Quote: rxwine

And if you want to know where the critical thinking comes in -- heck, that's what they do all day there examining arguments of law and interpreting the Constitution in some manner that can be put into an argument of support for or against.

This does not answer why you think the more you use critical thinking the more liberal your views will be. I would like to hear why this is as I rarely if ever hear liberals use critical thinking to defend their views.

Quote: rxwine

Obviously, critical thinking just leads to more liberal views.
So there.

President George W. Bush declared that his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, was “not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today” . Most people believe that supreme court justices do not drift from their core beliefs.

David Souter showed one of the more extreme ideological drifts. Appointed by President H. Bush in 1991, at the age of 51, he voted conservatively for only a few years. He deliberately waited until President GW Bush left office in 2008 so that he could retire when President Obama took office, he was considered one of the more liberal judges.

Since Souter never married, naturally some people assumed that his judicial changes had a lot to do with his growing personal acceptance of his own homosexuality. Of course this idea is pure speculation, because Souter has never made any public statements about his sexual orientation, even though he left the Supreme Court over five years ago.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, my response is that it is easy to be a liberal because you just have to be in favor of whatever is popular. The lifetime appointment has zero to do with it. Most people want to be liked. One way to be liked is to say "yes" to requests. Another is to go with popular opinion. Remember the cries of the GOP being "the party of 'no'?" Conservatism means you have to say "no" very often.

That is a bogus description of liberal. Women rights, gays, minority rights, were all very unpopular stances among the majority at one time. All kinds of law restrictions end up not being very popular too, else we could get more of them passed. Anti-gun laws are a constant battle.

"Lifetime appointment has zero to do with it" defies reason.

So, let's say conservative justices want to secure popularity like you said? With whom? We liberals aren't going to do it. None become liberal icons, just apparently flawed at first. So that leaves the conservatives. They will admire him for moving left? Also not a logical reason. So, wherefore is the logic and reason for doing it?

Either that or the SCOTUS judges are stupid. I don't think they're stupid, so that's not it.

Obviously there could be other reasons -- more than one.

Quote: rxwine

That is a bogus description of liberal. Women rights, gays, minority rights, were all very unpopular stances among the majority at one time. All kinds of law restrictions end up not being very popular too, else we could get more of them passed. Anti-gun laws are a constant battle.

It is a fairly accurate description of a liberal.

Lets take the current bogus idea that men are still paid more than women. Liberals hear the numbers and say we need to "fix" it. Calls for "comparable worth" pay laws and other measures. It is easy to get behind such an idea because well fair is fair, right?

Conservatives, OTOH, are against this kind of laws. They use critical thinking and realize reasons for the gap. Women work fewer hours; they take jobs that pay less by choice; and a subset of the first reason, they take years off to have kids.

When this is all pointed out who do you think seems less popular?

A statistical model was used it to analyze multiple variables in whether a Supreme court nomination will fail.

(1) When the opposite party controls the Senate, a president’s Supreme Court nominee is 6.5 times more likely to fail.
(2) When it’s the fourth year of a president’s term, his or her nominee is 10 times more likely to fail.
(3) And when the nomination is “critical” (likely to be a big factor in influencing outcomes) the odds of failure go up by a factor of 12.

This nomination is the first in history to ring all three bells.

All in all, more than 150 people have been nominated to the court since 1789 compared to the 112 judges that have served.

Quote: Pacomartin

A statistical model was used it to analyze multiple variables in whether a Supreme court nomination will fail.

Obama gets to stay in the White House until Jan 2017. I don't think the country will stand for a vacancy in the Court for 10+ months. The country also won't stand for Obama nominating himself late in his term, either.

Perhaps he should nominate Donald Trump. Wouldn't that be a hoot?