AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

That's cool. But it would give you the information that you said you lack if you should ever want that.

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No matter how you slice the apple, however, the point remains. You cannot administer justice if you favor one group over another as being more deserving of justice. There is no room for empathy when deciding judicial matters justly but the law itself must be the basis for judicial decisions.

You are creating self-defeating sentences here. What does 'more deserving of justice' mean? I don't think anyone argues that certain groups are more deserving of justice than others; we just disagree what 'justice' means. Many from my political stripe believe that justice means stopping preferential treatment of the white, the rich, and corporations in America. I doubt you agree with this.

Quote:

If judges begin deciding what is and is not the law, we move from a representative republic to a totalitarian state.

Judges have always participated in this, and you are Appealing to Extremes here. Judges have been ruling on the Constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures for well over two centuries, and we have not moved one iota closer to a totalitarian state.

Quote:

The judge should not be able to trump or override the one elected to represent us and whose decisions are subject to the criticism of the public that will be expressed in the next election.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the Judicial branch is a coequal branch of our government? It would appear that you do not, and instead believe that they exist to carry out the will of the Legislative branch using the power of Law, regardless of the merits of the decision of the Leg. branch.

Let us say that the Dem-controlled Congress had in fact pushed through the Bills of Attainder, to tax at 90% those who received bonuses as part of their contracts at these financial industries. Are you honestly telling me that you don't want the Judicial branch to be able to determine whether or not something like this is Constitutional, or on a more basic level, fair or correct?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

That's cool. But it would give you the information that you said you lack if you should ever want that.

In that case, I recommend that you start reading much more work by Glenn Greenwald and Media Matters. You will find a wealth of information in both of these places, well sourced, that would disprove many of the arguments that you and other Conservatives like to forward.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No matter how you slice the apple, however, the point remains. You cannot administer justice if you favor one group over another as being more deserving of justice. There is no room for empathy when deciding judicial matters justly but the law itself must be the basis for judicial decisions.

Well, it's one thing to say that when you administer justice, you shall treat a rich person and a poor person alike and an entirely different thing to say that, because everybody should be equal before the law, there's also no room for a social safety net or a welfare system that treats people different depending on whether they are rich or poor.

I would say that this statement here

Foxfyre wrote:

He is just saying that justice will not be done if it is government that provides that safety net in any manner that favors one group or person over another.

has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:15 and is in direct contradiction with other parts of Leviticus.

EDIT: None of which matters really, because I don't think we should base our policy on Leviticus in the first place.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

EDIT: None of which matters really, because I don't think we should base our policy on Leviticus in the first place.

Hear hear; and in fact, the farther away our policies are from Leviticus or any non-rational source of argumentation, the better!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

In order for justice to be done, the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who is accused of murder must have the determination of his guilt or innocence adjudicated no differently than would a Ghandi or Mother Theresa accused of the same crime. That the judge loathes and despises the Klan and/or intensely admires the others should have no bearing on how the case is heard or judged.

The rich man who has done contemptible things should be not be assessed a different fine for a different crime than would be a poor and desperate offender who commits that same different crime or vice versa.

For the President to think that a judge should have special empathy for certain groups suggests that such empathy would affect a judge's judgments. And, according to Medved, as well as many others, that would result in injustice being done.

If you will re-read what I said, judges should judge the constitutionality of laws that are passed, but they should do so based on the spirit and intent of the Constitution rather than on what the judge thinks the Constitution should say. How is that appealing to extremes?

The Supreme Court is not a coequal branch of government. It has neither the authority of a President to command the armed forces, direct agencies of government, propose a federal budget, give executive orders, or veto legislation; nor does it have the authority of Congress for oversight of various government agencies or the ability to pass the law of the land. Each division of government has its own Constitutional authority and responsibilities that is not shared by the other two divisions of government.

When the Court assumes the Constitutional ressponsibilities of either of the other two branches of government, it oversteps its authority in a way that is not easily corrected and is dangerous to the whole. No President should appoint a Supreme Court justice who does not understand that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

There is no room for empathy when deciding judicial matters justly but the law itself must be the basis for judicial decisions.

Indeed. Which is why the SC ought to be replaced by a sophisticated and powerful computer programmed with prior law.

It is also a good model for a supreme being who has laid down various laws. Once they are laid down, there is no further place or role for empathy.

You and your version of christianity are inside-out, fox. Your politics have turned your faith into something unrecognizable. And you aren't alone as we know from the polling on approval for torture.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I will admit that statistics would suggest that the poverty rate is lower now than its statistical high. I will stipulate however, that the definition of poverty and the threshholds determining it have changed several times over the years and I am fairly certain those hanges are not reflected in the same statistics.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/papers/orshansky.html#C2
What particular changes do you think are not reflected in the statistics?

Quote:

Now, can you show from any authoritative source that whatever poverty was reduced was reduced due to government initiatives rather than from any other factors?

I take it you won't accept the Census Bureau as an authority but Thomas Sowell is?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

How do you reconcile your statements with your belief that waterboarding is not torture when the laws of the land and international laws says it's torture? Irony of ironies, but you'll miss that simple point.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No matter how you slice the apple, however, the point remains. You cannot administer justice if you favor one group over another as being more deserving of justice. There is no room for empathy when deciding judicial matters justly but the law itself must be the basis for judicial decisions.

Well, it's one thing to say that when you administer justice, you shall treat a rich person and a poor person alike and an entirely different thing to say that, because everybody should be equal before the law, there's also no room for a social safety net or a welfare system that treats people different depending on whether they are rich or poor.

I would say that this statement here

Foxfyre wrote:
He is just saying that justice will not be done if it is government that provides that safety net in any manner that favors one group or person over another.

has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:15 and is in direct contradiction with other parts of Leviticus.

EDIT: None of which matters really, because I don't think we should base our policy on Leviticus in the first place.

Then its a good thing that neither Medved nor anybody else is basing policy on Leviticus isn't it.

But perhaps you are now ready to avoid the same question that keeps cropping up on this issue.

How is it moral for the government to require Citizen A who did everything necessary to enable himself to acquire prosperity ethically and legally to then
support Citizen B who didn't? On what principle of justice do you take property from one person who legally and ethically acquired it and give it to another person? And how do you do that without favoring Citizen B and opening the door for continued favoritism to continue to favor and win votes from Citizen B? And what incentive is there for government to then seriously encourage Citizen B to prosper and become more like Citizen A?

1 Reply

Let us all speak frankly.

Republicans are ready to hate whoever Obama appoints. They are practicing hating them now even before they are selected. The GOP is already attacking the judgment of people unnamed.

Cowardly.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Then its a good thing that neither Medved nor anybody else is basing policy on Leviticus isn't it.

You know, when he says

Michael Medved wrote:

Does this mean that a system of progressive taxation constitutes the blurring of justice and charity that the Bible decries? The answer is almost certainly yes, and helps explain why so many conservatives yearn for a system of flat taxes or consumption taxes to replace the current nightmare of the IRS.

it almost sounds like he is actually basing his policy on Leviticus.

EDIT: Oh, wait. What's written in the bible only "helps explain" why conservatives want a flat tax system. That's totally different from basing your policy on the bible.

2 Replies

@old europe,

No. It only emphasizes how those who wave the Bible as evidence that the government is supposed to dispense charity are missing the point.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No. It only emphasizes how those who wave the Bible as evidence that the government is supposed to dispense charity are missing the point.

Why? Do conservatives have a monopoly on bible interpretation?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Nope. But Medved is probably more conservative than you are, and he is doing a better job of interpretation than you are for whatever that might mean.

Did you decide to again avoid the question I asked?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Foxfyre wrote:

Then its a good thing that neither Medved nor anybody else is basing policy on Leviticus isn't it.

Quote:

Obama Should Listen to Leviticus: Don't Confuse Justice and Charity
by Michael Medved

You introduce Leviticus into the discussion specifically by posting the article of this man's opinion that Obama should take a lesson from this book and then you say that he isn't basing policy on this book?

Let me get this right: He thinks that this isn't good policy to base his ideas on Leviticus, but wants Obama to take a page from the book?

Let's be clear: You are wrong (again) in asserting (as only you can do so shamelessly) that Medved "is [not] basing policy on Leviticus" but you posted a article (by said man) whose premise is that Obama should do just that.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@old europe,

Also: no government and no law other than God's law existed in the times of Leviticus. What he wrote was the law, straight from God's mouth. When God mandated to give to the poor, that was not some vague hint that, you know, you might want to consider to maybe give something to charity. Privately. Nope. It was the law to give to the poor, at the expense of those who had more.

Leviticus 19,9-10: Redistribution of wealth, mandated by the law.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

You avoid all rational discussion about precedence. Instead, you stubbornly assert your unsupportable position that repeatedly suffocating a person to near death through the use of water torture is not torture.

You have avoided just every point I've brought up. With your ducking and dodging of all the points I've raised, you are truly wasting my time here, Deb.

Where is your Vietnam soldier link, or was that just another 'fact' you made up?

Or are you simply going to copy and paste more leftist drivel? Not 'dribble' as you indicated before; you dribble a basketball or the spit down your chin, Deb.

Should I once again list all the questions I've raised , so you can once again go into avoidance mode?

Hey, looks like the Obama admin and AG Eric Holder agree with me that waterboarding is not torture.

How about that?

Let's review:

Deb: Water torture is torture. Substantial controlling and persuasive precedence exists to establish that fact.

A Lone Voice: I have an irrelevant stick, therefore your argument is silly.

Deb: The stick you're talking about has nothing to do with torture. It is unlawful for both civil and military authorities to torture detainees.

A Lone Voice: You are avoiding my irrelevant stick argument.

Deb: If you have a valid argument, please make it.

A Lone Voice: You call yourself a lawyer? You ought to be ashamed.

Deb:: You have nothing substantive to offer this discussion. Your attacks on my character do not bolster your irrelevant stick argument one iota.

A Lone Voice: Until "everyone" agrees with you, I win.

Deb: Please support your argument that "everyone" must agree that water torture is torture before water torture may be prohibited as torture. Please provide examples how your argument applies in other situations.

A Lone Voice: I'm going to evade your rational arguments and questions by attacking your character and accusing you of evading my questions. And, I'm going to lie and claim that Obama and Holder agree with me that waterboarding is not torture.

Hey, maybe you should be a screenwriter, Deb. You do pretty well at fictional dialogue.

Remember that false Vietnam solder/waterboarding info you posted? I'm still waiting for you to prove the soldier was prosecuted for waterboarding only. You know, like I asked you to do with the Japanese soldiers?

Like I did with all of the other points I made refuting your nonsense?

Interesting that the Obama admin is not going to prosecute. I guess they recognize a loser case when they see one, huh, Deb?

How about coming up with a few responses to the questions I posed rather than posting 'dribble'? Laughing

Others here have done pretty well here in presenting their opinions in a logical manner. I don't agree with them, but I respect their thought process.

You, on the other hand, are truly wasting my time here with your leftist rants.

Instead of posting nonsense from left-wing professors, how about a few of your own thoughts?

Simply because you find an extremist postion on the internet that you agree with doesn't make it necessarliy right; you truly need to evolve away from the emotional, irrational left-wing echo chamber you live in, Deb. Expand your horizons. Read a book.

If you are not going to respond to my numerous requests to address my points, I am going to activate the ignore button.

I'm much too busy, working and such, to spend anymore time with you if you are not going to respond in a logical manner.

Interesting that you are able to spend so much time on this board, being a working attorney and all...

So anyway, last chance. Address the points and issues I raised, or I'm going to move on...

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

[Medved] is doing a better job of interpretation than you are for whatever that might mean.

What measure do you evaluate biblical interpretations against each other? How do you claim that Medved is doing a better job than anyone else, specifically those who might disagree with him?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
[Medved] is doing a better job of interpretation than you are for whatever that might mean.

What measure do you evaluate biblical interpretations against each other? How do you claim that Medved is doing a better job than anyone else, specifically those who might disagree with him?

T
K
O

Easy. The yardstick here is: how much do I agree with a particular interpretation of the bible.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know