@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:
Foxfyre asked
Quote::"Sonia Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?"
Good question but, given political realities I feel it is moot (This in no way argues against the helpful discussion that the question legitimately frames). Yes, those conservatives that point to this statement have a legitimate reason for pique. But, she will be confirmed. She replaces a liberal member of the court so the balance on the court will not be terribly altered by her confirmation. With that in mind, MACs in the Senate should not only not waste their time on this nomination, but keep their powder dry for fights that might actually change Americans' thoughts on the wisdom of the present Admin.
Charles Krauthammer has it right "Rebut but Confirm". He explains by answering another good question:
Quote:"What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy. "
You and I (and Krauthammer) are on the same page here. Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Republicans should absolutely air her judicial record and how her peers have judged it. She will get both props and some valid criticisms there, but the important thing is that her judicial temperament and philosophy be fully aired, politely, civilly without ad hominem or non-essential factors thrown in, so that the American people know what they are getting. These are lifetime appointments and should never be made casually or without careful consideration. But she will be confirmed and the GOP gains nothing by unnecessarily expending political capital in trying to prevent that. I would rather see the 'conservatives' demonstrate how a Supreme Court nomination hearing should be conducted. We haven't seen that since before Clarence Thomas.
What I was going for with my question re Sotomayor's controversial remark--you know the one that the Left--DTOM a notable exception--have mostly carefully avoided here--is that the remark does not disqualify her. It is her opinion and probably is imbedded in her philosophy of life as are many other equally controversial content of some of her writings and commentary. It is no more damning than should be somebody saying "Old white guys might make better supreme court decisions than a radical Latina woman with an agenda." But the point is whether her agenda will be reflected in her judicial decisions. If it will not--if she bases her judicial decisions strictly on the letter of the law--then what she says or writes or believes in her personal life have no bearing whatsoever.
As I previously posted in Walter Williams' comments, we don't want empathetic referees at sporting events. We want referees who respect and enforce the rules equally for both sides. If they do that, it doesn't matter which team they personally want to win. So also should it be with Supreme Court justices.
Quote:Fox, if I may further disrupt your question to liberals: I continually see those on this thread disagreeing with MAC principles misunderstanding that MACs or Classical Liberals, as you have defined, can be equated with any particular politician who is a registered member of the Republican Party. This then, they feel, allows them to argue against MAC principles because this particular Republican, like Arlen Specter, Tom Delay, or whoever is not following MAC principles and, therefore, those principles are negated. Nothing can be further from the truth. I would ask Foxfyre to repost that definition but most on this thread have (or had the opportunity to) read it numerous times and that request would be superfluous. Simply put, if the Republican politician’s actions don’t agree with MAC principles the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached is that MAC principles weren’t followed by that politician, period
.
You are invited to interrupt as much as you wish to do so James. The topic is certainly wide and broad enough to include a lot of ideas, concepts, and principles within it, and I hope we will continue to talk about them.
I think the phenomenon you describe is because so many non-MACs give no indication that they understand MAC principles or concepts. Or maybe they do understand them and can come up with no credible way to attack or discredit them other than rewriting them or building a straw man of some Republican as evidence MAC is a bad thing. I can't be sure, but my suspicion is that they are terrified to concede that MAC is something different the dictionary definition of 'conservative' or something different from 'Republican'. It's just like the minor skirmish I had with Thomas this week re "welfare' being something quite different than the Founders' intent re the 'general welfare'. Unless the definition of the 'general welfare' is reframed, it becomes much more difficult to justify 'welfare' as a prerogative of the Federal government.
Quote:I find as I mosey on towards old age that the theory of MAC principles espoused by the founders is not unlike the theory of evolution: with time its truth becomes ever more obvious, the evidence mounts increasingly, and for those with open minds, ever more relative and important to the American way of life. Perhaps MAC principles are too harsh, too reminiscent of how hard life can actually be. Scratching out an existence can be, well, existentialistic. Just ask all those people in foreign countries that would give much (and have) to come here...just for the opportunity to do better for themselves and their kin. We are blessed, perhaps by God, but, I think even the founding fathers would assign much credit to their concept of meritocracy combined with democracy tempered with a law of the land that demands equality with a pinch of empathy.
JM
Yes. On the 'empathy' part, I think MACs were 100% in favor of Affirmative Action immediately after segregation was ended. It was necessary to break down the cultural barriers that did unfairly and unethically deprive opportunity to certain minorities. But, once most barriers came down, once it was obvious that the American psyche no longer culturally separated black and white as it once did, MACs saw that Affirmative Action became a destructive thing that not only gave some a sense of entitlement but robbed the very people it was intended to help of the dignity and recognition of honest acheivement they deserved. And it became a tool to foster, nurture, and stimulate opportunistic patronage and racism.
So I think ethics and justice are MAC concepts more than 'empathy' or even 'compassion' here. Policy based on empathy or compassion has too much potential for corruption and/or unintended negative consequences. Policy based on protecting the unalienable rights of the people will rarely be found in a negative light.