AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is unmistakable: in constitutional cases, Judge Sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the Second Circuit. After we analyzed every constitutional case in the Second Circuit over the past decade, what was striking was the degree of unanimity and consensus on a court roughly evenly split between Democratic appointees and Republican appointees.

*

Even given the often-noted collegiality of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has been in agreement with her colleagues more often than most - 94% of her constitutional decisions have been unanimous.

*

She has voted with the majority in 98.2% of constitutional cases.

*

When she has voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time.

*

Republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional in nearly 90% of cases.

*

When she has voted to overrule a lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time.

*

Republican appointees have agreed with her decision to overrule a lower court decision in over 94% of cases.

*

She overruled lower court and agency decisions at a rate that closely conforms to the circuit overall average.

Our analysis shows that - far from casting her as an "outlier" - Judge Sotomayor's record is remarkably consistent with that of her colleagues. The analysis also refutes charges made since the day of her nomination that Judge Sotomayor is a "judicial activist." Any honest reading of the facts make it abundantly clear that Judge Sotomayor is a mainstream jurist.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor#Reversals
Reversals
The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in seven instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment Judge Sotomayor made and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in which the Second Circuit issued a reversal on its original ruling.

...

Reasons that were given prior to Sotomayor's nomination as to why she was under serious consideration included:

The fact that she is a woman of Hispanic descent is thought by some to make her an appealing choice for ethic communities and women. In a February 2009 Esquire magazine article, she was described as a one-of-a-kind nominee who "would slay two of the court's lack-of-diversity birds with one swift stone." This becomes relevant to Obama's decision-making process since a number of organizations in the Hispanic community are demanding a Hispanic Supreme Court justice partly because during the 2008 election, Barack Obama's victory was assisted by strong support from the Hispanic community.[4]

If you think I have it wrong re American definitions, then write what you think the correct definition should be and let's discuss it. So far nobody grumbling about the definitions has been willing to stick his or her neck out to offer his own definition, however, which makes me believe that the liberals remain focused on attacking people rather than ideas. And I can only conclude that the reason for this is that they are unable to defend their ideas. Attacking people is the only ammunition they have.

The issue is the propensity of pit bulls to unexpectedly visciously attack without any obvious provocation. We have shown that the instance of pit bulls doing that is statistically significantly higher than with other breeds of dogs. When even a very small number of automobiles or tires or computer laptop batteries or toaster ovens or food items malfunction creating an unacceptable danger to the users, all such items are recalled to be repaired or replaced. If the defect cannot be remedied, all such products are taken off the market.

That's what I've been saying all along; Foxie's definition makes no sense from the reality standpoint; we're all a combination of subjective choices on what the topic in question happens to be - whether conservative or liberal.

It's not even a matter of pigeon-holing individuals which is an impossible task to begin with, but Foxie's MACs do not exist in reality except in her own conscience. (Well, maybe a few others on a2k.)

A few does not a party make. Even those expressing interest in a third party are unorganized and without much influence in US politics. A "few" has none.

Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues
Thursday, July 09, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president's approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Taxes
Most voters (52%) now trust Republicans more on the issue of taxes, also the highest level found in over two years. Only 36% trust Democrats more on taxes. A survey conducted at the end of June found that 39% of voters now expect their taxes to go up under Obama, the highest level of concern measured to date.

National Security
On national security, Republicans hold a 49% to 40% lead over Democrats. That’s down from a 15-point lead last month.

For the second straight month, voters put North Korea at the top of the list of biggest threats to U.S. national security.

War in Iraq
Republicans hold a four-point lead on the issue of the War in Iraq, down from an eight-point advantage in June.

Even though American troops have now pulled out of all cities in Iraq and still are on schedule to be completely withdrawn by the end of 2011, 64% of U.S. voters do not believe the war in Iraq is over.

Immigration
The GOP has a 40% to 34% lead on the issue of immigration and is ahead 46% to 39% on abortion.

Government ethics and corruption
Republicans also edge out Democrats on government ethics and corruption for the second straight month, 34% to 33%. In June, the GOP held a six-point advantage on the issue.

Social Security
Also for the first time in over two years, Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Social Security 42% to 37%. Democrats held a six-point lead on the issue last month, and the parties were tied in April.

Health Care & Education
Democrats have also seen their leads shrink on two of the party’s strong points, health care and education. The party holds a four-point lead on health care, down from 18 points in May. The Democrats’ advantage on the issue is the smallest found in over two years.

Voters are evenly divided when it comes to the health care reform plans being promoted by the president and Democrats in Congress.

On education, Democrats lead Republicans 41% to 38%, also the smallest margin in over two years. Democrats held a 15-point lead in May on the issue.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say the average congressional Democrat is more liberal than they are, while 36% believe the average Republican congressman is more conservative in comparison to themselves. Just 44% say their own representative in Congress is about the same as them ideologically.

Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week - at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

U.S. Economy Stabilizes - Longer Term Outlook Shows Dramatic Improvement

By Paul Carton
June 22, 2009

ChangeWave's latest corporate survey shows a stabilizing of the U. S. economy, with second quarter sales experiencing the biggest improvement in more than four years.

While the survey of 2,970 corporate respondents shows current U.S. sales are still contracting, there's a dramatic lessening in the rate of decline. Coupled with broad improvements across a range of other key indicators - including capital spending, the job market and the third quarter sales pipeline - the picture points towards an end of the U.S. recession before the close of 2009.

You need to read Fox's comments on the Pit Bull thread where she is all for control of the animals, I assume by government. That seems to fly directly in her claim of what MACs are all about.
http://able2know.org/topic/114976-19#post-3703047

Quote:

The issue is the propensity of pit bulls to unexpectedly visciously attack without any obvious provocation. We have shown that the instance of pit bulls doing that is statistically significantly higher than with other breeds of dogs. When even a very small number of automobiles or tires or computer laptop batteries or toaster ovens or food items malfunction creating an unacceptable danger to the users, all such items are recalled to be repaired or replaced. If the defect cannot be remedied, all such products are taken off the market.

I wonder who she thinks forces most recalls?

I've never thought that modern American Conservatism represented stagnation but rather was the offspring of classical liberalism which Wikipedia, of which I'm usually not a fan, describes rather well as:

Quote:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.

Candy Crowley interview with George W. Bush, "Bush on Economy, Iraq, Legacy," CNN, Dec. 16, 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/16/intv.crowley.bush.long.cnn?iref=videosearch
"I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

Who said she authored 3000 decisions? Not I.

The Media and the First Amendment
The Washington Post scandal is really about double standards.

By Bert Gall and Steve Simpson

Our nation's capital is abuzz over the Washington Post's recent indiscretion. The newspaper planned to host a now-canceled salon at the home of Katharine Weymouth, the Post's publisher. For $25,000, lobbyists and corporate executives would be granted exclusive access to members of the Obama administration, Congress, and Post journalists.

Pundits have condemned the Post for acting as an influence peddler. But other news publications routinely host similar events. This shouldn't come as a shock. Media corporations have always had the privilege of influencing politics without the restrictions -- like campaign finance laws -- that other corporations face.

So while this episode has been treated as a scandal of journalistic ethics, it is really about double standards. When other business corporations attempt to influence politics -- by running political ads during elections -- editorial boards rush to condemn the corporations for "buying" elections or "unduly" influencing candidates. We should be concerned, the boards say, because those corporations have too much influence over the political debate. The public needs strict campaign finance laws to protect it from that influence.

The New York Times recently featured an editorial about the Supreme Court's current major campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2009). The editorial counseled the high court against overturning precedent, referring to Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). That case allows the government to prevent corporations from spending money on electoral advocacy. According to the Times, eliminating the government's power to ban corporate political speech "would be a disaster for democracy."

But if excessive influence is a reason to censor the speech of every other kind of corporation, then it is also a reason to censor the speech of media corporations. After all, the media spend millions of dollars each year on news stories about candidates and editorials endorsing them. This press is worth a lot. For example, the Washington Post's endorsement of Creigh Deeds is widely credited as the biggest factor in his rise from obscurity to victory in Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial primary this year.

So where are the editorials calling for limits on the amounts of "money" -- in the form of coverage and editorials -- media companies devote to candidates?

Of course, you'll hear no such thing from the nation's newspapers and media outlets. Media companies are exempt from campaign finance laws. Many in the press think that the First Amendment entitles them to special protections that don't apply to anyone else.

This is wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the media's right to free speech is no greater than anyone else's. And in Austin and other campaign finance cases, the Supreme Court noted that the media's exemption from campaign finance laws was discretionary, not mandatory.

In short, the press's favored status is only as strong as Congress says it is, at least under current First Amendment jurisprudence. If, in the wake of the Post scandal, the public begins to believe that media companies are as corrupt as the press claims other corporations are, Congress's view on the matter could change. Alternatively, Congress may come up with some other reason to start limiting the freedom of the press. Congress is currently considering a bill that would throw struggling newspapers an economic lifeline by allowing them to operate as nonprofits -- thereby making their advertising and subscription revenue tax-exempt. The catch? Newspapers that take the deal would no longer be able to endorse political candidates.

This precarious position -- free speech at Congress's discretion -- is not exactly a recipe for a strong and independent press. It's tempting to think that media companies that have called for limits on everyone else's speech will ultimately get what they deserve when Congress gets around to censoring theirs. But that would be a mistake.

The press remains one of the most important bulwarks against tyranny. The solution is to protect free speech on principle, regardless of the identity of the speaker. Banning a corporation from spending its own money for political advocacy is censorship, plain and simple. The sooner the press understands this, the safer its rights -- and ours -- will be.

Messrs. Gall and Simpson are senior attorneys at the Institute for Justice.