Comments on: A Litmus Test By Any Other Name… http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:57:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Stuff http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3201 Stuff Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3201 I think I get a lot of the same alarmist emails that you get. I agree that their language is much too sensational, but from most of the emails I receive ask for letters/emails to Senators urging them simply to support an up or down vote. That's all. Not to vote one way or the other, just to have a simple vote. Is that so wrong? By: gbm3 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3202 gbm3 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3202 I thought you "never [seemed] to have a preordained opinion"? (Tim McNulty)<br /><br />Anyway, I agree that emails that demand this and that are dumb, but I disagree that prolifers should demand anything but a prolife judge.<br /><br />When I voted for, *cringe*, Bush I had the thought that the next president would make a supreme court appointment and that he should appoint a prolife candidate. To me this was the main issue.<br /><br />Yes, there are other factors involved, but in the end, like it or not, I believe the US sets an example/tone for the rest of the world. (Plus, I go with the bottom line death stats.) We should set the world on the prolife path (I'm not debating humanness and/or personhood here).<br /><br />I'm guessing there will be rebuttals (I'm hoping I can get to them tomorrow), so I will stop for now.<br /><br />---
Anyway, I agree that emails that demand this and that are dumb, but I disagree that prolifers should demand anything but a prolife judge.

When I voted for, *cringe*, Bush I had the thought that the next president would make a supreme court appointment and that he should appoint a prolife candidate. To me this was the main issue.

Yes, there are other factors involved, but in the end, like it or not, I believe the US sets an example/tone for the rest of the world. (Plus, I go with the bottom line death stats.) We should set the world on the prolife path (I'm not debating humanness and/or personhood here).

I'm guessing there will be rebuttals (I'm hoping I can get to them tomorrow), so I will stop for now.

—]]> By: Adam Graham http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3203 Adam Graham Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3203 I actually think talking of litmus tests is not productive.<br /><br />Having said that, it is very important that we have a strict constructionist on the court. The Constitution according to its writer James Madison is a very simple <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm">document</a>. Madison wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Thus a true strict constructionist is going to leave most issues up to the states except where the Constituion's clear that there's a problem under the Constitution.<br /><br />Secondly, how do you expect a judge who doesn't respect life to respect liberty? Is it any coincidence that all five of the Kelo judges come from the court's solid pro-choice majority?<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson once observed,<br />"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?"
Having said that, it is very important that we have a strict constructionist on the court. The Constitution according to its writer James Madison is a very simple document. Madison wrote:


The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


Thus a true strict constructionist is going to leave most issues up to the states except where the Constituion's clear that there's a problem under the Constitution.

Secondly, how do you expect a judge who doesn't respect life to respect liberty? Is it any coincidence that all five of the Kelo judges come from the court's solid pro-choice majority?

Thomas Jefferson once observed,
"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?"]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3204 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3204 GBM, if I had a preordained opinion it would be either "Litmus tests are bad, so let's load the bench with conservatives" or "Litmus tests are bad, so let's load the bench with liberals". ;)<br /><br />Seriously, though, whether you like litmus tests or not, it should be pretty obvious that strict constructivism (as defined by conservative Republicans) is itself a litmus test. If conservative justices are your bag, fine. You're entitled to your opinions. However, please have the integrity to admit that you have a litmus test for justices.

Seriously, though, whether you like litmus tests or not, it should be pretty obvious that strict constructivism (as defined by conservative Republicans) is itself a litmus test. If conservative justices are your bag, fine. You're entitled to your opinions. However, please have the integrity to admit that you have a litmus test for justices.]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3205 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3205 Stuff, if the senate were dominated by Democrats and a Democratic president tried to ram a seemingly liberal and pro-choice nominee, about whose opinions on constitutional matters little concrete is known, I really doubt we'd be seeing emails pleading for an up or down vote - at least not from the Right. I think that nominee would be demonized by the Right as a religion-hating, gay-loving, pro-choice supporter of federal powers over states' rights, and aside from asking their base to write to senators begging them to reject the him'her, they'd be seriously thinking about using the filibuster that they've whined so much about of late. By: gbm3 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3206 gbm3 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3206 I guess I'm dense or something, but I don't understand your beef.<br /><br />Please confirm:<br />You are saying "litmus tests" are bad and that the conservative base (of which I am to some extent) is hypocritical in demanding a pro-constitutional, pro-life judge.<br /><br />I'm missing something since the above statement doesn't make sense. Why hypocritical?<br /><br />Can you please clarify? I'm not really even sure what you are to clarify. Sorry for my stupidity in this. I just want to understand.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />---
Please confirm:
You are saying "litmus tests" are bad and that the conservative base (of which I am to some extent) is hypocritical in demanding a pro-constitutional, pro-life judge.

I'm missing something since the above statement doesn't make sense. Why hypocritical?

Can you please clarify? I'm not really even sure what you are to clarify. Sorry for my stupidity in this. I just want to understand.

Thanks.

—]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3207 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3207 I'm saying that numerous conservative groups are decrying liberal litmus tests, using language that suggests all litmus tests are bad, while actually having litmus tests of their own. That is the irony and hypocrisy. The Right is hypocritical for denying its own litmus tests. Whether those particular tests are good or not is another issue. What I'm most interested in pointing out is that the Right doesn't actually hate litmus tests; they only hate the Left's litmus tests. I wish they'd just admit that and stop treatign their base like mindless sheep. By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3208 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3208 BTW, the "preordained opinion" for a pro-lifer would be that any and all judges that even hint at being pro-life should be unreservedly supported. By: gbm3 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3209 gbm3 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3209 Ok then. I get it. As for me, I do have a litmus test for any judge which has at its core a pro-life focus.<br /><br />What's the big deal for denying it?<br /><br />In making decisions, look at the facts, pray about it, and decide. There has to be some points by which to do it: a litmus test.<br /><br />Who doesn't have a litmus test for this particular decision?<br /><br />---
What's the big deal for denying it?

In making decisions, look at the facts, pray about it, and decide. There has to be some points by which to do it: a litmus test.

Who doesn't have a litmus test for this particular decision?

—]]> By: theomorph http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1972#comment-3210 theomorph Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archive/1974#comment-3210 Okay, I'm really, really not supposed to be mucking around on blogs right now, but I just want to toss in my two cents on this one.<br /><br />Strict constructionism is silly. It doesn't matter what Madison thought the constitution was supposed to be for. As Jefferson (who is also quoted above, I notice) pointed out, the earth belongs to the living, and a little revolution is good now and then. That is, I think Jefferson recognized something Madison did not take into account, or did not feel he needed to address: The people of the United States, after adopting the Constitution, might change in character, in purpose, in culture, in anything, and the Constitution as adopted and/or intended in 1783 just might not be what <em>we</em> would adopt or intend.<br /><br />For that matter, how do we know what the framers "intended"? Yeah, I know, it seems like an easy question when you can whip out little passages from Madison and others, but does that really tell you what their intent was? Is that really all-encompassing? When Madison wrote those words, did he really mean that it should be exactly like that in a world with a global economy and an internet and commercial decentralization and whatnot? Really? I have my doubts.<br /><br />As well, if we were really going to be strict constructionists, then <em>both</em> of the major parties these days are <em>completely</em> out of line and all you strict constructionists should be libertarians. (Not that I'm saying libertarians aren't cool. A lot of them are. I tend that way myself.)<br /><br />Anyway, I really, really need to get back to my studies, but I sort of expect I'll just have to pop back in here and join some raging debate . . . I can't keep away.
Strict constructionism is silly. It doesn't matter what Madison thought the constitution was supposed to be for. As Jefferson (who is also quoted above, I notice) pointed out, the earth belongs to the living, and a little revolution is good now and then. That is, I think Jefferson recognized something Madison did not take into account, or did not feel he needed to address: The people of the United States, after adopting the Constitution, might change in character, in purpose, in culture, in anything, and the Constitution as adopted and/or intended in 1783 just might not be what we would adopt or intend.

For that matter, how do we know what the framers "intended"? Yeah, I know, it seems like an easy question when you can whip out little passages from Madison and others, but does that really tell you what their intent was? Is that really all-encompassing? When Madison wrote those words, did he really mean that it should be exactly like that in a world with a global economy and an internet and commercial decentralization and whatnot? Really? I have my doubts.

As well, if we were really going to be strict constructionists, then both of the major parties these days are completely out of line and all you strict constructionists should be libertarians. (Not that I'm saying libertarians aren't cool. A lot of them are. I tend that way myself.)

Anyway, I really, really need to get back to my studies, but I sort of expect I'll just have to pop back in here and join some raging debate . . . I can't keep away.]]>