Greybeard

[boondocks]

Justice Kennedy has never been considered a conservative Supreme Court judge.

He's a deeply religious Catholic, Republican, appointed by Ronald Reagan. His (more recent) reputation as some sort of a moderate is fairly undeserved, and is primarily due to the contrast between his opinions and those of the far-right jurists like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. He is not as doctrinaire as they are, but wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United ("corporations are people"); nearly always favors states' rights; has voted to strike down affirmative action; voted to halt the recount in Bush v Gore; and has voted against environmental protection. In short, until "conservative" came to mean something else over the past 30 years (or so), he would be firmly called a conservative. The goal posts keep getting moved, not his ideology.

{Not intended as a political post. Hopefully we can discuss civics/history w/o getting locked like the gun debate was. Fine line}

 

[Bright Raven]

I agree with your summary. I don't think Justice Kennedy changed, I think extremism within the conservative institution has moved to the right of Justice Kennedy.

 

[pdfangus]

I agree with your summary. I don't think Justice Kennedy changed, I think extremism within the conservative institution has moved to the right of Justice Kennedy.

I would agree that the right has moved further right....
but I would offer that it is in response to the lefts bulldozing of every aspect of out life to reduce all standards to the least common denominator and an unrelenting quest for removal of all standards and traditions in every aspect of our lives.

 

[Bright Raven]

I agree with your summary. I don't think Justice Kennedy changed, I think extremism within the conservative institution has moved to the right of Justice Kennedy.

I would agree that the right has moved further right....
but I would offer that it is in response to the lefts bulldozing of every aspect of out life to reduce all standards to the least common denominator and an unrelenting quest for removal of all standards and traditions in every aspect of our lives.

Extremism seems to be in the water. Ideology has evolved into dogma.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

 

[Bright Raven]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

Grit: you knew this thread was on thin ice. The first 4 posts were trying to avoid a direct affront to the rules. You just broke through the ice. Expect this to be locked now!

 

[Bright Raven]

My point pertains to all sides of any issue:

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

When a party evolves from Ideology to Dogma, they cease to consider advancement and improvement. They reach a point where there is no pragmatism, no flexibility. Because they think their philosophy is incontrovertibly true.

The radical Islamic movement fits that concept.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

Grit: you knew this thread was on thin ice. The first 4 posts were trying to avoid a direct affront to the rules. You just broke through the ice. Expect this to be locked now!

I didn't use the R or D word, and left the big R out also. I can't see where I called anyone out or disrespected anyone. But thanks for your concern and I'll move on.

 

[Bright Raven]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

Grit: you knew this thread was on thin ice. The first 4 posts were trying to avoid a direct affront to the rules. You just broke through the ice. Expect this to be locked now!

I didn't use the R or D word, and left the big R out also. I can't see where I called anyone out or disrespected anyone. But thanks for your concern and I'll move on.

Grit. You made it clearly about politics. I was following Boondocks request to make it a civics discussion.

 

[hurleyjd]

deleted

 

[Bright Raven]

Buzzer Warning:

Better post while there is still time. This baby is headed for the Bone Yard.
:banana:

 

[hurleyjd]

Buzzer Warning:

Better post while there is still time. This baby is headed for the Bone Yard.
:banana:

I deleted my post so this can go on and on.

 

[TexasBred]

Extremism in either directions benefits noone.

 

[Bright Raven]

Buzzer Warning:

Better post while there is still time. This baby is headed for the Bone Yard.
:banana:

I deleted my post so this can go on and on.

I was only kidding you and Grit, Hurley. I have no authority to act as moderator. My philosophy is to enjoy whatever anyone says. I am here for entertainment and exchanging information on Cattle and farming.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

 

[greybeard]

Interesting the cases you choose to emphasize how Kennedy is a traditional conservative, and how he voted/ruled on contemporary issues, while omitting how he ruled/voted the old platform standards of conservatives.
You are basically saying he's just an 'old school' conservative.
How did he vote on
Abortion?
Homosexuality?
Big govt social programs (O'Care constitutionality) ?
Eminent domain?
Same sex marriage?
International law as opposed to US sovereignty and US Constitution?

He supports all the above.

 

[pdfangus]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

Sort of like saying that figures don't lie .....but liars figure....

Human beings are human beings and have disagreed on everything under the sun since they discovered communication.

in a more civilized time there were reasonable leaders who worked to negotiate and settle differences.

today the standard is demagoguery and protest to advance your cause...at any price....and then get mad when the other side pushes back...

Personally I think political parties should be outlawed. It has gotten to the point where political affiliation nearly always trumps virtue or lack thereof of any legislation. The news media assumes and reports that any item of legislation will be voted on party lines and it is generally true.

 

[Nesikep]

Personally I think political parties should be outlawed. It has gotten to the point where political affiliation nearly always trumps virtue or lack thereof of any legislation. The news media assumes and reports that any item of legislation will be voted on party lines and it is generally true.

Agreed!
I am going out on a limb here, but if your political system is like ours and has this fundamental flaw, it's just part of the reason everyone is getting more and more divided.. The flaw? that Congressmen, senators, etc all are forced to vote according to party lines.. How is that democratic? Party leaders should NOT be able to dictate that.. Their elected party members should be held accountable only to their constituent voters. I'm sure there are vast ideological differences in what a 'liberal' from Idaho wants compared to one from California!

 

[Bestoutwest]

Agreed!
I am going out on a limb here, but if your political system is like ours and has this fundamental flaw, it's just part of the reason everyone is getting more and more divided.. The flaw? that Congressmen, senators, etc all are forced to vote according to party lines.. How is that democratic? Party leaders should NOT be able to dictate that.. Their elected party members should be held accountable only to their constituent voters. I'm sure there are vast ideological differences in what a 'liberal' from Idaho wants compared to one from California!

1) My problem with people voting for strictly what their constituents want is that sometimes the constituents are too myopic to understand the big picture. I think that's how the extremism has really become so out of control is that Ted Cruz (who someone was quoted as saying if he was shot on the Senate floor during a full session no one would see anything) and Nancy Pelosi (see, I chose both sides) are pandering to their extreme fringes b/c those people will vote. Without moderation, we are losing sanity and responsibility. I'll agree that voting party lines is ruining the system, but the problem is that it's the people pandering to their constituents with legislation, WHICH IS THEN VOTED PARTY LINE, is the big problem.

2) You're completely correct that a "liberal" from Idaho is different than a Californian LIBERAL. I know, to most on here, that I'm a liberal b/c of my stance on social issues, however I'm more conservative than most would believe. I don't care if two men or women want to marry each other. If they want to deal with the fun of marriage, so be it, and they also deserve the same legal rights that I do. However, if a business wants to deny them service, let them do it b/c they'll be ruined on Facebook, Yelp, etc. (ie free market) I also don't believe keeping a river on a restricted basis b/c there's 1 small school of fish that live there. I'm all for 'saving the environment,' but I'm also about doing it intelligently, economically and doing it realistically vs. passionately.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I've seen how the left is going to treat the Constitution, and hopefully the right has finally seen the light. The gas tank is 3/4 full, the foots on the pedal, and it's time for the conservatives to push the pedal to the metal. The liberals have done nothing but cost the taxpayers money and tried to ruined this great country.
Making the deadbeats and freeloaders get a job needs to be at the top of the list of things to do. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 40 without a job needs to go into the military. That will keep them busy, fed and off the streets.

I don't believe this to be the case that it's just the left/liberals who use loose interpretations of the constitution as law. Take the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To some this means that there needs to be a well armed, well trained, militia in every state, always at the ready, to defend against the federal government. To others this means that you can own guns, with some regulations b/c we don't need any person with a pulse walking around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft bazooka, and yet others this means you can own anything you want.

Now, I'm not trying to debate the merits of the second amendment. Rather, I'm pointing out that with the way the constitution is worded, it's open to interpretation. Is this by design? Is this accidental as the men writing it would never have known that tanks and aircraft would become a thing? Who knows, there's only one way to ask them and I'm not signing up for that. My point is that we all look at things differently. What you think is the correct way, may in fact, be incorrect. How others across the aisle look at it may be incorrect. The big problem is, though, that you're firmly on your side pointing fingers and name calling and they're doing the same. What does that accomplish. Animosity, gridlock, anger, etc, but it doesn't create anything positive.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.