Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (115655)	5/23/2005 7:10:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 793801

The big issues that the liberals had over the second half of the last century lent themselves to using the courts. They were issues where state laws were perceived to be in conflict with civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution. If that's your issue, what better route is there? Amend the constitution? Redundant. Pass a federal law? Also redundant. Change all the state laws? Not very efficient. It may be unfortunate that it played out that way, but I don't see how you can characterize liberals by the tool that happened to be the best one for the job. Best in terms of most effective in the short run and in some cases in the medium run, but often not best in terms of appropriateness, or in terms of positive long term consequences. To say that state laws where in conflict with civil rights guaranteed by the constitution begs the question. If the constitution really did guarantee them than it wouldn't be judicial activism. I know you used the term perceived but then you go on to say that the tool was the best on for the job. The conservative reaction is that the tool used was anything but the best for the job, both from a legal and constitutional standpoint, and from the idea that major changes in a democracy should have a degree of democratic legitimacy, and in the practical sense that the courts are a poor tool to work out some compromise where at least a big chunk on both sides can work out something they can live with, and thus you have continuing controversy. This wasn't so bad in terms of the civil rights decisions. They are less constitutionally questionable (and thus not as activist of decision) as say Roe vs. Wade. And while they may have preceded democratic consensus they didn't stop it from being achieved. And yes there are social conservatives who would be just as activist, but there is a difference between finding that some members of a part of a larger group (some social conservatives, and social conservatives are only a part of the larger group that would be called conservative) would us a particular "tool" inappropriately and finding that the majority of the opposing group (most liberals) supported and caused actual inappropriate use, and that the vast majority of the same group now vigorously defends this use, while at least a simple majority would push its use in to still new areas. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next