Why we need conservative, pro-life Supreme Court Justices

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

When a judge declares that they believe in judicial activism

Judicial Activism may be a Fox News buzzword, but which seated or past confirmed supreme court justice made that claim?

I’ll have to look that up. I don’t have it at my fingertips which justice, if any, said “I am a judicial activist”. No SC justice may have actually used those words. Or they may have. But even if they didn’t state it so baldly, looking at what they do, and why they decide what they decide, tells the tale.

Are you willing to consider that you might be wrong, that you might need to take a more “progressive” stance on this or that? In particular, are you willing to consider whether women have a right to decide if their bodies have to endure a pregnancy?

If not, your accusations against liberals ring pretty hollow. Their “absolute truth” is a lot like your own “absolute truth.” Or are you confessing you are not one of “the most tolerant creatures on earth”?

I’m not at all tolerant of murdering children. On any other issue I can imagine, yes, I am perfectly willing to hear the other side, and possibly modify or alter my position. I’ve done it in the past, and I will in all likelihood do it in the future. I am actually pretty liberal myself on most social issues. For instance, with some reservations, I could admit the possibility of civil unions for LGBT people, or indeed, anyone else who wants to be united civilly. Not marriage — same-sex marriage violates both the law of God and the law of nature — but people being able to live together, file their taxes together, be one another’s next of kin, take out insurance on each other, be able to intervene in medical decisions, and so on, I’m good with that. Two people making a home and a life together, and even loving each other, is far more than what they do intimately with their bodies. Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, an abomination. Two people making a life and home together is neither.

Godfollower:

The Republican Party makes the same argument to Catholics every election: You have to vote Republican because of abortion, and we (whoever the Republican nominee is) will appoint pro-life justices to the Court, and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

That makes no sense at all since it was the Republican appointees who gave us Roe v Wade. No thank you.

Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s were not the same as Republicans today. Ditto for Democrats.

 

[TMC]

I’ll have to look that up. I don’t have it at my fingertips which justice, if any, said “I am a judicial activist”.

“Judicial Activist” doesn’t really mean anything, other than a judge that makes rulings that one disagrees with. Judges on both the right and left are called “activist” all the time. Its just a label, and not a very good or informative one.

 

[RuthAnne]

My reasoning is that if I own a business I ought to be able to hire and fire anyone I want for any reason I choose. My morals don’t matter.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I’ll have to look that up. I don’t have it at my fingertips which justice, if any, said “I am a judicial activist”.

“Judicial Activist” doesn’t really mean anything, other than a judge that makes rulings that one disagrees with. Judges on both the right and left are called “activist” all the time. Its just a label, and not a very good or informative one.

No, when I think of a “judicial activist”, I think of a judge who wishes to use decisions to establish precedent, and to interpret law, in tandem with their own ideological preferences, and thus to push the larger society towards their vision of “how things ought to be”.

 

[Rau]

My reasoning is that if I own a business I ought to be able to hire and fire anyone I want for any reason I choose. My morals don’t matter.

I guess people living together in large groups and in an inter-dependent manner find it desirable for the harmony of the whole to impose some limits on individual freedoms. Some freedoms are not easily set aside by their important nature. But some others seem to have little merit and their exercise does harm greater than any merit they might have. Eg. I’m not sure why it would be important to preserve my freedom to allow only men to enter and purchase bread in my bread-shop. Or to exclude Hispanics…

 

[RuthAnne]

If you allowed only men or no Hispanics in, your business would be guaranteed to fail. No laws needed. You have the right to be stupid.

 

[Rau]

If you allowed only men or no Hispanics in, your business would be guaranteed to fail. No laws needed. You have the right to be stupid.

The societal considerations have no sway with you?

 

[stpurl]

I did a Google search, found that Rand Paul back in I think 2015 or 2015 uttered, “I am a judicial activist” FWIW.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I did a Google search, found that Rand Paul back in I think 2015 or 2015 uttered, “I am a judicial activist” FWIW.

And he may have. There certainly can be such a thing as a conservative (or, in his case, libertarian) judicial activist, though that would be kind of oxymoronic for a libertarian.

 

[RuthAnne]

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Rau]

Not sure what you mean.

I mean this: “ I guess people living together in large groups and in an inter-dependent manner find it desirable for the harmony of the whole to impose some limits on individual freedoms. Some freedoms are not easily set aside by their important nature. But some others seem to have little merit and their exercise does harm greater than any merit they might have. Eg. I’m not sure why it would be important to preserve my freedom to allow only men to enter and purchase bread in my bread-shop. Or to exclude Hispanics…”

The “societal consideration” is “The good of the whole”. Our laws address and support this routinely. And not infrequently by limiting individual freedoms.

 

[Victoria33]

The Republican Party makes the same argument to Catholics every election: You have to vote Republican because of abortion, and we (whoever the Republican nominee is) will appoint pro-life justices to the Court, and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Your argument ignores the fact that Democrats were the majority (often called controlled) the Senate for the vast majority of years since 1955 which in turn means, they were able to confirm or deny nominations to the Supreme Court during these years in which they controlled the Senate.

Democrat majority in Senate from 1955 until 1981. 36 years.

Republican majority in Senate from 1981 until 1987. 7 years.

Democrat majority in Senate from 1987 until 1995. 9 years.

Republican majority in Senate from 1995 until 2007. 12 years.

Rough math, from 1955-2007, Democrats controlled the Senate for 45 years, Republicans 19 years and one can even carry out the math until now.

The Senate, in other words, has ultimate say on who sits on the Supreme Court.

A president can not appoint someone to the SCOTUS and assume, they will be confirmed. The Senate does that.

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia.

 

[RuthAnne]

The societal considerations have no sway with you?

Based on your description, no.

 

[Rau]

Based on your description, no.

You must then feel terribly oppressed by the extensive set of laws that limit your freedom. How do you bear it?

 

[RuthAnne]

Not really. I’m a realist. I realize that’s the world I live in and I deal with it. I conform as little as possible and wrench the wheels of government as much as I legally can. I teach my children to do the same. It’s quite satisfying at times.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Godfollower:

The Republican Party makes the same argument to Catholics every election: You have to vote Republican because of abortion, and we (whoever the Republican nominee is) will appoint pro-life justices to the Court, and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Your argument ignores the fact that Democrats were the majority (often called controlled) the Senate for the vast majority of years since 1955 which in turn means, they were able to confirm or deny nominations to the Supreme Court during these years in which they controlled the Senate.

Democrat majority in Senate from 1955 until 1981. 36 years.

Republican majority in Senate from 1981 until 1987. 7 years.

Democrat majority in Senate from 1987 until 1995. 9 years.

Republican majority in Senate from 1995 until 2007. 12 years.

Rough math, from 1955-2007, Democrats controlled the Senate for 45 years, Republicans 19 years and one can even carry out the math until now.

The Senate, in other words, has ultimate say on who sits on the Supreme Court.

A president can not appoint someone to the SCOTUS and assume, they will be confirmed. The Senate does that.

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia.

Actually, a situation where the President is of one party, and the Senate, who must approve his Supreme Court nomination, has a majority of the other party, probably produces the closest thing to a totally impartial, apolitical nomination that it is possible to have. But that is just “the luck of the draw”, when things rattle out that way. If Biden wins the election in November (and I think he will — Trump has just alienated too many people, and it all adds up), and if the Senate retains a Republican majority, then any SC nominations will have to be bipartisan. That’s certainly better than if the Democrats had total say-so over the nomination and confirmation.

 

[Victoria33]

Actually, a situation where the President is of one party, and the Senate, who must approve his Supreme Court nomination, has a majority of the other party, probably produces the closest thing to a totally impartial, apolitical nomination that it is possible to have. But that is just “the luck of the draw”, when things rattle out that way. If Biden wins the election in November (and I think he will — Trump has just alienated too many people, and it all adds up), and if the Senate retains a Republican majority, then any SC nominations will have to be bipartisan. That’s certainly better than if the Democrats had total say-so over the nomination and confirmation.

A lot of this is true… but I will say this, Senator Lindsey Graham spoke of how he voted for Sotomayor on her credentials. The Kavanaugh vote was largely a split down partyline so, no, I don’t think we can expect much cooperation in the future. Unfortunately, that ship has likely sailed.

@HomeschoolDad : I’m just editing on from last night, my opinion is that the COVID-19 is what has disrupted President Trump’s run for a 2nd term. That is the disruption to me. Not so much as “alienating” people. The President, it be Bush, Obama, Clinton and so on, will have people upset with them. Just my opinion, it doesn’t mean it is so. We had a booming economy previously and other aspects were decent as well. Not really getting in a war overseas, etc. Things like that.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m not at all tolerant of murdering children

So you can see why it just seems ridiculous for you to say about liberals that

their basket of assumptions is the absolute truth, dogma that no one may question. To their minds, they are so obviously “right”, that if you disagree with them, you are a bad person whose point of view need not even be considered.

If you are trying to condemn that behavior, you need to recognize that you need to condemn your own similar behavior. Or you can argue that your position is correct and theirs is wrong, and not condemn yourself by describing your own behavior.

I think you have a similar problem with “judicial activism.” If you want “conservative, pro-life Supreme Court justices” to overturn Roe v Wade, then you want judicial activists. Imposing their own political views instead of judging impartially is the definition of judicial activism. If you support judicial activism, that is fine. But if you want to complain about it, it just sounds hypocritical

 

[twf]

I’m not saying Republicans oppress the poor (though some individual Republican voting capitalists may)… but is that not also a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance? Pretty sure it’s on the list. Just saying.

 

[Padres1969]

Wow… So you have no problem with an employer discriminating against women, minorities, cancer patients, etc…