Jump to content

A polite discussion about conservatism


itsme
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been hearing a lot of conservatives talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg dying and their hopes for a new conservative supreme court justice. For the life of me I can't think of any benefit to having a conservative supreme court. The conservative justices seem to favor corporations over the individual, favor restrictive laws that limit personal choice and freedoms, and support social policies that make it harder for those who are disadvantaged. Put another way, conservatives appear to favor the powerful over the weak. Conservative politicians all seem to be in the pocket of big corporations, and the only amendment that they seem to actually care about is the 2nd. Now, I can appreciate that my upbringing has a lot to do with my political beliefs, but as an intellectual and as a practical matter I don't see how conservatism provides any benefit to me personally. I'd like to learn more about the conservative position in a polite and constructive manner. Typically when I broach this topic with conservatives I am met with ad hominem attacks, blatantly and verifiably false "facts", and a general sense that they oppose anything that might be construed as "liberal" simply because liberals support it, even if it means voting against their own interests. What does the average person have to gain from voting for the conservative ticket? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, itsme said:

I've been hearing a lot of conservatives talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg dying and their hopes for a new conservative supreme court justice. For the life of me I can't think of any benefit to having a conservative supreme court. The conservative justices seem to favor corporations over the individual, favor restrictive laws that limit personal choice and freedoms, and support social policies that make it harder for those who are disadvantaged. Put another way, conservatives appear to favor the powerful over the weak. Conservative politicians all seem to be in the pocket of big corporations, and the only amendment that they seem to actually care about is the 2nd. Now, I can appreciate that my upbringing has a lot to do with my political beliefs, but as an intellectual and as a practical matter I don't see how conservatism provides any benefit to me personally. I'd like to learn more about the conservative position in a polite and constructive manner. Typically when I broach this topic with conservatives I am met with ad hominem attacks, blatantly and verifiably false "facts", and a general sense that they oppose anything that might be construed as "liberal" simply because liberals support it, even if it means voting against their own interests. What does the average person have to gain from voting for the conservative ticket? 

Supreme Court decisions should be based upon the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress, period.  It's not their job to take the side one group against another as you think they should. If a judge is personally happy with all his/her rulings,then he/she is not a very good judge. It is his/her responsibility to rule according to the letter of the law and not his/her personal belief of what is just or unjust. If you don't like a ruling which was based upon a correct interpretation of the law, then work to get the law changed. It is not the Supreme Court's responsibility nor their right to rewrite laws or the Constitution. My biggest complaint about liberal Justices is that they essentially make decisions that conform to their political philosophy rather than conforming to the written law and the U.S.Constitution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said:

Supreme Court decisions should be based upon the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress, period.  It's not their job to take the side one group against another as you think they should. If a judge is personally happy with all his/her rulings,then he/she is not a very good judge. It is his/her responsibility to rule according to the letter of the law and not his/her personal belief of what is just or unjust. If you don't like a ruling which was based upon a correct interpretation of the law, then work to get the law changed. It is not the Supreme Court's responsibility nor their right to rewrite laws or the Constitution. My biggest complaint about liberal Justices is that they essentially make decisions that conform to their political philosophy rather than conforming to the written law and the U.S.Constitution.

It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law and I think any person will naturally do so from whichever prospective they know best, meaning left leaning judges will interpret from a more liberal perspective and conservative judges will rule from a more conservative perspective. I think there is judicial activism on both sides. Even if liberal judges tend to be more "activist", wouldn't you rather have a judge that interprets the law in a more humanist way that generally grants greater freedom to more people? The way I see it conservative judges are more authoritarian, more punitive, and vote in way that is generally more restrictive to the average citizen, and less restrictive to big business. Where as I think liberal justices will generally vote in a way that either favors the individual over big business or that provides the most utilitarian benefit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, itsme said:

It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law and I think any person will naturally do so from whichever prospective they know best, meaning left leaning judges will interpret from a more liberal perspective and conservative judges will rule from a conservative perspective. I think there is judicial activism on both sides. Even if liberal judges tend to be more "activist", wouldn't you rather have a judge that interprets the law in a way that results in a more humanist way that generally grants greater freedom to more people? The way I see it conservative judges are more authoritarian, more punitive, and vote in way that is generally more restrictive to average citizen, and less restrictive to big business. Where as I think liberal justices will generally vote in a way that either favors the individual over big business or that provides the most utilitarian benefit. 

No,I want a judge that interprets the law as it is written,not as he/she wants it to be. If you don't like a law,then work to have Congress change the fucking law. Example: Currently the U.S.Constitution states a natural born citizen must be 35 years old to be elected president.  Let's say a 21 yr old  wants to be president and feels he is being discriminated against because of his age and he some how gets to argue his case before the Supreme Court. I could see a liberal justice ruling that he is being discriminated against and rule that he should be allowed to run for president. A conservative judge would rule that the Constitution clearly states what the age requirement is, and if you want the age changed then work to have the Constitution amended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also,another point about Justice Ginsburg. If I were the Trump Administration I would demand that she recuse herself from any cases that come before the Court involving President Trump because of the statements she made about Donald Trump before he was elected president. She has definitely displayed a blatant hostile bias against President Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's funny, I know very little about interpreting the Constitution, I'm not an attorney, but I bet I could guess 99 times out of 100 how each justice will rule on any cases that come before them. It's a completely bias institution. And totally politicized. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

Also,another point about Justice Ginsburg. If I were the Trump Administration I would demand that she recuse herself from any cases that come before the Court involving President Trump because of the statements she made about Donald Trump before he was elected president. She has definitely displayed a blatant hostile bias against President Trump.

They'll prop her old dead ass up in the chair with a hand rammed into her back to make her mouth move. She has vowed to stay seated until Trump is out of office. I think she's going to start really smelling bad by the time he's gone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TBG 150 said:

They'll prop her old dead ass up in the chair with a hand rammed into her back to make her mouth move. She has vowed to stay seated until Trump is out of office. I think she's going to start really smelling bad by the time he's gone.

One good thing--the Supreme Court justices only serve a life tenure :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a lot of ways, I agree with you. But look what happened between 2008 and 2016. Would you really put your faith in the American voter? But when you have shit for candidates to choose from and the biggest bank account gets you in, hey, who needs votes.

Can you just imagine how many dead people voted in South Florida this last month? It's amazing how all of these so called ballot boxes are being found in obscure corners of buildings. The whole thing is so corrupt on both sides it's sickening. The Internet has turned what little brains the public is walking around with, further into mush. There is only one side, only one party, only one race and tons of hatred.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

No,I want a judge that interprets the law as it is written,not as he/she wants it to be. If you don't like a law,then work to have Congress change the fucking law. Example: Currently the U.S.Constitution states a natural born citizen must be 35 years old to be elected president.  Let's say a 21 yr old  wants to be president and feels he is being discriminated against because of his age and he some how gets to argue his case before the Supreme Court. I could see a liberal justice ruling that he is being discriminated against and rule that he should be allowed to run for president. A conservative judge would rule that the Constitution clearly states what the age requirement is, and if you want the age changed then work to have the Constitution amended.

It's literally the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law and set precedent. Justices will tend to rule in a way that is most consistent with their personal frame of reference and moral beliefs. To say that you don't like activist judges is to say that you don't like the judiciary, as every judge has some form of bias. To many on the left Scalia was a right wing activist judge. One man's activist is another man's principled savant. I generally agree that elected officials should be the one making laws, but it sounds to me like what you're saying is that you don't like the way that "liberal" judges rule. Which was kind of the point of my question. What about having a more liberal interpretation of the law is so terrible to you? Why does having a justice that is going to generally favor the average citizen over big corporations or special interests so threatening to you? What I personally find so alarming about conservative judges is that they so consistently rule in favor of the powerful and almost alway side with big business over consumers. Secondly, a contradiction that I find interesting is that conservatives claim to be the party of law and order, while also claiming to be staunch defenders of "freedom". How can you support freedom while also supporting overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive laws that limit personal freedom and personal choice? Marijuana being an example.  Many on the right seem to have an attitude of "laws for thee, not for me". Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort for example who gleefully chanted "lock her up" when talking about Hillary Clinton all while breaking a long list of laws themselves.  Fyi, I consider myself a libertarian. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

Also,another point about Justice Ginsburg. If I were the Trump Administration I would demand that she recuse herself from any cases that come before the Court involving President Trump because of the statements she made about Donald Trump before he was elected president. She has definitely displayed a blatant hostile bias against President Trump.

I don't disagree with you there. I think that when Mueller finally drops the hammer and Trump's shady business dealings and foreign connections come to light that it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, and I'd rather have a neutral court that way  conservatives won't have a leg to stand on when they spend the next decade going on  about how unfair it is that Trump got impeached for tax fraud and a litany of white collar crimes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...