Say Anything: Justice Stevens: The Law Made Me Do It
moderninstances
· 4 years ago
Isn't this exactly the type of jurist the right wants, one who puts the law above his own personal beliefs?
TC-LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
You're right, Rob, the good justice is stone cold nuts. Deciding to defend what the burghers in New London did as "public use," which is what the Fifth declames, is torturously twisted. Basically, by their decision, Stevens and his cohorts have decreed there really is no such thing as personal property. It all belongs to the state.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
The problem is that Stevens' ruling wasn't based on the law.
Even if that's so, at least he wasn't actively trying to advance his own agenda.
Rob
· 4 years ago
one who puts the law above his own personal beliefs?
Well, yeah, in that I and others on the right do want a judge who puts the law above personal beliefs. The problem is that Stevens' ruling wasn't based on the law.
I have no idea what it was based on.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Its still a dip-shit ruling,
Agreed, but it isn't an example of judicial activism on Stevens' part, which has been the rallying cry of certain activists.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Yes, MI, fine. He wasn't trying to advance an agenda.
Its still a dip-shit ruling, and his statement now is probably more "cover your ass" than anything else.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Oh for christ's sake MI, are you trying to be obtuse? I didn't say it was judicial activism, I said it was a stupid ruling.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
How is this a "yeah, but"? I don't like the ruling either.
A discussion of judicial activism is relevant because right-wing activist organizations have keyed on that very ruling as an example of said activism, and Stevens is a particular target of their efforts. In the article you cite, Stevens is obviously saying that, if he were an activist justice, he would have voted against Kelo and the state marijuana law case.
I'm not sure why this has to be an emotional issue to discuss? Can't we just debate the issue without getting bent out of shape? I got pretty frustrated when responding several times in the "Hospital protest" threads, but think I was fairly restrained in my responses.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Since when is tax money NOT part of government's agenda?
Perhaps, but according to this article, it wasn't part of Stevens personal agenda.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Read my comment again, and you'll see that I didn't say that you were saying that it was judicial activism.
Then why bring it up? Other than as a means to just be a contrarian jerk? Not meaning to be offensive here, but this "Yeah, but" stuff is getting a little tiring.
Rob
· 4 years ago
How is this a "yeah, but"? I don't like the ruling either.
Right here:
A discussion of judicial activism is relevant because right-wing activist organizations have keyed on that very ruling as an example of said activism, and Stevens is a particular target of their efforts. In the article you cite, Stevens is obviously saying that, if he were an activist justice, he would have voted against Kelo and the state marijuana law case.
Its like you're trying to de-legitimize criticism of Stevens' ruling because some "right wing activist organizations" spread around the activist judge meme.
I would actually like to know which right-wing organizations, because I haven't heard the judicial activism thing connected to Kelo much. Though, technically, without knowing Stevens' mind a case can be made for judicial activism in that leftist thinkers tend to want more government control, which is what this ruling provides.
I'm not sure why this has to be an emotional issue to discuss? Can't we just debate the issue without getting bent out of shape?
Well, I guess I'm still pretty heated from the hospital thread. Your dismissive attitude toward things of that nature is what I see as a big problem with the political left these days. You guys won't acknowledge the people who are at the root of some of these protests. Its like you agree with Code Pink that Iraq was wrong, so you dance around their rampant extremism and lunacy as though it weren't that important. It is important, and unless people like you (a true moderate Dem in my estimation) start taking it seriously the Democrats are going to get more and more marginalized, to the detriment of this country.
TC-LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
Well wait a minute now...who says an agenda wasn't advanced in this ruling? The ruling allows that the state can seize your property and turn it over to another private party, who has either agreed, or is expected, to give the state more dollars through all applicable taxes that the state applies.
Since when is tax money NOT part of government's agenda?
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Read my comment again, and you'll see that I didn't say that you were saying that it was judicial activism.
TC-LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
You AC/DC Idiot: " it wasn't part of Stevens personal agenda." How the hell do you know?
Look at the facts. The New London burghers were sitting in their clubhouse. Party A owned property that was lusted by Party B. Party B promised more money in taxes, etc, than Party A was required to produce. The burghurs took the property.
If you do not understand From the Start that this is screwed, you must be Canadian.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
You AC/DC Idiot: " it wasn't part of Stevens personal agenda." How the hell do you know?
You anarchy guy who looks like the guitarist who wore the hat from Slade: If you read the article Rob cites, you will see:
His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.
If you want to make the case that Stevens was, in fact, lying when he said this, then please do.
Rob
· 4 years ago
FRC and PTL are two; I don't have time to research right now, but I'm sure a few quick googles will find others.
Who are FRC and PTL? I guess I don't recognize the initials.
You often talk about how the debate might be more civil if each side were able and willing to distance themselves from their extremists, and I agree with that. But, if we're spending all of our time talking about them, whether in praise or condemnation, they're just getting what they wanted in the first place: attention.
Point taken. Here's my problem though: The media gives tons and tons of attention to someone like Cindy Sheehan. That attention has a huge impact on public sentiments. What am I to do when I notice that the media isn't giving the public the whole story? They're glossing Sheehan's public image and ignoring her loonier statements and (largely) the fact that she already met with the President once.
So its not really me who's giving them all the attention. I'm just reacting to said attention. A lot of times the topics I write about are pretty much just the topics getting a lot of attention in the media. Maybe that's not the best way of doing this blogging thing, but that's how I do it.
Believe me, there are plenty of times when I'd rather be discussing social security problems or something of that nature with you guys.
As for focusing on fringe elements, I do think the radical elements in the anti-war movement need to be singled out for criticism. These are, in my estimation, dangerous people. It is in our best interest to keep an eye on them and expose their stupidity when it arises.
And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of loonies on the right too. I guess I leave the exposing of those nuts up to other bloggers. I'm just one guy, after all.
And sorry if I've come off a bit cranky. I've been sick the last couple of days and an old bank injury has come roaring back, leaving me in a lot of pain. This coupled with a rough work schedule of late has left me worn out. I had considered going on a oxicontin diet to alleviate my suffering, but after seeing what happened to El Rushbo I decided that this minor-league conservative pundit had better steer clear.
;-)
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Its like you're trying to de-legitimize criticism of Stevens' ruling because some "right wing activist organizations" spread around the activist judge meme.
Well that's certainly not the intent, as the criticism of the Kelo decision is, in my opinion, certainly valid, as I don't like it either.
I would actually like to know which right-wing organizations, because I haven't heard the judicial activism thing connected to Kelo much.
FRC and PTL are two; I don't have time to research right now, but I'm sure a few quick googles will find others.
Well, I guess I'm still pretty heated from the hospital thread. Your dismissive attitude toward things of that nature is what I see as a big problem with the political left these days.
Well, again, I question their taste, sensitivity, and judgement; I don't really see how that's dismissive.
You often talk about how the debate might be more civil if each side were able and willing to distance themselves from their extremists, and I agree with that. But, if we're spending all of our time talking about them, whether in praise or condemnation, they're just getting what they wanted in the first place: attention. I would suggest that we not take them seriously so as to not waste time and energy on the fringe, and to focus more on the practical issues.
people like you (a true moderate Dem in my estimation)
Simply for the record, I'm not a registered Dem, though I most often vote that way.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Who are FRC and PTL?
Family Research Council and PTL is Robertson's group.
Here's my problem though: The media gives tons and tons of attention to someone like Cindy Sheehan. That attention has a huge impact on public sentiments. What am I to do when I notice that the media isn't giving the public the whole story? They're glossing Sheehan's public image and ignoring her loonier statements and (largely) the fact that she already met with the President once.
Fair enough.
I had considered going on a oxicontin diet to alleviate my suffering, but after seeing what happened to El Rushbo I decided that this minor-league conservative pundit had better steer clear.
This is why you should be blogging about legalizing marijuana! :)
Feel better soon.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Well, I'm a cops kid. So despite the fact that I don't see anything wrong with marijuana, I won't partake until its legal. Kind of had that sort of thinking drilled into me.
Plus, they're so draconian about enforcement, and I could just see me losing my whole career thanks to a positive drug test.
By the way, Family Research Center? Praise The Lord? I don't think I've ever read anything either of those have put out.
Honestly, though, I don't follow much what the advocacy groups have to say. I usually make up my own mind and then, if one of the groups is going the same way I am, I'll support them on the issue. I tend to be sort of independent though.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
More than one beer gives me a headache. So, after two, I smoke a J to help the pain!
we're spending one hell of a lot of time and resources fighting a relatively benign drug.
Amen.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I actually have blogged about that in the past, but not much.
I do think it should be legalized. Not so much because I'm interested in using it (more of a beer man myself) but because I think we're spending one hell of a lot of time and resources fighting a relatively benign drug. Especially when said resouces could be put to better use. Like stemming the tide of illegal immigrants coming into this country.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Way I see it, if the government wants to take an otherwise law-abiding citizen who's giving them 40% of his income every year out of the workforce, they're really dumber than I thought.
By the way, Family Research Center? Praise The Lord? I don't think I've ever read anything either of those have put out.
Family Research Council runs those "Justice Sundays," where Frist, DeLay, et al. go to the church to tell them what to think about the Supreme Court. Robertson has an ongoing campaign where he's praying, right there on TV, for more vacancies. 'Course, we already know what a nutjob he is.
GekkoBear
· 4 years ago
"But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain."
So, in his view, private development of Hotels, etc. = public use. However this isn't "Judicial Activism" where they twist the real meaning of the words to fit a concept of a "living breathing constitution" because...
And I lose you here.
Want to pick up this and finish the reason why this isn't Judicial Activism modifying the Constitution to fit their own belief of what the Constitution "ought" to say?
He didn't go by what the Constitution clearly says. He claims he didn't go by what he wanted the law to be...
Any ideas WTF he actually did go by? Some convoluted interpretation of a "living breathing Constitution" whereby the clearly written words don't mean the same as what those words ACTUALLY MEAN because they've "evolved" in meaning over time, without any input from citizens via Amendments? ^This is my guess.
However, once you quit using the actual Constitution for determining Judicial rulings of Constitutionality at the SCOTUS level, you are by definition using "Judicial Activism" aren't you?
The "reason" for the stupid ruling and showing deliberate spite for the wording of the Constitution isn't as important as the actual ruling is it?
All Comments
Even if that's so, at least he wasn't actively trying to advance his own agenda.
Well, yeah, in that I and others on the right do want a judge who puts the law above personal beliefs. The problem is that Stevens' ruling wasn't based on the law.
I have no idea what it was based on.
Agreed, but it isn't an example of judicial activism on Stevens' part, which has been the rallying cry of certain activists.
Its still a dip-shit ruling, and his statement now is probably more "cover your ass" than anything else.
A discussion of judicial activism is relevant because right-wing activist organizations have keyed on that very ruling as an example of said activism, and Stevens is a particular target of their efforts. In the article you cite, Stevens is obviously saying that, if he were an activist justice, he would have voted against Kelo and the state marijuana law case.
I'm not sure why this has to be an emotional issue to discuss? Can't we just debate the issue without getting bent out of shape? I got pretty frustrated when responding several times in the "Hospital protest" threads, but think I was fairly restrained in my responses.
Perhaps, but according to this article, it wasn't part of Stevens personal agenda.
Then why bring it up? Other than as a means to just be a contrarian jerk? Not meaning to be offensive here, but this "Yeah, but" stuff is getting a little tiring.
Right here:
Its like you're trying to de-legitimize criticism of Stevens' ruling because some "right wing activist organizations" spread around the activist judge meme.
I would actually like to know which right-wing organizations, because I haven't heard the judicial activism thing connected to Kelo much. Though, technically, without knowing Stevens' mind a case can be made for judicial activism in that leftist thinkers tend to want more government control, which is what this ruling provides.
Well, I guess I'm still pretty heated from the hospital thread. Your dismissive attitude toward things of that nature is what I see as a big problem with the political left these days. You guys won't acknowledge the people who are at the root of some of these protests. Its like you agree with Code Pink that Iraq was wrong, so you dance around their rampant extremism and lunacy as though it weren't that important. It is important, and unless people like you (a true moderate Dem in my estimation) start taking it seriously the Democrats are going to get more and more marginalized, to the detriment of this country.
Since when is tax money NOT part of government's agenda?
How the hell do you know?
Look at the facts. The New London burghers were sitting in their clubhouse. Party A owned property that was lusted by Party B. Party B promised more money in taxes, etc, than Party A was required to produce. The burghurs took the property.
If you do not understand From the Start that this is screwed, you must be Canadian.
You anarchy guy who looks like the guitarist who wore the hat from Slade: If you read the article Rob cites, you will see:
His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.
If you want to make the case that Stevens was, in fact, lying when he said this, then please do.
Who are FRC and PTL? I guess I don't recognize the initials.
Point taken. Here's my problem though: The media gives tons and tons of attention to someone like Cindy Sheehan. That attention has a huge impact on public sentiments. What am I to do when I notice that the media isn't giving the public the whole story? They're glossing Sheehan's public image and ignoring her loonier statements and (largely) the fact that she already met with the President once.
So its not really me who's giving them all the attention. I'm just reacting to said attention. A lot of times the topics I write about are pretty much just the topics getting a lot of attention in the media. Maybe that's not the best way of doing this blogging thing, but that's how I do it.
Believe me, there are plenty of times when I'd rather be discussing social security problems or something of that nature with you guys.
As for focusing on fringe elements, I do think the radical elements in the anti-war movement need to be singled out for criticism. These are, in my estimation, dangerous people. It is in our best interest to keep an eye on them and expose their stupidity when it arises.
And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of loonies on the right too. I guess I leave the exposing of those nuts up to other bloggers. I'm just one guy, after all.
And sorry if I've come off a bit cranky. I've been sick the last couple of days and an old bank injury has come roaring back, leaving me in a lot of pain. This coupled with a rough work schedule of late has left me worn out. I had considered going on a oxicontin diet to alleviate my suffering, but after seeing what happened to El Rushbo I decided that this minor-league conservative pundit had better steer clear.
;-)
FRC and PTL are two; I don't have time to research right now, but I'm sure a few quick googles will find others.
Well, again, I question their taste, sensitivity, and judgement; I don't really see how that's dismissive.
You often talk about how the debate might be more civil if each side were able and willing to distance themselves from their extremists, and I agree with that. But, if we're spending all of our time talking about them, whether in praise or condemnation, they're just getting what they wanted in the first place: attention. I would suggest that we not take them seriously so as to not waste time and energy on the fringe, and to focus more on the practical issues.
Simply for the record, I'm not a registered Dem, though I most often vote that way.
Fair enough.
This is why you should be blogging about legalizing marijuana! :)
Feel better soon.
Plus, they're so draconian about enforcement, and I could just see me losing my whole career thanks to a positive drug test.
By the way, Family Research Center? Praise The Lord? I don't think I've ever read anything either of those have put out.
Honestly, though, I don't follow much what the advocacy groups have to say. I usually make up my own mind and then, if one of the groups is going the same way I am, I'll support them on the issue. I tend to be sort of independent though.
Amen.
I do think it should be legalized. Not so much because I'm interested in using it (more of a beer man myself) but because I think we're spending one hell of a lot of time and resources fighting a relatively benign drug. Especially when said resouces could be put to better use. Like stemming the tide of illegal immigrants coming into this country.
Family Research Council runs those "Justice Sundays," where Frist, DeLay, et al. go to the church to tell them what to think about the Supreme Court. Robertson has an ongoing campaign where he's praying, right there on TV, for more vacancies. 'Course, we already know what a nutjob he is.
So, in his view, private development of Hotels, etc. = public use. However this isn't "Judicial Activism" where they twist the real meaning of the words to fit a concept of a "living breathing constitution" because...
And I lose you here.
Want to pick up this and finish the reason why this isn't Judicial Activism modifying the Constitution to fit their own belief of what the Constitution "ought" to say?
He didn't go by what the Constitution clearly says. He claims he didn't go by what he wanted the law to be...
Any ideas WTF he actually did go by? Some convoluted interpretation of a "living breathing Constitution" whereby the clearly written words don't mean the same as what those words ACTUALLY MEAN because they've "evolved" in meaning over time, without any input from citizens via Amendments?
^This is my guess.
However, once you quit using the actual Constitution for determining Judicial rulings of Constitutionality at the SCOTUS level, you are by definition using "Judicial Activism" aren't you?
The "reason" for the stupid ruling and showing deliberate spite for the wording of the Constitution isn't as important as the actual ruling is it?