Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1 Has a liberal Supreme Court Justice ever turned conservative? 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,898
    You can find several instances of Justices that were deemed conservative at their conformation turning into liberals later,but I'm not finding any liberals that have turned conservative.
    I'm sure that it is somewhat relative and that both sides of the court in the distant past would have seemed conservative in modern times, but lets just say have there been any in the last 100 years?

    This blog got me thinking.
    Professor Byron L. Warnken's Blog

    The Teaching, The Writing, The Clients
    The Supreme Court is Even More Politicized than You Think

    by Professor Byron L. Warnken on April 2, 2012

    THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME MORE POLITICIZED

    When Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court in 2010, at age 90, there were no longer any justices on the Court from the pre-Reagan era. Justice Stevens was a liberal justice appointed to the Court by President Ford, a Republican. Two of the most liberal justices in history – Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan – were appointed to the Court by President Eisenhower, a Republican. Appointments like those appointments do not happen today.

    Beginning with President Reagan, and followed by President Bush (the elder), President Clinton, President Bush (the younger), and President Obama, all appointments to the Supreme Court have been (1) a member of the President’s party, (2) someone who thinks a lot like the President, (3) someone who is on the President’s side of the line, but not so far down that line so as to preclude confirmation, and (4) a young person, so as to get the longest tenure out of each appointment. I knew that I was getting old when I realized that the Chief Justice of the United States was in his second year of law school when I became a law professor.

    Historically, the Supreme Court was viewed as the one branch of government that stood above the political fray. The Court is still considered to be more neutral than the legislative branch and more neutral than the executive branch, but, in the last three decades, any notion that the Court is completely neutral is gone.

    A century ago, only about 3% of the Court’s decisions were 5-to-4 decisions. During the last three decades, that number has increased more than seven fold to 22%. In fact, it is speculated that the reason that Justice David Souter resigned from the Court was his disgust over how political the Court acted in Bush v. Gore.

    The current Court breakdown is as follows:

    Justice Antonin Scalia – appointed by President Reagan – conservative

    Justice Anthony Kennedy – appointed by President Reagan – conservative, but balanced

    Justice Clarence Thomas – appointed by President Bush (the elder) – conservative

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – appointed by President Clinton – liberal

    Justice Stephen Breyer – appointed by President Clinton – liberal

    Chief Justice John Roberts – appointed by President Bush (the younger) – conservative

    Justice Samuel Alito – appointed by President Bush (the younger) – conservative

    Justice Sonya Sotomayor – appointed by President Obama – liberal

    Justice Elana Kagan – appointed by President Obama – liberal

    Justice Kennedy has become the Court. On many issues, when the other eight Justices are marching in lock step with the party that appointed them, Justice Kennedy can go be persuaded to go either way. Since 2005, Justice Kennedy has been in the majority in almost all 5-to-4 decisions. As goes Justice Kennedy, so goes the Court. That is why Supreme Court observer Jeffrey Toobin, Esq., predicted that the “individual mandate” in the Health Care Reform Act was in “grave danger,” after he heard the questions that Justice Kennedy asked of the advocates, as Justice Kennedy struggled with the confrontation between the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.
    http://professorwarnken.com/2012/04/...han-you-think/
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    To the "elite" (on our side of the aisle) if your a "moderate" or a "centrist" your considered conservative. That is how they view it. This is how liberal republicans like those in the Bush family are labeled "conservative" (in public while privately being labeled "moderate").

    Conversely the "elite" on the other side of the aisle consider you a conservative if you arent as far left as they are. Thats why when they have panels on the talk shows with 3 libs and a "moderate", they think its "balanced" because the moderate is "conservative" in their view.

    So its little surprise when "conservatives" are appointed only later to learn they really werent.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,173
    I got into an argument over the 4 liberal justices of the supreme court on whether or not they are liberal, they all to a man thought they were centrists. lol I almost pissed myself laughing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    The issue becomes what is considered "conservative" and what is considered "liberal." For instance, the latest 5-4 decision to come out of the Court OK's the State to strip search people for minor offenses when they are arrested. I would think the "conservative" approach would be to limit the actions of the State when it comes to the 4th Amendment, forcing the authorities to climb a higher bar on what is reasonable.

    To me, the Court has become more partisan, not ideological.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    To me, the Court has become more partisan, not ideological.
    Thank you having no brain and simply repeating what Obama said yesterday.

    Good job fanboy.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    The issue becomes what is considered "conservative" and what is considered "liberal." For instance, the latest 5-4 decision to come out of the Court OK's the State to strip search people for minor offenses when they are arrested. I would think the "conservative" approach would be to limit the actions of the State when it comes to the 4th Amendment, forcing the authorities to climb a higher bar on what is reasonable.

    To me, the Court has become more partisan, not ideological.
    I'm not so sure about that. Once someone is under arrest, they are by definition a ward of the state. It seems to me that if the appropriate burden has been met for an arrest, then the burden has been met to ensure that someone does not have the means to harm themselves or someone else. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to involve a strip search for that purpose, and since the bar on Amendment IV is "unreasonable," this case seems to meet that demand.

    Now, perhaps the bar for arrest may be too low, but that's a different argument. At least in this case, the police had a warrant issued by a judge. The warrant was issued improperly, but that's not the fault of the police. They are duty-bound to act on that warrant if the person named on the warrant presents himself, as he did in this case. As such, the arrest in question was not illegal in itself, though it was precipitated by an action by a judge that may be deemed illegal.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    I'm not so sure about that. Once someone is under arrest, they are by definition a ward of the state. It seems to me that if the appropriate burden has been met for an arrest, then the burden has been met to ensure that someone does not have the means to harm themselves or someone else. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to involve a strip search for that purpose, and since the bar on Amendment IV is "unreasonable," this case seems to meet that demand.
    That is a circular argument. You are saying that bar is arrest and after arrest, nothing is unreasonable. If that were the case, nothing is unreasonable, period. All that is required is arrest.

    Now, perhaps the bar for arrest may be too low, but that's a different argument.
    I think that argument was lost with Atwater v City of Lago Vista. Arrest is very, very easy.

    On a side note, that decision was during that time after Bush v Gore where the Court mixed things up a bit to get rid of the partisan taint. Souter actually wrote that one.

    At least in this case, the police had a warrant issued by a judge. The warrant was issued improperly, but that's not the fault of the police. They are duty-bound to act on that warrant if the person named on the warrant presents himself, as he did in this case. As such, the arrest in question was not illegal in itself, though it was precipitated by an action by a judge that may be deemed illegal.
    I am not really arguing whether the arrest was warranted (so to speak). I believe you are correct and the officers were in the right. This is more of an ideological enigma for me. I am looking at what I consider a conservative position, limits on the action of the State, and seeing the so-called conservative wing of the Court refusing to place any reasonable limit on the State when it comes to police powers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    An interesting bit in Atwater:


    Atwater’s arrest was surely “humiliating,” as she says in her brief, but it was no more “harmful to … privacy or … physical interests” than the normal custodial arrest. She was handcuffed, placed in a squad car, and taken to the local police station, where officers asked her to remove her shoes, jewelry, and glasses, and to empty her pockets. They then took her photograph and placed her in a cell, alone, for about an hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate, and released on $310 bond. The arrest and booking were inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment


    Atwater v Lago Vista

    .


    The argument Souter made was essentially it wasn't that big of a deal; merely an inconvenience.

    Now, with the latest decision, mere inconvenience has given way to strip search.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,898
    This is my idea of what constitutes a conservative judge.
    A Definition of Strict Constructionism

    From Justin Quinn, former About.com Guide
    See More About:

    judicial restraint
    originalism
    conservative jurists

    Definition: Strict construction is a legal term typically applied to a form of exacting judicial interpretation. The term is sometimes misidentified as "strict constructivism." The practice of strict constructionism requires a judge to apply the text of the law in a formalist way -- only as it is written. This means a judge or panel of judges must first obtain a clear meaning of the text. Once the text of a law is interpreted clearly, there is no need to draw further inferences from statutes of the law.

    Strict constructionism belongs to a family of judicial interpretation theories known as "originalism." Employing strict constructionism is one way for conservative judges to practice judicial restraint.
    Pronunciation: strikt kunstrukshinizim
    Also Known As: judicial conservatism, originalism, textualism
    Alternate Spellings: strict constructionist, strict construction
    Common Misspellings: strict constructivism
    Examples:
    When President George W. Bush campaigned for president, he promised to nominate "strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas."
    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/...ructionism.htm
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,898
    Scalia on the Constitution
    "My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution." -- Justice Scalia
    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained and defended his "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation in a closing address to a Princeton University conference on James Madison, fourth president and framer of the Constitution.

    Speaking on Feb. 23, 2001, Justice Scalia explained that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. An opposite approach, Scalia suggested from that applied by Justices who believe the Constitution "changes from age to age in order to meet the needs of a changing society."

    Scalia criticized the second approach, saying that it too often results in crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

    Calling his view of the Constitution an "originalist" view, Scalia conceded it often places him in a position of supporting laws that do not seem to make sense.

    "It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility."

    Scalia suggested that supporters of the "living Constitution" view, allowing for flexible interpretations molded to meet the changing times, really wanted "rigidity."

    "They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate … Every time you insert into the Constitution - by speculation - new rights that aren't really there you are impoverishing democracy. You are pushing one issue after another off the democratic stage."

    Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, Justice Scalia is considered one of the court's conservatives along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. [Current Supreme Court Justices]
    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •