compromise means today WE LOST.

Until we can get beyond the WE LOST mentality

Even the evil Arabs who want Israel destroyed accept incremental victories, such as pushing Israel back to the 1967 boundaries. Any partial defeat for Israel constitutes a partial victory for them.

Unfortunately, it is too late to reverse the damage.

Long-overdue reform is hardly “damage,” K. What has been damaged is the Court’s future tendency to continue engaging in leftist activism rather than to behave as a court should. The reform is refreshing. There is no regret from me that activism has now become more inhibited than it used to be. That is a good, welcome, long-overdue thing. This is the judiciary, not the legislature, which should make rulings that are legal, not political. The reform is overdue.

Making 180 deg. turns in rulings can not be good for any society. The purpose of resoecting precedent is to safeguard smooth transitions and protect against violent jerking back and forth.

Such as respecting the Dred Scott decision?

Today’s Court is not “radical” simply because it has been reformed to some measure, something long overdue and long sought by Americans.

LOL What about the 60’s, that SCOTUS was LIBERAL. Remember the days of Warren,Burger and Marshall, now those were the “smelly hippee” days.

Dark, disgusting days as far as the Court’s and the judiciary’s reputation goes. Forcing both houses of bicameral legislatures to be apportioned on a population basis, on no true legal basis whatsoever? Inventing rights not found in the Constitution? The “trimester rules” (okay, Seventies, but a hangover from earlier, dark days of the Court and an equally dark day)? Etc.

What’s equally disgusting is that many want the Court to regress to such ways, and any deviation from that they dishonesly claim is “conservative activism” [sic].

About 1/4 of their decisions in this session were 5-4 indicating divisiveness on the court which mimics our political environment.

1. How often were there 5-4 decisions before?

2. It’s certainly better than 9-0 and definitely liberal to radical, substituting whims and political desires for real law, isn’t it? (Yes.)

DLS- I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion- less activist would mean adhering to precedent.

No, it means less arrogation of legislative powers, less creation of legislation out of nothing, as well as less engaging in highly creative, unusual, and nonsensical interpretation of laws on the books.

It was ecpected that the Roberts court would be conservative. The unhappy shock rests in how radical it is in turning the country in a reverse direction

The worry is that after many more radical rulings like what we’ve seen, we won’t recognze anymore what a truly centrist conservatve position is It will become a question of whether a ruling is less or more radical. than the last one. And that’s a truly frghtening picture.

.

I’m not saying that I think it will be the end of the Republican party- I believe the government acts as a pendulum swinging back and forth from liberal to conservative. We have had a long conservative period on the court with the Rehnquest court being followed by the much more conservative Roberts court. The difference lies in having Kennedy as the swing vote instead of a moderate like O’Connor.

These decisions will serve as a wake-up call for those who didn’t connect a vote for Bush with moving the court sharply to the right for the next generation. Unfortunately, it is too late to reverse the damage.

Michael H. Hart calls Washington “the predominant figure in the establishment of the United States of America.”
The United States was fortunate indeed to have as its first president a man of the caliber and character of George Washington. As can be seen from the history of many [other young nations] it is all too easy for a new nation — even if it starts out with a democratic constitution — to degenerate into a military dictatorship.
Washington was not as original or incisive a thinker as some of the other leaders of the day ….
Nevertheless, he was far more important that any of those more brilliant men; for Washington, both in war and in peace, supplied the vital ingredient of executive leadership, without which no political revolution can succeed. [Others' roles were important; but] Washington’s was well-nigh indispensible.

This very fact can be seen in the early days of the Democracy of Turkey. Look at their leader at that time. Crisis is upon them and perhaps they need to reach deep and find a leader with George Washingtons zeal for democracy, much as Ataturk has the zeal and drive and stature to make Democracy more important then the man.

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”

Therefore If I am to agree to his view on parties as gospel then I should also subscribe to his apparent demands that Christianity be a prerequisite for governing.

It is why our founding fathers put the 60/40 vote scheme into the constitution for our senate. For if something in this nation is trully wanted and needed then there should be no reason not to have 60 percent of our elected representatives voting in favor of it.

Umm… not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the Senate (and the House) make their own rules. The 60-vote cloture rule is of recent vintage; orignally, it took a *unanimous* decision to close debate, and even one senator could filibuster a bill out of existence.

And as long as you’re citing the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, you might want to check on what Washington thought of political factions…

No, we don’t. The Supreme Court is simply less left-activist than it used to be.

LOL What about the 60′s, that SCOTUS was LIBERAL. Remember the days of Warren,Burger and Marshall, now those were the “smelly hippee” days.

Steve even though I think you are far left and I am moderate to far right I like you. You are a man after my own heart who just writes what he thinks, but has the temperate nature to stop and reflect on things from time to time.

Thanks Somebody… I enjoy our back and forth’s, too. I also believe that we’re both probably a little more moderate than we appear to our opposites. I consider myself a member of the ‘loyal opposition’ and when (not if) Democrats hold the same total control recently lost by the Republicans I plan to hold them to the same accountability.

The Moderate Voice is a great resource for opposites to discuss and debate the serious times that WE are ALL living through TOGETHER. That’s probably why I go a bit overboard when pejoratives and ad hominem get used in lieu of discussion and debate.

Yes it may but that is nothing different then the anti liberal backlash felt in 1994 by the dems. This is politics. It is not the end of the Republican party, just as it was not the end of the Democratic party.

Our two party system is and has been designed to make sure that this nation smoothly moves along on its social pathways. Lets be honest. Man is a social animal and as a result his every action is rooted in Social behavior…..Good or bad.

From time to time we make grave mistakes. The government does not move fast enough for Liberals and TOO fast for conservatives. But thru it all the government actually moves just about right.

It is why our founding fathers put the 60/40 vote scheme into the constitution for our senate. For if something in this nation is trully wanted and needed then there should be no reason not to have 60 percent of our elected representatives voting in favor of it.

Yet along comes Activism….and the Democrats are now pissing their pants because they can’t get the goods on Tricky Dick or Slimy Shrub.

Just as the Republicans pissed in their pants for 8 years over a president they dubbed as the DO nothing President….Which I happen to think is a GOOD thing.

So therein lies the assertion. Nothing Bush has done is against the law. Even his NSA wiretaps were overseen by Congress….just secretly. The torture in Guantanamo…waterboarding and giving the inmates radios that only played static. That was overseen by congress too. Our government was fully engaged in this as well. Bush has done nothing that is illegal or unconstitutional and if he has then he will be able to point to a whole long list of senators and representatives who helped in and advised him and said its okay George. The justice department right or wrong said go for it. They gave him the green light. So in the end when the crying by the left is over there will be nothing to pin on Bush or Chenny. Except perhaps BAD Judgement.

I saw worse abuse then that in the military for 25 years and I volunteered for it. So yes I reassert that Bush and Company have done nothing illegal………only aggrevating and with questionable decision making but the suspension of Habeus Corpus is not without preceedent. Lincoln did it, FDR did it, Now Bush is doing it to ONE American citizen and perhaps 500 Terrorists.

So while I must reiterate that once the Democrats are in charge if they can stop playing to the radical left and nominate someone who is electable they too will be faced with the same cold hard facts Bush was faced with. How to protect America and its citizens when there are people that would murder us by the bushel basket without compunction.

So why the left has cause to dance in the street, I truly find it sad that they choose to do so. For after all it is there country too.

Never forget it.

About 1/4 of their decisions in this session were 5-4 indicating divisiveness on the court which mimics our political environment.

‘Radical’ should be the antithesis of ‘conaervative’
according to their claims.
When decades of precedent are thrown out, by the current SCOTUS, that’s a radical ruling and, therefore, activism.

I would respect a conservative judge who is conservative in action as well as judicial philosophy.
I can’t respect a judge who embraces radical change to promote his political or judiciary philosophy.

The Roberts court is conservative in philosophy, but radical in rulings. They are activists, the last thing we need in a country at war with itself.