USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Gi - Br So Ka | Ke | Ro - Th Sc Al
Makes sense. Kennedy is the centrist and Roberts is the next closest to the center (though he has his thumb on the scale).
Gi - Br So Ka | Ke | Ro - Th Sc Al
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Yup, Roberts has definitely been the conservative who has been in play the most for siding with the Democrats. Who knows, over time he may flip to the liberal side of things more and more often. Definitely an interesting alignment.
Yup, Roberts has definitely been the conservative who has been in play the most for siding with the Democrats. Who knows, over time he may flip to the liberal side of things more and more often. Definitely an interesting alignment.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The chief justice also sometimes votes with the majority solely to write the decision.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
All in all my first reaction is that this is a win for Obama and big federalism. Sounds like the one provision that was upheld by the Court can be attacked in other ways to try to fully gut the legislation.
True, though we don't know if that's the case here, do we?
All in all my first reaction is that this is a win for Obama and big federalism. Sounds like the one provision that was upheld by the Court can be attacked in other ways to try to fully gut the legislation.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
He may actually have pragmatic tendencies.
He may actually have pragmatic tendencies.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Citizens Untied > Montana
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nited/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html?hpid=z2
I think the amicus brief by the Senate Minority Leader received this consideration:
Citizens Untied > Montana
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nited/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html?hpid=z2
I think the amicus brief by the Senate Minority Leader received this consideration:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
For those who need interpretation, in this context pragmatic means liberal.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I agree. Compromise is a liberal concept. It sure as heck doesn't exist on the right side of the ledger, that's for sure.
I agree. Compromise is a liberal concept. It sure as heck doesn't exist on the right side of the ledger, that's for sure.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
No wonder you don't pretend anymore to be anywhere in the middle of the road.
Interpretation for those who need it. Us liberals are right and decent and honest and reasonable, while those who oppose us are always wrong and evil.
No wonder you don't pretend anymore to be anywhere in the middle of the road.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The right is more black and white then the left. The left wants XX dollars for some program but is okay only getting X. The right simply doesn't want to fund the program.
The right is more black and white then the left. The left wants XX dollars for some program but is okay only getting X. The right simply doesn't want to fund the program.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Which would be good, because it's the first bullet on the Chief Justice's job description.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
"Conservatism" in its traditional sense is all about compromise, because it's a mechanism to ensure the society transitions slowly between states rather than in a disruptive and cataclysmic way. The enemy of conservatism is not compromise, it's revolution. Which is Reason #487 why many public officials who call themselves "conservative" right now are quite another thing entirely.
That's not a left:right dichotomy, though, it's a function of the particular goal and its current status. For example, liberals want to simply protect a woman's right to choose, while conservatives want to "compromise" (i.e., whittle it down). Same in the other direction for gun rights.
"Conservatism" in its traditional sense is all about compromise, because it's a mechanism to ensure the society transitions slowly between states rather than in a disruptive and cataclysmic way. The enemy of conservatism is not compromise, it's revolution. Which is Reason #487 why many public officials who call themselves "conservative" right now are quite another thing entirely.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That's a whole lot of spin talk and liberal perspective. One could easily take this and rewrite it to make conservatives sound reasonable rather than liberal.s
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Bob, I think what I wrote does make conservatives sound more reasonable than liberals. I don't see many conservatives in the American political spectrum right now, at least not many with any audience, but in its basic principles Conservatism is based on the extremely reasonable observation that it takes longer for groups to adjust to new ideas than it does for revolutionaries to think of them.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
You actually switch conservatives around with liberals. Your examples makes liberals sound like they just want to sit there and be happy with the status quo, while conservatives are trying to change everything around. History shows that more often than not those positions are just the other way around. Especially on social issues liberals are rewriting the book to fit whatever is now in vogue, while conservatives are just wanting to be left alone. Thus "conserve".Bob, I think what I wrote does make conservatives sound more reasonable than liberals. I don't see many conservatives in the American political spectrum right now, at least not many with any audience, but in its basic principles Conservatism is based on the extremely reasonable observation that it takes longer for groups to adjust to new ideas than it does for revolutionaries to think of them.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The "conserve" in Conservatism is about conserving what has worked in the past and what has a decent record of stability. It is about managing order. Hence, conservatives tend to value religious traditions and established social hierarchies. That does not mean Conservatives always fight every change, but the change has to be carefully managed so people who have built up large investments, whether those are economic or emotional, are disrupted as little as possible. The opposite is the utopian revolutionary who believes his great new idea will finally save humanity from itself, and who doesn't care what traditions he uproots in making that happen.
People with right wing utopian notions aren't Conservatives, they're just another form of social experimenter. Guys like Grover Norquist who want to drown the government in a bathtub are the exact opposite of Conservative, but they have highjacked the term. For that matter, the radical libertarians who believe government is the enemy of liberty are not what Burke or Chesterton or Russell Kirk would have called a Conservative either. Those thinkers thought government power was like any kind of power -- it had the potential to be used for good if managed well. The idea that every person is an atomistic, rugged individualist who should have no interference from anybody in the pursuit of his own desires is a very new notion. In the Conservative tradition, it's just another revolutionary fad to be distrusted.
I'm not trying to be snarky here (for once) but I don't see any relationship between what I wrote and what you are saying.
The "conserve" in Conservatism is about conserving what has worked in the past and what has a decent record of stability. It is about managing order. Hence, conservatives tend to value religious traditions and established social hierarchies. That does not mean Conservatives always fight every change, but the change has to be carefully managed so people who have built up large investments, whether those are economic or emotional, are disrupted as little as possible. The opposite is the utopian revolutionary who believes his great new idea will finally save humanity from itself, and who doesn't care what traditions he uproots in making that happen.
People with right wing utopian notions aren't Conservatives, they're just another form of social experimenter. Guys like Grover Norquist who want to drown the government in a bathtub are the exact opposite of Conservative, but they have highjacked the term. For that matter, the radical libertarians who believe government is the enemy of liberty are not what Burke or Chesterton or Russell Kirk would have called a Conservative either. Those thinkers thought government power was like any kind of power -- it had the potential to be used for good if managed well. The idea that every person is an atomistic, rugged individualist who should have no interference from anybody in the pursuit of his own desires is a very new notion. In the Conservative tradition, it's just another revolutionary fad to be distrusted.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Um, that's what he said. What exactly were you reading?
Um, that's what he said. What exactly were you reading?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Your example about liberals trying to maintain the right to choose while conservatives try to change it paints a picture where liberals are trying to preserve what's in place or works or whatever the appropriate term is, while conservatives are the ones trying to change things. Maybe that just wasn't a good example to illustrate what you were trying to say.
- Status