Why do liberals have such a difficult time grasping the concept of law, and being able to know the difference between a "right" and what they think is fair?

by Conservative in California Posted 2009/12/04 22:50:06

80 votes
Read all 299 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Logic escapes liberals.	33 votes	41%
	Some other answer.	47 votes	59%

Liberals always have funny notions of how they think the law should work rather than the law actually does work. Just because you really want something badly, doesn't mean it is a right (e.g. gay marriage). Just because you don't like what someone else does, doesn't make it illegal (e.g. Bush going to war in Iraq). Just because you dislike someone else's opinions, doesn't make it illegal to say what you think.

Unfortunately too many liberals who confuse "rights" with "fairness" went to law school, and are now federal judges in the mold of Sotomayor, who don't believe in the plain language of the Constitution or the Founder's intent, but believe the Constitution should be erased and replaced with common law judicial fiat.

+21

Add a comment above

Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2009/12/05 04:55:08

Some other answer.

+13
The conservatives, when they most recently took power, destroyed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of security. How is this NOT an attack on the very fabric of this country? This was specifically argued against by the founding fathers.

As to the legality of the Iraq war, who has to declare war, according to the Constitution? How does the law view the outing of a CIA agent? That has been specifically illegal since Reagan. Who paid for that horrendous and treasonous breech of national security?

As to gay marriage, where is that addressed in the Constitution? How does anyone else having civil rights affect you? If two gay men live next door to you and they get married, how is your live affected? How do you neocons (you are not conservatives) justify the limiting of others right, because YOU disagree with them?
>> See Replies

More polls by Conservative in California

brob1969 2009/12/18 23:41:08

Some other answer.

Patriot Act vs Writ of Habeas Corpus

Who was it that took away all these rights?

reply
Callista 2009/12/12 18:46:40

Some other answer.

Conservacons only believe in their interpretation of the law. Look at the number of felonies committed by 4 of the last 5 republicon presidents. No one was punished. this just reinforces their flawed interpretation of the law.

reply
Cap 2009/12/11 04:22:39

Some other answer.

+1
The Warren Court "made it up as it went along" to a degree that is absolutely unparalleled in American History, and the conservative jurists appointed since then have been too hidebound by the conservative tradition of incrementalism to announce that the whole body of Warren Court precedents after Brown v Board of Education were just a bad joke that should be thrown out as a body. Logic escaping liberals has very little to do with it, if only it were that simple - the logic of the arguments is frequently unassai;\lable, the fault lies in the assumptions on which the logic builds. The most viable conservative theory for righting the wrongs done to American jurisprudence by Warrenism is Antonin Scalia's theory of interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning. The dangers that presents to liberal hopes that Warrenisms, suitably embroidered on by their acolytes, will become barnacles in Constitutional jurisprudence, as inseparable from the Original Constitutional framework as the crustaceans that adhere themselves to the hulls of sunken ships, made him, prior to the arrival of Sarah Palin, the demon-figure of the American Left. But I digress from the question asked above. Why do liberals have the difficulty posed above? Because the New York Times tells them...

The Warren Court "made it up as it went along" to a degree that is absolutely unparalleled in American History, and the conservative jurists appointed since then have been too hidebound by the conservative tradition of incrementalism to announce that the whole body of Warren Court precedents after Brown v Board of Education were just a bad joke that should be thrown out as a body. Logic escaping liberals has very little to do with it, if only it were that simple - the logic of the arguments is frequently unassai;\lable, the fault lies in the assumptions on which the logic builds. The most viable conservative theory for righting the wrongs done to American jurisprudence by Warrenism is Antonin Scalia's theory of interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning. The dangers that presents to liberal hopes that Warrenisms, suitably embroidered on by their acolytes, will become barnacles in Constitutional jurisprudence, as inseparable from the Original Constitutional framework as the crustaceans that adhere themselves to the hulls of sunken ships, made him, prior to the arrival of Sarah Palin, the demon-figure of the American Left. But I digress from the question asked above. Why do liberals have the difficulty posed above? Because the New York Times tells them that The Warren Court and its disciples have handed down the Word of God (And they claim a Separation of Church and State! if only it were true in this regard!) and they spend all their time defending that idea and none of their time questioning it.
(more)

reply
Pet Rock Whisperer 2009/12/07 22:34:11

Some other answer.

I don't see any evidence that would indicate any significant difference based on liberal or conservative. Why do a**holes accuse the other side of things extremists from either side are equally guilty of?

reply
Conserv... to Pet Roc... 2009/12/08 07:57:54

guess you don't read many Supreme Court decisions. Otherwise you'd see a huge difference in how a liberal interprets the law compared to a conservative.

reply
Pet Roc... to Conserv... 2009/12/08 15:46:47

+2
Guess you simply are incapable of looking at the whole picture without bias. When you are standing in the picture there is difficulty in seeing the whole picture. When you don't align yourself with one side or the other it's much easier to see that y'all aren't as different as much as you are the same thing only different. I don't really expect you or a lib to understand that. There is no shortage of foolishness from either side. That is how it really is, believe it or not. Neither side is always right or always wrong.

reply
seathanaich 2009/12/07 21:55:09

Some other answer.

+1
Any person who dismisses the other half of the political spectrum, as you have here, is not only not interested in a genuine debate, but clearly incapable of possessing the tools to conduct one.

reply
Conserv... to seathan... 2009/12/08 07:58:38

I don't dismiss liberals. I acknowledge how dangerous non-originalists are to America.

reply
Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥ 2009/12/07 10:14:25

Logic escapes liberals.

+1
Because most of the libs are still drunk and blind from all that kool aid

reply
Bakool 2009/12/07 03:20:06

Logic escapes liberals.

+2
My liberal BIL had no problems making fun of my kid's braces, but didn't like it when I said, "Retarded is not what you call people with disabilities, it's what you call your friends when they are being retarded"

Logic need not apply to the liberal mind.

reply
The Bantam Seditioner 2009/12/06 12:29:35 (edited)

Some other answer.

+2
Neither liberalism nor conservatism, as they're popularly understood today, make very much sense to me.

reply
Ali ~ In My Heart I Trust ~ 2009/12/06 04:11:40

Some other answer.

+1
Most of us think that those who don't agree with us 'have funny notions of' the law, religion, politics, education, business or some other field.

Granted, there are indeed people living on the extreme end of any spectrum who do have odd notions. The rest of us simply differ from one another.

reply
Conserv... to Ali ~ I... 2009/12/06 04:19:01

+1
no, it's pretty simple. There are two schools of thought: 1) originalists who believe that the constitution should be interpretated by the plain language of the words themselves along with the Founder's intent when they ratified the document, and 2) non-originalists who believe that judges should re-interpret the document with the changing times.

The problem with the latter method is that it is no different than common law. Instead of having a set guideline of rules so you know where you stand, you have unelected and unaccountable judges making decisions based on what they think, and not on what the constitution actually says.

reply
Bureauc 0webama 2009/12/06 02:35:42

Logic escapes liberals.

+2
I haven't a better answer and I certainly can not argue with your premiss.

reply
that0neguy 2009/12/06 01:31:17

Some other answer.

+3
Logic escapes a lot of people who aren't liberal as well. Don't generalize. It looks bad.

reply
neoredpill 2009/12/06 00:39:31

Some other answer.

+3
It is you who has missed the logic here. The assertion that same-sex marriage is a right is alternatively either based on existing law against discrimination, asserting a desire to proclaim a right, or stating that something is a right in a moral rather than legal sense. Before the 19th Amendment, women did not have the right to vote in this country. That does not mean that it should not be considered a moral right to give women this same fundamental legal right.

As for Iraq, there are various legal arguments about why it was an illegal invasion. The one I consider to be the strongest is that it violated the UN Charter. Under the charter, no member nation can engage in a military attack against another nation unless one of two conditions is met: 1) They are specifically authorized to do so, or 2) They are defending themselves against an attack that the other nation had initiated against them. Neither condition existed. Since the US Congress ratified the charter and it was signed by President Truman, the charter was made a part of US law. According to the US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme L...

It is you who has missed the logic here. The assertion that same-sex marriage is a right is alternatively either based on existing law against discrimination, asserting a desire to proclaim a right, or stating that something is a right in a moral rather than legal sense. Before the 19th Amendment, women did not have the right to vote in this country. That does not mean that it should not be considered a moral right to give women this same fundamental legal right.

As for Iraq, there are various legal arguments about why it was an illegal invasion. The one I consider to be the strongest is that it violated the UN Charter. Under the charter, no member nation can engage in a military attack against another nation unless one of two conditions is met: 1) They are specifically authorized to do so, or 2) They are defending themselves against an attack that the other nation had initiated against them. Neither condition existed. Since the US Congress ratified the charter and it was signed by President Truman, the charter was made a part of US law. According to the US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI

Thus, any violation of our international agreements is a violation of our laws.
(more)

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/06 00:43:53

+1
Article V gave women the right to vote--the Founding Fathers put the amendment process in the constitution because they knew future changes would be needed. There is a process in place for changing the constitution.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/06 00:59:05

+4
Article V provided a way for the Constitution to be amended. It did not give women the right to vote.

As a fellow Californian, I can also provide some context on the same-sex marriage issue with regard to the question of rights. Before Prop 8, the CA Supreme Court ruled that marriage discrimination violated the fundamental marriage rights of individuals under due process, privacy, and equal protection rights. Thus, it was declared a right. Prop 8 denied that right by amending the state constitution, although it leaves portions of the CA Constitution at odds with other portions of the same document. In seeking to restore same-sex marriage, those of us who abhor the current discriminatory situation are seeking to restore a right that did in fact exist.

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/06 01:41:34

+1
rights don't materialize out of thin air. That's simply called wishful thinking.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/06 01:51:12

+4
Who said anything about them "materializing out of nowhere"? (Oh, I guess that was you.)

The CA Supreme Court found that marriage equality rights existed as a subset of other specified rights. For example, by allowing some couples to marry and others not to marry in the absence of a compelling state interest is a violation of the equal protection clause.

US Chief Justice John Marshall famously said, "The Constitution says what we say it says." By that, he meant that the Supreme Court has the ultimate say in interpreting existing law. For the state of California, the state Supreme Court has the final say (absent any federal issues). So while you might personally disagree with their ruling, that personal disagreement is of zero legal value.

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/06 03:39:40

+1
when you buy a car, does the dealer come back to you in 3 years and say that conditions have changed, so he's going to charge you more for your monthly payments? No. Same thing applies with the contract called the constitution between We the People and the government. Not sure why the government now gets to decide how much power the government has, and what do you know, they have said they have unlimited power.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/06 05:30:08

+1
I would disagree with your premise that the terms of the contract have changed. Sometimes you may enter into a contract and a dispute later arises about what the terms of the contract mean in relation to a given set of circumstances. When that happens, the matter is decided in the courts.

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/06 05:42:48

+1
the courts are the government. the government is deciding what the contract means when the government made the contract with the People. When it comes down to deciding the question of how much power the government has, what do you think the government is going to say? Absolute power. Just take a look at the Commerce Clause and Wikard v. Filburn.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/06 05:48:27

+1
It is a matter of the Judicial branch deciding what powers are vested in the Legislative and Executive branches. Different branches means it is not anyone granting themselves power.

Besides, who else is going to decide these matters? The American Idol panel?

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/06 06:51:04

+1
The States and We the People--10th Amendment. The Supreme Court IS the government. Of course they decide that the government has absolute power over the States and the People.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/06 07:16:29

G.W.Bush had this fundamental misunderstanding of the three branches being separate with powers to check each other. He felt that he could do as he pleased by executive order and apparently thought that the Supreme Court would back him up. Time and again he was proven wrong.

The three branches do not work in unison. You seem to lack that understanding, just as Bush did.

reply
Conserv... to neoredpill 2009/12/08 08:00:38

Knew the "blame Bush" mantra had to come soon.

reply
neoredpill to Conserv... 2009/12/08 08:22:09

Except that was not what I was doing. I was simply explaining that Bush adopted that same kind of thinking that you did and was shot down time after time by the Supreme Court. That is not a blame issue.

reply
seathan... to Conserv... 2009/12/07 22:00:23 (edited)

"Same thing applies with the contract called the constitution between We the People and the government."

Yet above you point out that amendments are needed:

"the Founding Fathers put the amendment process in the constitution because they knew future changes would be needed."

So, which is it? Things must stay the same to the end of time from some Utopian starting point of your choosing (in this case, the 1770s-80s), or things change over time? You can't have both.

The reality is that change happens, and some of it is good.

reply
seathan... to neoredpill 2009/12/07 21:57:09

Neo Red Pill,

Well done, and well said.

reply
taravati 2009/12/06 00:04:58

Some other answer.

I find a general disability within society in regards to the use of logic and reason. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to comment on specific groups of people as far as politics are concerned.

reply
Merl 2009/12/05 21:27:03

Logic escapes liberals.

+2
You actually have the answer within the question. Liberals of all stripes feel their way through life. Instead of logical thought they have emotional thought. So in their mind emoting is thinking. The Founders were thinking not emoting, when the documents were penned. Law is supposed to be interpreted without emotion, but they "feel" that it is unjust when you only look at the facts in a case.

reply
seathan... to Merl 2009/12/07 22:01:52 (edited)

The "Founders" were radical liberals for their day, interestingly. Some even called them "revolutionary". In fact, they fought a war with "revolution" in the title.

reply
Merl to seathan... 2009/12/07 22:15:36

They were radicals, I agree, but by today's terms they were libertarians not liberals.

reply
seathan... to Merl 2009/12/07 22:36:48 (edited)

+1
Do you think so? It's an interesting discussion, given how different the role of "government" was at that time, before the modern state had really been imagined. Cheers.

reply
Merl to seathan... 2009/12/07 23:05:56

Very interesting topic but with the climate on this sight I would hazard posing it. Honest and objective thought are not well rewarded by those who look at everything from a political standpoint.

reply
seathan... to Merl 2009/12/08 00:09:07

No kidding. I'd like a "History" topic here. Oh well.

reply
Merl to seathan... 2009/12/08 00:36:44

We should appeal to the powers that be and make that category.

reply
Aarixan 2009/12/05 21:11:57

Some other answer.

+3
Because you wanted to make a straw man argument you could easily refute, hence this poll.

reply
Conserv... to Aarixan 2009/12/05 22:52:07

+1
That doesn't explain Brennan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor...they are clearly not strawmen.

reply