• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I support "judicial activiism".

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The recent kerfluffle over the DOMA decision reminded me of the fundamentalist reason that I am hostile to American conservatism, when I'd likely be considered quite far to the Right in virtually any European nation: I do not believe that the vox populi speaks with any moral voice.

The argument that "the people should decide" is profoundly queer when it is advanced by conservatives. It is a tacit concession to democracy - and what is conservatism good for if not to check and curb the excesses of popular sentiment?

Our political structure is founded on an overriding hostility to direct democracy, and rightly so. The old quote that The People "is a wild beast" is especially true in a society where the individual is trampled in by the collective. Conservatives acknowledge the fundamentalist unfairness of penalizing the wealthy through popular mandate - the Old Right's opposition to the New Deal was as driven at least as much by support for the autonomy of the individual as by the economic concerns of wealth. But this old lesson has been completely forgotten by right-winged populists.

I prefer a society governed by the learned than by one controlled by mass whim. I oppose this latter especially in cases where it threatens to undermine the position of the individual as the basis of society - which the individual is and NOT "the family", mind. So I oppose, for instance, allowing gay marriage on a ballot at all, whether it be in Maine (which voted to allow it) or in Missouri (whi voted for prohibition). In both cases I would prefer a judicial ruling, even one banning gay marriage - which I support - to a popular vote, even one allowing it.

This holds good for all controversial social issues, in my eyes. Democracy is the rule by the incompetence over the impotent. And it ought to be opposed.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Courts are for the political losers.
 

wbcoleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
431
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The recent kerfluffle over the DOMA decision reminded me of the fundamentalist reason that I am hostile to American conservatism, when I'd likely be considered quite far to the Right in virtually any European nation: I do not believe that the vox populi speaks with any moral voice.

The argument that "the people should decide" is profoundly queer when it is advanced by conservatives. It is a tacit concession to democracy - and what is conservatism good for if not to check and curb the excesses of popular sentiment?

Our political structure is founded on an overriding hostility to direct democracy, and rightly so. The old quote that The People "is a wild beast" is especially true in a society where the individual is trampled in by the collective. Conservatives acknowledge the fundamentalist unfairness of penalizing the wealthy through popular mandate - the Old Right's opposition to the New Deal was as driven at least as much by support for the autonomy of the individual as by the economic concerns of wealth. But this old lesson has been completely forgotten by right-winged populists.

I prefer a society governed by the learned than by one controlled by mass whim. I oppose this latter especially in cases where it threatens to undermine the position of the individual as the basis of society - which the individual is and NOT "the family", mind. So I oppose, for instance, allowing gay marriage on a ballot at all, whether it be in Maine (which voted to allow it) or in Missouri (whi voted for prohibition). In both cases I would prefer a judicial ruling, even one banning gay marriage - which I support - to a popular vote, even one allowing it.

This holds good for all controversial social issues, in my eyes. Democracy is the rule by the incompetence over the impotent. And it ought to be opposed.
Would you feel the same way if a Republican President, rather than O, had made the last two SCOTUS appointments?
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Courts are for the political losers.

I regard as an intellectual loser any proposition that relies on the mass for political validation.

If pure democracy was the order of the day, Roosevelt would have been a dictator de jure
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Would you feel the same way if a Republican President, rather than O, had made the last two SCOTUS appointments?
And if they had ruled in support of DOMA, yes, certainly. Better a bad judicial decision than a good democratic one (I opposed putting marriage on the ballot in Washington, when I knew it would pass, for the same reason).
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,531
Reaction score
3,974
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The recent kerfluffle over the DOMA decision reminded me of the fundamentalist reason that I am hostile to American conservatism, when I'd likely be considered quite far to the Right in virtually any European nation: I do not believe that the vox populi speaks with any moral voice.
The only moral voice, the only moral authority is an authority, is a voice that is derived by the consent of the governed. Anything outside of that is immoral, is Tyranny.

The argument that "the people should decide" is profoundly queer when it is advanced by conservatives. It is a tacit concession to democracy - and what is conservatism good for if not to check and curb the excesses of popular sentiment?
A check and curb for the over enthusiastic not an obstruction to what consent shall be given.
Our political structure is founded on an overriding hostility to direct democracy, and rightly so. The old quote that The People "is a wild beast" is especially true in a society where the individual is trampled in by the collective. Conservatives acknowledge the fundamentalist unfairness of penalizing the wealthy through popular mandate - the Old Right's opposition to the New Deal was as driven at least as much by support for the autonomy of the individual as by the economic concerns of wealth. But this old lesson has been completely forgotten by right-winged populists.
Can't argue with you there...
I prefer a society governed by the learned than by one controlled by mass whim. I oppose this latter especially in cases where it threatens to undermine the position of the individual as the basis of society - which the individual is and NOT "the family", mind. So I oppose, for instance, allowing gay marriage on a ballot at all, whether it be in Maine (which voted to allow it) or in Missouri (whi voted for prohibition). In both cases I would prefer a judicial ruling, even one banning gay marriage - which I support - to a popular vote, even one allowing it.
This is sounding dangerously close to a Leninist "Vanguard Party" and while Lenin was a conservative of sorts, I don't think we can equate him or promote that line of reasoning here.

This holds good for all controversial social issues, in my eyes. Democracy is the rule by the incompetence over the impotent. And it ought to be opposed.
All "controversial" social issues should be decided in the most directly democratic of fashions and the authority given in their regard should go no higher than the most local forms of government. Drugs, abortion, ssm, all should be localized. If they are not, you'll have tyranny either of the Vanguard Party or the Mob.
 

wbcoleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
431
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And if they had ruled in support of DOMA, yes, certainly. Better a bad judicial decision than a good democratic one (I opposed putting marriage on the ballot in Washington, when I knew it would pass, for the same reason).
I mean suppose SCOTUS had an entire panel of Scalias, Alitos, and Thomases.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,757
Reaction score
17,164
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I largely agree, but many of my sentiments have variations to yours. Likewise, the mere concept of elitism and anti-democratic virtues seem to be lost on most American conservatives. While I am skeptical of the full intelligence and integrity of society's usually listed best and brightest, many times I trust them more than I do my fellow man, and for good reason.

Of course there are limitations to the extent at which the institution should be revered, but I think it on the whole necessary. Likewise, while democracy has frequently been to the detriment of the minority and a strength to the majority, the legislature and the court systems have also been great assets to the minority. That is not to suggest that there are not instances in which those institutions have not committed great crimes against such populations, but it is largely true that the diversity of the American political system is a great asset to various segments of the population. We need to protect against the tyranny of the minority as well as the tyranny of the majority. All too recently have conservatives forgotten their conservative ancestors and the overwhelming concern about the tyranny of the masses.
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I mean suppose SCOTUS had an entire panel of Scalias, Alitos, and Thomases.


I would still find it more palatable than a mass democratic decision even in support of my personal policy preferences.
 

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To the op doma was unconstitutional on a basic straight reading, so I don't know what your talking about. Also if your ok with judical activism amend the constitution to change article 3 until then the Supreme Court has no athority over the constitution.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I'm pretty sure "judicial activism" is just a term for decisions on controversial issues that the speaker doesn't like. I certainly support the system of judicial review that we have right now. The notion of a branch of government that can check the legislature but cannot make laws of its own is a good one. I don't see how such a system is avoidable, frankly. So long as a person can contend in court that a law or government action violates the constitution, courts need to be able to reach that holding and knock out the law or provision.
 

wbcoleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
431
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I would still find it more palatable than a mass democratic decision even in support of my personal policy preferences.
OK, I disagree, but this is honest.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,757
Reaction score
17,164
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm pretty sure "judicial activism" is just a term for decisions on controversial issues that the speaker doesn't like.
It mostly is (just check out how often Citizens United-a ruling I am at least tolerant of-wasn't praised by those who think the Courts are unjustified activists), but many times there is also a semi-consistent disdain for the elite institutions that are not directly touched by the public.
 

wbcoleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
431
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm pretty sure "judicial activism" is just a term for decisions on controversial issues that the speaker doesn't like. I certainly support the system of judicial review that we have right now. The notion of a branch of government that can check the legislature but cannot make laws of its own is a good one. I don't see how such a system is avoidable, frankly. So long as a person can contend in court that a law or government action violates the constitution, courts need to be able to reach that holding and knock out the law or provision.
I support judicial review in principle, but the justices have made it pretty clear that they are doing little more than implementing their own personal policy preferences. The various opinions issued last week [on all sides] were almost hilarious in their lack of principle.
 

thinkforyoursel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
314
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judicial Activism = decisions that goes against the right wing nut bags

If it goes their way.....it can't be judicial activism.....why?

Because the right wing is mainly old white men who truly believe that the law should be structured around their needs and wants. If you're not old and white...you're just along for the ride.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,757
Reaction score
17,164
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I support judicial review in principle, but the justices have made it pretty clear that they are doing little more than implementing their own personal policy preferences. The various opinions issued last week [on all sides] were almost hilarious in their lack of principle.
There is going to be an element of that no matter what. It is rather hard to explain the ebbs and flows of perception of the same document after two centuries with a given subject, otherwise.
 

wbcoleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,833
Reaction score
431
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There is going to be an element of that no matter what. It is rather hard to explain the ebbs and flows of perception of the same document after two centuries with a given subject, otherwise.
How was there standing in the DOMA case, which the federal government refused to defend, but standing in the Prop 8 case, which the state of California refused to defend? How blatant can you get?
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I must be brief, as I'm posting from a dying phone.

The only moral voice, the only moral authority is an authority, is a voice that is derived by the consent of the governed. Anything outside of that is immoral, is Tyranny.
Setting aside my basic disagreement with the Jeffersonian definition of tyranny, The Governed have already given their consent - indirectly and representatively, as intended - in their Senate elections.



check and curb for the over enthusiastic not an obstruction to what consent shall be given.
An enthusiasm for democracy is the most dangerous enthusiasm.


This is sounding dangerously close to a Leninist "Vanguard Party" and while Lenin was a conservative of sorts, I don't think we can equate him or promote that line of reasoning here.

I have often fancied the idea of being a Lenin of the Right, with Nietzsche as my Marx.

All "controversial" social issues should be decided in the most directly democratic of fashions and the authority given in their regard should go no higher than the most local forms of government. Drugs, abortion, ssm, all should be localized. If they are not, you'll have tyranny either of the Vanguard Party or the Mob.
 
Top Bottom