25 Mar 10
1 edit
President Obama recently appointed Goodwin Liu as a nominee for the 9th circuit bench. And what does he stand for? Here is a taste. "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day. Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaption and change as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding Fathers." Mr. Liu even wrote a book about his views and in that book he made some rather interesting things regarding the constitution. Specifically, Liu argues that the Constitution should uphold welfare rights. Liu wrote, "I use the term welfare right to mean an affirmative constitutional right to particular social goods such as education, shelter, subsistance, health care and the like, or to the money those things cost."
So is he the next cog in the progressive machine? Will he be the next Supreme Court nominee?
http://www.narbosa.com/2010/03/goodwin-liu-obamas-radical-nominee-for.html
25 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyIn other words, he doesn't believe in the Constitution. He believes in the life tenured unelected Supreme Court ruling the land arbitrarily by fiat.
President Obama recently appointed Goodwin Liu as a nominee for the 9th circuit bench. And what does he stand for? Here is a taste. "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day. Applications of constitutional text and principles must b ...[text shortened]... Court nominee?
http://www.narbosa.com/2010/03/goodwin-liu-obamas-radical-nominee-for.html
Nice.
25 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI assume you prefer the "strict constructionist" kind of judge. Most conservatives do.
President Obama recently appointed Goodwin Liu as a nominee for the 9th circuit bench. And what does he stand for? Here is a taste. "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day. Applications of constitutional text and principles must b o is he the next cog in the progressive machine? Will he be the next Supreme Court nominee?
But how many conservatives would apply a "strict construction" to the 2nd Amendment? The foundng fathers clearly stated that the "right to bear arms" depended on the "need for a well-regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state". Why else would they have specifically included that clause in the amendment?
But in today's world, the security of the free state is almost entirely dependent on the nation's defense system. While the militias still exist (in the form of the National Guard), the "security of the free state" clearly no longer depends on it.
So a strict constructionist judge would argue that the "right to bear arms" no longer exists. Nowadays many judges interpret the consitution more loosely and view the 2nd Amendment as covering an individual's "right to defend himself and his family against an attack" or even a right to hunt or own a gun collection, even though this doesn't appear to have been what the founders had in mind.
25 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere's a large gap between a strict constructionist in the mold of a Scalia, let's say, and a guy who invents the right to receive government supplied welfare benefits from the text of a Constitution that clearly says no such thing.
I assume you prefer the "strict constructionist" kind of judge. Most conservatives do.
But how many conservatives would apply a "strict construction" to the 2nd Amendment? The foundng fathers clearly stated that the "right to bear arms" depended on the "need for a well-regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state". Why else would they have ...[text shortened]... ", even though this doesn't appear to have been what the founders had in mind.
25 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Not at all sh76, he believes that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" In other words, wet your finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing as to which roads we should take. The rule of law should only reflect our needs and desires, not restrain us, or more importantly, not restrain government in any way.
In other words, he doesn't believe in the Constitution. He believes in the life tenured unelected Supreme Court ruling the land arbitrarily by fiat.
Nice.
25 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo if the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, then why does the government not mandate that the state go out and buy us all guns and join militias much like they insist we have a right to health care?
[b]I assume you prefer the "strict constructionist" kind of judge. Most conservatives do.
But how many conservatives would apply a "strict construction" to the 2nd Amendment? The foundng fathers clearly stated that the "right to bear arms" depended on the "need for a well-regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state". Why else would they have specifically included that clause in the amendment?
25 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesTell that to militias around the US who feel as though they have no voice in the American political system. They are just waiting for the government to overstep their bounds and try to take from them what rights they still have. For them, the old addage, "Give me liberty or give me death" may apply. All they want is to be left alone. Do they have the right to do so? Yes or no?
But in today's world, the security of the free state is almost entirely dependent on the nation's defense system. While the militias still exist (in the form of the National Guard), the "security of the free state" clearly no longer depends on it.
So a strict constructionist judge would argue that the "right to bear arms" no longer exists. Nowadays many ollection, even though this doesn't appear to have been what the founders had in mind.[/b]
25 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76I would be interested in what kind of rulings Liu has issued previously in his career. Has he generally adhered to existing precedents and issued rulings that make sense? Or does he have a history of making a lot of strange rulings? Has he had an inordinate number of rulings overturned by a higher court? Do most of his peers consider him to be a high quality judge, or do many of them have serious concerns?
There's a large gap between a strict constructionist in the mold of a Scalia, let's say, and a guy who invents the right to receive government supplied welfare benefits from the text of a Constitution that clearly says no such thing.
It just seems like everyone seeking high judicial appointments declares themselves to be "strict constructionists" to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore. Maybe this guy is just being more honest than most.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyLets suppose some backwoods militia group decided to take up arms against the federal government. How long do you think they would last? They wouldn't last more than a day or two against Iran's security forces.
Tell that to militias around the US who feel as though they have no voice in the American political system. They are just waiting for the government to overstep their bounds and try to take from them what rights they still have. For them, the old addage, "Give me liberty or give me death" may apply. All they want is to be left alone. Do they have the right to do so? Yes or no?
The only way the US government could be overthrown would be to get a large percentage of the federal troops to turn against it. And I don't think that even you would want to see that happening.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyYour extreme ignorance of Constitutional principles is pretty stunning. The groups you are talking about are not militias in the Constitutional sense. Perhaps you could point me to the provision in the Constitution that says you can physically resist government policies you don't like.
Tell that to militias around the US who feel as though they have no voice in the American political system. They are just waiting for the government to overstep their bounds and try to take from them what rights they still have. For them, the old addage, "Give me liberty or give me death" may apply. All they want is to be left alone. Do they have the right to do so? Yes or no?
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSome did in 1794 because they didn't like a federal tax. Ask whodey how the Whiskey Rebellion went and how tolerant the Framers were of this type of behavior.
Lets suppose some backwoods militia group decided to take up arms against the federal government. How long do you think they would last? They wouldn't last more than a day or two against Iran's security forces.
The only way the US government could be overthrown would be to get a large percentage of the federal troops to turn against it. And I don't think that even you would want to see that happening.
26 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyUnsurprisingly in a right wing hack job, the quote was taken out of context to ascribe to Liu a position he does not believe in. All he does there is define a "welfare right" in a non-controversial way. He then argues that courts should not recognize such "rights". http://www.supportgoodwinliu.com/2010/03/q-on-goodwin-liu-welfare-rights.html
President Obama recently appointed Goodwin Liu as a nominee for the 9th circuit bench. And what does he stand for? Here is a taste. "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day. Applications of constitutional text and principles must b Court nominee?
http://www.narbosa.com/2010/03/goodwin-liu-obamas-radical-nominee-for.html
sh you really should do a tiny bit of research before swallowing whodey's right wing cut and pastes hook, line and sinker.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76Please; you're dipping into WhodeyLand.
In other words, he doesn't believe in the Constitution. He believes in the life tenured unelected Supreme Court ruling the land arbitrarily by fiat.
Nice.
This constitutional interpretative debate is nothing new but Liu's vision is hardly as extravagant as the claims made in the blog article or by you in this post. Here's a standard right wing critique of Liu's evaluative methods: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDMwNWNlMjdlMTcwZDdmNWI5YmI0YTBhMzNjMjc0ZGI=
26 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI was commenting only on this statement:
Please; you're dipping into WhodeyLand.
This constitutional interpretative debate is nothing new but Liu's vision is hardly as extravagant as the claims made in the blog article or by you in this post. Here's a standard right wing critique of Liu's evaluative methods: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDMwNWNlMjdlMTcwZDdmNWI5YmI0YTBhMzNjMjc0ZGI=
"I use the term welfare right to mean an affirmative constitutional right to particular social goods such as education, shelter, subsistance, health care and the like, or to the money those things cost."
Tell me something, do you think that inferring this as a Constitutional right is a fair reading of the Constitution?
Edit: I just saw your previous post, essentially saying that he didn't say that. If he never said it, then fine, he never said it. I was assuming that he did say it.