15 May 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI have thought that the so called "Institutions of higher learning" are nothing but "institutes of higher standardization" for some time, as far as the "pseudo-sciences" and "alchemical" aspects go. Hard science and Math are pretty much incorruptible, but the other aspects seem to have been put into a goose-stepping facist mode and I don't see that it will change back to liberalism any time soon.
A wonderful essay on young know-it-alls who have been taught what to think critically about, but not how to think critically:
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/05/14/the-shakespeare/
Liberalism is the desire and need to explore ALL avenues and welcome debate on ALL ideas. It has been killed by the people who would critique Shakespeare.
Excellent short essay. Thanks for the link.
15 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThey're called indoctrination centers.
I have thought that the so called "Institutions of higher learning" are nothing but "institutes of higher standardization" for some time, as far as the "pseudo-sciences" and "alchemical" aspects go. Hard science and Math are pretty much incorruptible, but the other aspects seem to have been put into a goose-stepping facist mode and I don't see that it w ...[text shortened]... e people who would critique Shakespeare.
Excellent short essay. Thanks for the link.
15 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI guess it isn't too surprising IF... one has studied revolutionary communism. This is the full-court-press of Stalinism.
I used to think the same thing, but they're already trying to adulterate the curriculum:
http://www.radicalmath.org/main.php?id=SocialJusticeMath
Fortunately, it will have its day and die. The only fools who will become indoctrinated are those feeble minds like death sponge who can't actually ADD two numbers. I doubt very much that this will affect ChronicLeaky or bbarr.
Riddle for the day. What happened to the twenty percent of western civiliation who called themselves "communist" in 1990? Did they all die? Or get a new name?
15 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterScalia is articulating by way of the "Shakespeare Principle" a principle of conservatism (literally, respecting traditions because they are traditions and, hence, probably work all right for those who have a say in civil affairs). I'm not sure whether this just is a reiteration of stare decisis, or if Scalia is claiming that not only precedent but also endemic cultural norms must be respected. If so, then I wonder whether he thinks that Brown vs. Board was decided incorrectly. I mean, shouldn't the Shakespeare Principle be balanced by a principle that mandates departing from tradition in cases of egregious but traditional moral errors like racial injustice? Or, perhaps Scalia would claim that cultural norms can be outweighed by other considerations but only if those considerations can be traced back to the original intentions of the founders. Anyway, Scalia's general deference to cultural norms (if that is indeed what he is claiming in the article) is potentially inconsistent with his rejection of the "evolving standards of decency" arguments put forth by his more liberal colleagues in the Lawrence vs. Texas case.
A wonderful essay on young know-it-alls who have been taught what to think critically about, but not how to think critically:
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/05/14/the-shakespeare/
15 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIn plain english, so as not to confuse the issue, Scalia is as obliged to the stare decisis of the FOUNDERS in their origination of the framework as they are to your implied superior "populism" imposed by judicial decree.
Scalia is articulating by way of the "Shakespeare Principle" a principle of conservatism (literally, respecting traditions because they are traditions and, hence, probably work all right for those who have a say in civil affairs). I'm not sure whether this just is a reiteration of stare decisis, or if Scalia is claiming that not only precedent but also cency" arguments put forth by his more liberal colleagues in the Lawrence vs. Texas case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200505110758.asp
This is the one defining difference between left and right. Read the above, not as an "exact example" but as to gain understanding of the basic philosophical split between the strict interpretationists and the evolutionists.
Can you seriously argue that invoking the Shakespeare Principle invalidates the obligation to look to intent of the founders? That is misdirection at best.
15 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyStare decicis is just the principle that one should respect precdent and favor focused rulings over sweeping rulings that fail to accord with past decisions on issues tangential to the case at hand. Interestingly. So, stare decisis can in fact conflict with originalism. Scalia has both deferred to stare decisis and to originalism in cases, and often the best predictor of the way he'll go are his own political leanings. See, for example, his ignoring of federalism on medical marijuana and euthanasia cases.
In plain english, so as not to confuse the issue, Scalia is as obliged to the stare decisis of the FOUNDERS in their origination of the framework as they are to your implied superior "populism" imposed by judicial decree.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200505110758.asp
This is the one defining difference between left and right. Read t ...[text shortened]... invalidates the obligation to look to intent of the founders? That is misdirection at best.
I'm not implying that populism imposed by judicial decree is superior to justices being constrained by the original intent of the founders, but I certainly think that this can be the case. In the absence of any arguments to the conclusion that founders were possessed of a singular moral discernment, there is no reason to take their intent as normative for all time.
Here's a nice critique of originalism, if you're interested:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/originalism_red.html
15 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSee, for example, his ignoring of federalism on medical marijuana and euthanasia cases.
Stare decicis is just the principle that one should respect precdent and favor focused rulings over sweeping rulings that fail to accord with past decisions on issues tangential to the case at hand. Interestingly. So, stare decisis can in fact conflict with originalism. Scalia has both deferred to stare decisis and to originalism in cases, and often the bes if you're interested:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/originalism_red.html
LOL. I'll just take his word for the fact that he found nothing in the constitution that gave the FEDERAL government the right to overrule STATE governments on the issue and that now was not a good time to start instigating such nonsense. btw... on this and on 90% of the ninth courts decisions, the reason they are overturned is because they trample states rights.
I'm not implying that populism imposed by judicial decree is superior to justices being constrained by the original intent of the founders, but I certainly think that this can be the case. In the absence of any arguments to the conclusion that founders were possessed of a singular moral discernment, there is no reason to take their intent as normative for all time.
Ok. But I don't think that what you and I think about it is important. The importance is IN NOT DESTROYING the original framework, which is the INTENT of "the living constitution". Populism is the method being used to attempt to destroy the original "intent". Your statement that their intent can't be taken as normative seems a bit of a stretch. I say this because we don't have to KNOW or to try and interpret their "intent". They (the founders) put THEIR MEANING AND INTENT out in plain english. All we have to do is read it with a clear head.
15 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMike, "Federalism" is the view that states are sovereign and that we ought to defer to their rights. Ignoring federalism just means to rule against the states and in favor of the federal government (I know, this is an unfortunately confusing term to use, but I didnt' choose it). When Scalia ignored federalism on medical marijuana and euthanasia cases, he claimed to have found in the constitution reasons to ignore state legislation on these issues.
[b] See, for example, his ignoring of federalism on medical marijuana and euthanasia cases.
LOL. I'll just take his word for the fact that he found nothing in the constitution that gave the FEDERAL government the right to overrule STATE governments on the issue and that now was not a good time to start instigating such nonsense. btw... on this ...[text shortened]... ING AND INTENT out in plain english. All we have to do is read it with a clear head.[/b]
15 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrSo you are saying that his saying "there is no justification given in the constitution for the courts right to impose laws of this nature upon the states", that he was ignoring federalism? LOL
Mike, "Federalism" is the view that states are sovereign and that we ought to defer to their rights. Ignoring federalism just means to rule against the states and in favor of the federal government (I know, this is an unfortunately confusing term to use, but I didnt' choose it). When Scalia ignored federalism on medical marijuana and euthanasia cases, ...[text shortened]... laimed to have found in the constitution reasons to ignore state legislation on these issues.
I must have missed that part. All he said was that the legislatures needed to pass laws and THEN bring it before the courts. What happened was it was brought before the courts in an effort to establish precedent FIRST... before the law was actually even considered by a vote of the people.