jillian
Princess
musicman said:I don't mean to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I can't let this kind of gross inaccuracy pass. The essence of conservatism is strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution; its principles on the devolution of power (away from central government and to the people) - its clear directives on the separation of powers - its ingenious design, which - when followed - stamps out tyranny wherever it tries to raise its ugly head.
The essense of conservatism is restraint and adherance to precedent.... the concept of stare decisis.
It is liberalism which seeks to circumvent these protections - with language like "living, breathing (read: malleable) Constitution" - with an unbridled lust to create rights and national policies where none, constitutionally, exist - and with a single-minded determination to wrest from the people their right to determine the conduct of their everyday lives.
Actually, there are two schools of thought as regards Constitutional construction. There is the literal or "strict constructionist" (call it "fundamentalist") method so loved by the radical right. And there is the method which has historically been used by the Court... which is that since the founding fathers could not anticipate the problems which would besiege a modern world, the Court looks at the "intent" of the Constitution and it's words. Since the intent of the Constitution is to limit government action and protect individual liberty, the Court articulated the viewpoint, in the '70's, that there is a right of privacy emanating from the Bill of Rights which keeps government from interfering in the individual choices made by citizens. Among the things into which the government was not allowed to insert itself was the choice of a married couple to purchase contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), intermarriage (Loving v. Virginia) and a woman's right to reproductive choice (Roe v Wade). You claim that the right of privacy
"wrest
What the so-called activist judges are actually attempting to do is rely on the concept of states' rights to deconstruct long-term Constitutional construction and on Federalism when it comes to doing things like preventing individual states from passing legislation that expands freedom such as the manner in which it recently dealt with one state's passage of legislation legalizing marijuana.
.This is a practical, working definition of modern judicial activism. "Conservative activist judge" is, then, a contradiction in terms.
The assertion that "conservative justices" are not activist is disingenuous. As with most things, it's in the eye of the beholder.
NOW you're getting the idea! Isn't the Constitution wonderful?
It is...in my view, the so-called conservatives are violating it's letter and spirit.