Justice Kennedy Retiring!

[edpc]

But I will throw this out - Asian Americans are the biggest victims of the left's prejudices.   They keep their families intact, work hard, emphasize achievement and personal responsibility,  and ace most college aptitude tests.   And the left insists on denigrating their chances to get into the best schools because they're not the right sort of minority. 

I'd love to see that sort of "minority" perspective on the Court.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That being said, it would be fascinating,  I think,  to see an Indian-American on the Court.   Because he is neither of the majority nor of a favored minority - rather, to the identity-politics crowd, he is a disfavored minority,  the members of which are prone to achievement, family cohesion and excellent test scores.   The kind of minority that puts the lie to the premises underlying the identity crowd - that minorities by definition are victimized by the white patriarchy.

I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans.  It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.

[jmyrlefuller]

I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans.  It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.

Not all stereotypes are false. Some are, but many are not.

Of course, with so many variables, there will always be those that do not fit the stereotype.

[Jazzhead]

I don't see how that isn't stereotyping Indian-Americans.  It's a favorable stereotype, but a stereotype all the same.

Yes, you are correct - it is a stereotype.   And you're right, we all do it.   What matters is the service in which a stereotype is employed.  My original statement had been in response to a suggestion (paraphrasing very generally) that minorities tend to bring perspectives to the court that promote liberalism.   

[Jazzhead]

Good one!   I remember well the Dancing Itos.   Sure do miss Jay Leno,  as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.   

[Jazzhead]

Why did you single out Christians?

Why not?  Christians are a majority in this country,  Muslims a tiny minority.  But sure  - for the record, some Muslims are as fascist as some Christians are about demanding the state impose their morality on others - even with respect to consensual behavior which harms no one else. 

There - are you happy now?   

[Hoodat]

Maybe we should nominate American-americans to the court.  One's with American names like Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Estrada, Scalia, Luttig, etc.

Content of one's character is the only thing that matters.  We need a justice who will hold true to the Constitution instead of one who relies on his own sense of fairness.

[edpc]

Good one!   I remember well the Dancing Itos.   Sure do miss Jay Leno,  as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.

The miniseries on Netflix about the trial was pretty good.  I wouldn't recommend watching it if you're not prepared to be upset by that travesty all over again. 

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
It may have been James Madison who had the stronger influence there, having said during the Virginia state constitution debates, Who is it who cannot see, that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions must then consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?

@EasyAce good point.

[jmyrlefuller]

Good one!   I remember well the Dancing Itos.   Sure do miss Jay Leno,  as compared with the cretins on late night talk shows today.

! No longer available

[aligncare]

Pshaw!!  Don't let facts get in the way of the agenda!

What's the matter with you?

The Court says there is a separation in the shadows of the text, and damn it anyhow - what they rule at the moment is LAW! 

Unless of course they disagree with 'the Law', then they can ignore it or circumvent it.

The Law is what they say it is.  Same with the Constitution and who gets special rights and privileges and whom is a bigot that needs to be put in their place to make everything equal.

In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.

By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.

Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.

[Jazzhead]

In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.

By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.

Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.

Bravo, @aligncare !   Good post!

[txradioguy]

In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture. Ultimately each wants control of the courts.

By swaying public opinion and electing like minded politicians each side hopes to impose – yes, the right word – impose their values on society. The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.

Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.

But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.

We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".

[aligncare]

But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.

We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".

Agree. Fidelity to the constitution as written is paramount.

[INVAR]

In reality both ideological sides, right and left, seek to increase their political power in order to exert influence on the culture.

That is one of the primary ingredients that led to the collapse of the Republic, and it is precisely upside down from what was intended.

The Founders expected the Church and religion to influence the culture, which in turn would influence political power.  Instead the state is now seen as the vehicle or weapon to be used to impose whichever changing secular moral values or traditional values on a society that has become corrupt and vicious, depending on which party is in power.

Ultimately each wants control of the courts.

That is one of the primary ways tyranny is imposed against the will of a people.

The Left outflanks the Right in civic activism, but both sides want the same thing, to use the courts and the constitution to impose their worldview on others.

Not exactly correct.  The Christian Conservative has succumbed to the belief that the only way to preserve what remains of traditional values is by stopping what the Secular Humanists are doing through the courts and the State.  They have largely given up trying to influence the culture through their church - and many are prohibited from doing so anymore by the state and federal government anyway (they cannot even feed the homeless in some places).

Most of us however just want to be left alone, to be free from attempts at social engineering by government edict or by culture warriors.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As societies become more corrupt and vicious, they had more need of masters" - Benjamin Franklin

[Jazzhead]

But at the end of the day none of us should want politicians on the bench at the SCOTUS level or any level.

We need people who make their rulings based on the Constitution...not the latest Pop culture craze or political special need or some misguided belief that the Constitution is a mythical "living document".

I agree.  And it appears that most of the names being considered by the President are textualists.    Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court. 

[txradioguy]

I agree.  And it appears that most of the names being considered by the President are textualists.    Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court.

And is that still going to be the way you look at it if the next Justice...once sworn in and seated says he or she believes Roe is unconstitutional or that there should be national firearms reciprocity or that gay "marriage" isn't a right?

To everyone here but you that shows the signs of a Textualist or a Constructionist jurist.

[INVAR]

Judicial activism - whether from the left or the right - is not what we want on the Supreme Court.

BULLSHIT.  You have been the staunchest advocate and defender OF Judicial Activism on this board.

[Hoodat]

BULLSHIT.  You have been the staunchest advocate and defender OF Judicial Activism on this board.

Word.

I strongly agree with the statement.  But I also recognize it as a lie when considering who said it.

[Jazzhead]

Word.

I strongly agree with the statement.  But I also recognize it as a lie when considering who said it.

Agree.   INVAR's statement is indeed a lie.   

[MOD3]

Gentlemen, the mods have asked you to abide by the few rules that TBR has.  Please help us out. 

[txradioguy]

Agree.   INVAR's statement is indeed a lie. 

No it's not.  He's right...you ARE a huge fanboi of legislating from the bench a.k.a. Judicial Activism.

[Oceander]

“Judicial activism” is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!”

[Frank Cannon]

“Judicial activism” is just dog-whistle code for “I don’t like what that mean judge said, Mommy!”

So you see no difference between judges that use the Constitution as their road map for rulings and judges that craft ruling based on their own personal beliefs?

[Jazzhead]

And is that still going to be the way you look at it if the next Justice...once sworn in and seated says he or she believes Roe is unconstitutional or that there should be national firearms reciprocity or that gay "marriage" isn't a right?

To everyone here but you that shows the signs of a Textualist or a Constructionist jurist.

And here I was trying to agree with folks that we need a textualist on the Court who isn't a judicial activist.  Instead I am cursed and called a liar.   

Overturning Roe v. Wade at this late date would be the height of judicial activism.   The proper avenue is a Constitutional amendment, but you know damn well there is no support for that.   So you crave a judicial activist to do your dirty work for you, and deny the settled expectations and rights of millions of American women.     

We can expect the SCOTUS to clarify the right of the states to regulate/restrict the abortion right, just as the states can regulate and restrict the gun right.   But seeking to overturn the right itself would be as activist a position as overturning Heller.   What's good for the goose is good for the gander.   You welcome judicial activism when it favors your positions, and condemn it when it doesn't.   That's hypocrisy.