Santorum Visits Janesville (Video)

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Ahem…

DBcooper

I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.

[/quote]

Wait, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I never said that Gingrich wanted to haul justices in front of the president. I posted the excerpt from the article on order to clarify a misunderstanding in this thread about that. When I said I agree with DBCooper, I did not mean that I accepted everything he said in this thread. I meant that I agree that the powers of the judiciary and the current system of checks and balances are adequate and not really an issue. I thought you were asking me to explain his views on the what the President should do to limit the powers of the USSC.

[Sloth]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Wait, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I never said that Gingrich wanted to haul justices in front of the president. [/quote]

That’s fine. But, he did. So, I wanted to see what he’s basing that on. And, at first, that’s all I wanted. A simple quote, a reference, something. I can think of nothing Gingrich has said or written that goes beyond the ‘congress proposal,’ into the President hauling judges in, in front of himself.

On the second point, about congress’ role, I’m almost certain the 'haul ‘em in’ stuff, does not extend to the USSC. I’m positive I’ve seen him address this specifically in an interview. That his argument comes from article three, dealing with the inferior federal courts (the hauling in stuff), giving congress the power to ordain such courts from ‘time to time.’

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Wait, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I never said that Gingrich wanted to haul justices in front of the president. [/quote]

That’s fine. But, he did. So, I wanted to see what he’s basing that on. And, at first, that’s all I wanted. A simple quote, a reference, something. I can think of nothing Gingrich has said or written that goes beyond the ‘congress proposal,’ into the President hauling judges in, in front of himself.

On the second point, about congress’ role, I’m almost certain the 'haul ‘em in’ stuff, does not extend to the USSC. I’m positive I’ve seen him address this specifically in an interview. That his argument comes from article three, dealing with the inferior federal courts (the hauling in stuff), giving congress the power to ordain such courts from ‘time to time.’
[/quote]

I haven’t heard him address that, but the excerpt I posted said “federal judges” and Supreme Court Justices are federal judges. I don’t think he would exempt them from those congressional hearings he wants, since he spends a good portion of his paper ranting about the Supreme Court and their so-called abuses of power.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

As far as your hypothetical goes, it’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about the Supreme Court’s “activism” across the board. I’m referring to civil liberties, and in that respect I prefer the liberal approach FAR more than I do, say, Rehnquist’s “stunted view of liberty.”[/quote]

No, it isn’t - and the rest of your post explains why. You’re fime with courts making it up as they go along so long as it involves decisions about “civil rights” (however that is defined). Well, what about other areas they have to decide cases in? Why are those off-limits for judicial lawmaking, but it’s fair game for “civil rights”?

That’s the point of my example. If you’ve give a judge the “tool” to make it up according to his policy preferences in one area, that “tool” is available in other areas - and you can’t coherently explain why one area gets it (civil rights) while another does not (minimum wage and labor laws).

You don’t have any intellectual coherence on the matter - “policy I like? Judges, do what you feel! Other policies - meh, judges should be umpires.”

Judges aren’t rewriting laws or disregarding them in the manner that you have posited here, and the ones that are I have a problem with. I’m talking about an expanded view of liberty and fundamental rights.

Judges have no constitutional charge to “expand liberty”. They never have.

I don’t have any problem whatsoever with a Justice deciding for themselves what a fundamental right is if it’s an inclusive and not an exclusive view.

Right, and you keep making my point for me over and over - you’re fine with “activism” a slong as the “activism” is producing policy results you like. Well, what happens when a judge uses the same “tool” to produce a policy you don’t like? You don’t have a credible reason to complain.

The Constitution does not enumerate anywhere in it at all that there is a right to privacy. But the Court has decided that that right is a fundamental part of liberty in general. The conservative approach would deny me that “right” since it isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

No, it wouldn’t - it would remain indifferent to it and let it be dealt with at the proper level of government. You don’t have a “right of privacy” - the court simply invented one, and you happen to like its invention. Well, you’ve can’t complain when it invents one you don’t like. Got it?

[quote]The Constitution does not specifically grant me the right to have control over my body, it does not specifically enumerate any limits to free speech at all and it does not say that I have the right to equal access to the education and political system, nor does it say that I have the right to access to public areas readily available to the rest of the general public.

But thanks to what many would call “judicial activism”, I can have a certain amount of control over my body, I have the right to privacy, people cannot legally use speech to incite imminent violence or cause monetary damage against me, minorities have the same access to the vote and the school system that anyone else has, we don’t have white and black only restaurants, theaters, bars, etc., and these rights cannot be stunted or abridged by state governments. I don’t have a problem with that at all, and if it means taking some “good judicial activism” with some bad, I’m all for it. The ledger reflects a far larger balance for “good” than “bad”.[/quote]

Well, let’s see - you can’t use speech to incite violence against because of common-law principles (not constitutional ones), and minorities have the right to vote because the…wait for it…Constitution was amended by Congress and legislatures to provide suffrage, not a judicial decision.

Not everythign you cite as an example of liberal judicial activism is, in fact, liberal judicial activism.

But in any event, let’s go back to the hypothetical - can a judge ignore your claim for minimum wage payments on account that he thinks the minimum wage law is dumb or bad policy…yes or no?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]

Then:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with. [/quote]

Then:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Then why are you asking people to post information about the Presidents role in limiting the powers of the Judiciary? His plan has been laid out pretty clear in this paper and in his speeches and debates.[/quote]

Heh. Backing up faster than traffic.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]

Then:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with. [/quote]

Then:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Then why are you asking people to post information about the Presidents role in limiting the powers of the Judiciary? His plan has been laid out pretty clear in this paper and in his speeches and debates.[/quote]

Heh. Backing up faster than traffic.[/quote]

So let me get this straight:

1. I post part of a paper that was written by Newt Gingrich about how he wants to limit the powers of the judiciary because people in this thread do not seem to fully understand what his position is.

2. Sloth mentions something about the Presidency, which I take to mean he wanted clarification on his views on what he thought the role of the resident should be in limiting the powers of the judiciary

3. He makes a reference to an discussion with DBCooper that I was not a part of.

4. After going back through the thread and realizing where he was coming from, I clarify what I thought he meant and what I meant so we could both understand what I was saying so we could go back to discussing the main issue.

5. He acknowledges that and said discussion continues.

That is called “intellectual honesty,” not “backing up.” Backing up implies that I said something that was wrong or untrue and was trying to cover it up. You seem to be proficient with the quote feature on here, would you be so kind as to quote where I argued that Gingrich wants to “haul judges in before himself (the president)?” I didn’t. My first post in this thread had to do with “hauling judges in before congress” and my views on the system of checks and balances.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[
So let me get this straight:

1. I post part of a paper that was written by Newt Gingrich about how he wants to limit the powers of the judiciary because people in this thread do not seem to fully understand what his position is.

2. Sloth mentions something about the Presidency, which I take to mean he wanted clarification on his views on what he thought the role of the resident should be in limiting the powers of the judiciary

3. He makes a reference to an discussion with DBCooper that I was not a part of.

4. After going back through the thread and realizing where he was coming from, I clarify what I thought he meant and what I meant so we could both understand what I was saying so we could go back to discussing the main issue.

5. He acknowledges that and said discussion continues.

That is called “intellectual honesty,” not “backing up.” Backing up implies that I said something that was wrong or untrue and was trying to cover it up. You seem to be proficient with the quote feature on here, would you be so kind as to quote where I argued that Gingrich wants to “haul judges in before himself (the president)?” I didn’t. My first post in this thread had to do with “hauling judges in before congress” and my views on the system of checks and balances. [/quote]

Hmm.

1. I post part of a paper that was written by Newt Gingrich about how he wants to limit the powers of the judiciary because people in this thread do not seem to fully understand what his position is.

2. Sloth points out that the Gingrich paper doesn’t say anything about a suggestion that that judges be hauled before the President, only Congress.

3. You snark that Sloth needs to go read the whole thing.

4. Sloth replies that he did, and it still doesn’t reference hauling judges before the President.

5. You respond sarcastically that Sloth must be some kind of a speed reader.

6. Sloth replies that he has in fact done some reading on the Gingrich paper before.

7. You begin a “se, what happened was, what I meant was”

I don’t much care, let the conversation continue. I just found your walkback from the “go read the paper - I can’t do everything for you” comment - clearly insinuating that the suggestion that hauling judges before the President was in Gingrich’s paper if Sloth would bother to read it - funny.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[
So let me get this straight:

1. I post part of a paper that was written by Newt Gingrich about how he wants to limit the powers of the judiciary because people in this thread do not seem to fully understand what his position is.

2. Sloth mentions something about the Presidency, which I take to mean he wanted clarification on his views on what he thought the role of the resident should be in limiting the powers of the judiciary

3. He makes a reference to an discussion with DBCooper that I was not a part of.

4. After going back through the thread and realizing where he was coming from, I clarify what I thought he meant and what I meant so we could both understand what I was saying so we could go back to discussing the main issue.

5. He acknowledges that and said discussion continues.

That is called “intellectual honesty,” not “backing up.” Backing up implies that I said something that was wrong or untrue and was trying to cover it up. You seem to be proficient with the quote feature on here, would you be so kind as to quote where I argued that Gingrich wants to “haul judges in before himself (the president)?” I didn’t. My first post in this thread had to do with “hauling judges in before congress” and my views on the system of checks and balances. [/quote]

Hmm.

1. I post part of a paper that was written by Newt Gingrich about how he wants to limit the powers of the judiciary because people in this thread do not seem to fully understand what his position is.

2. Sloth points out that the Gingrich paper doesn’t say anything about a suggestion that that judges be hauled before the President, only Congress.

3. You snark that Sloth needs to go read the whole thing.

4. Sloth replies that he did, and it still doesn’t reference hauling judges before the President.

5. You respond sarcastically that Sloth must be some kind of a speed reader.

6. Sloth replies that he has in fact done some reading on the Gingrich paper before.

7. You begin a “se, what happened was, what I meant was”

I don’t much care, let the conversation continue. I just found your walkback from the “go read the paper - I can’t do everything for you” comment - clearly insinuating that the suggestion that hauling judges before the President was in Gingrich’s paper if Sloth would bother to read it - funny.[/quote]

You still did not quote where I argued that Gingrich wanted to haul in judges before the president. Is it because I never did? How could I be backing up from an argument I didn’t make?

Sloths reply to my first post was, word for word: “That’s not the presidency.” I have said twice that I took that to mean it does not address what the president, personally, can/will do to limit the power of the judiciary. That is not an unreasonable assumption since it was a very vague reply. He did not mention anything about “hauling justices before the president” in his conversation with me until the post right before I posted a clarification of my position. Only he didn’t quote me saying that, he quoted SOMEONE ELSE. Once again, I never argued that Gingrich wants to “haul in judges before the president.”

[Sloth]

Chalk it up to not keying in on the shift in conversation. When I remained on the current shift to the President’s role, you simply criticized my reading of the paper instead of saying “hey, I’m not talking about the President.” My assumption, with the directly preceding conversation in mind, and having repeated President/presidency maybe 3 times–before you finally asked why I was talking about the President–gave the impression that you were arguing it could be found in the paper. Just chalk it up as failure to catch on to what the other was talking about at the time. It happens.