"We think Justice Thomas got it exactly right. A key part of our constitutional system is respect for the states in protecting the health and welfare of their citizens."
If the conservatives would just enforce federalism values all the time, liberals would love them maybe half of the time. That assumes principled consistency from conservatives and result-orientation from liberals. An apt assumption?
८ मार्च, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe. But the liberal way is to use the courts and the judges to enact change, not preserve anything - and agreement is a 'my way or the highway' kind of thing.
They're more than willing to break the law as it suits them (look at the Pot (MJ) situation in California), yet hold the targets of their latest cause to every arcane letter of the law, using the court system as a panzer unit.
And since business of any kind is usually the target it's no wonder they applaud Thomas this time.
Althouse --
"If the conservatives would just enforce federalism values all the time, liberals would love them maybe half of the time."
You base that on what, exactly? Hope?
"An apt assumption?"
Not according to history.
But as the song says it is liberals who need to be loved, not conservatives.
This is why Thomas is the only justice worth a spit. He's the only one that seems to understand limits to federal power.
The conservative concept of the government which governs best governs least applies to all levels of government, be it federal, state, or any other, and is not to be conflated with another conservative concept, that of the federal government having sharply limited powers.
An apt assumption?
Damn straight.
Ain't nothin' apter been said about the difference between conservative and liberal views of the purpose of the courts.
The assumption is not perfect, but it is more apt than it would be were it reversed.
The "apt assumption" question referred not to how often liberals would love conservatives but to the assumption that conservatives are principled but liberals are result-oriented.
And the correct answer is....they're all result-oriented! Especially the judges. Duh!
AA is said to be a brilliant law professor but she apparently doesn't get to court much.
Not the left will give Thomas any credit for this next time he rules consistently in a way they don't like.
Judges who consistently enforce federalism, even when the results are against conservative norms, are my judicial wet dream.
The man is capable of reading the plain text of the Constitution. Perhaps liberals should try that on a consistent basis.
Enforcing federalism all the time would mean eliminating Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare.
I don't think the left would appreciate that too much.
How, exactly, does federalism have anything to do with this case?
This is the most unintentioanlly funny thing I've read in almost a month.
"A key part of our constitutional system is respect for the states in protecting the health and welfare of their citizens."
Soooooooo ... if Clarence Thomas was overturning Roe v. Wade, and returning to the states the right to decide how to regulate abortion ... you're telling me that liberals would be hailing Thomas' "respect for the states in protecting the health and welfare of their citizens?"
The left stands for no principle. That would require maturity.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा