# 44 Years Ago Today: The Republican Ascendancy Began



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Greetings All:

44 years ago today, in accepting the Republican presidential nomination in San Francisco, Senator Barry Goldwater said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

And thus one can mark in time the beginning of the real ascendancy of the national Republican Party and also of those who defined themselves as conservative. Reagan was Goldwater's heir, McCain may be the last hurrah. Goldwater's spectacular loss prepared the way for Reagan and maybe in the same way McGovern's defeat is now paving the way for Obama. When one sees an Eisenhower shilling for Obama it does seem actual change is in the air, whether or not one believes in it, agrees with it or wants it to come along.

Since everything does change, especially politics, and also seems to come and goes in cycles, who here thinks we're in for an age of Liberalism*, at least for a while? 

Cordially,
Adrian Quay

*By this I mean Liberal as opposed to Conservative in the generally accepted sense of American Politics since the late 1960's.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Not liberal...*

Thanks for asking.

I do not think the term liberal as you defined it can be applied to American politics. In my opinion, there is a radical right Republican Party and a conservative Democratic Party.

McCaine has jumped into bed with the radical right. Even if he hadn't, he could hardly be considered liberal, notwithstanding the complaints of the anti-immigration folks. If he wins, and I hope he does not, we don't get a liberal.

Senator Obama seems to me to be more conservative than Bill Clinton, whom I would characterize as a Rockefeller Republican. So, should the senator from Illinois wind up in the White House, we still wouldn't have a liberal administration.

If Obama wins and the electorate expects a liberal, this might result in a push for someone less to the right than he is. I can't, however, imagina a genuinely liberal candidate, such as Saunders of Vermont, even getting close to the nomination. Hence, no matter what happens in November, I don't think we are going to elect a liberal president in the forseeable future.

I could be really enthusiastic about the candidacy of someone like Jim Hightower who is, according to your definition, liberal. I'd not only give money, I'd knock on doors, make phone calls, even drive people to the polls.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Thanks for asking.
> 
> I do not think the term liberal as you defined it can be applied to American politics. In my opinion, there is a radical right Republican Party and a conservative Democratic Party.
> 
> ...


You mean Independent, Socialist Senator Saunders? Yeah, him and Obama are nothing alike. Just ignore Obama's voting record to the left of Saunders.






Obama is to the far left of Bill Clinton who was a reasonable Conservative Democrat and a decent President in most ways.

The only thing funnier than the first post in this thread was the second post.

The Reagan Coalition included the Religious Right which was despised by Goldwater. It was an attempt to rebuild the Bi-Partisan Conservative Coalition built in the 1930s that was splintered by '64.

U.S. Political History; it doesn't start with Richard Nixon.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You mean Independent, Socialist Senator Saunders? Yeah, him and Obama are nothing alike. Just ignore Obama's voting record to the left of Saunders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How right you are. And Bill grabbed a number of conservative ideas, which the Dems didn't like. I remember Ted glareing at Bill one time with a lot of anger.

I would say that Bush is rather liberal taking us into the Iraq war. So, you liberals, watch out what you wish for, because, you may get it. Sure glad we didn't get the ERA (what a pandoras box that would have been). And then there is Jimmy Carter raising taxes shoveing business out of business and putting thousands of people out of work which lowered the Government revenues (afterall, with less people working and companies making less money means there is less profit to tax). No doubt some changes are good and some are not. Liberal = change and Consevative = no change. Socialism = anti-inalienable rights. Progressiveness = guys wearing dresses = Democrat party.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Thanks for asking.
> 
> I do not think the term liberal as you defined it can be applied to American politics. In my opinion, there is a radical right Republican Party and a conservative Democratic Party.
> 
> ...


You're welcome though I take no credit for any definitions, being possessed mainly of reading ability and not having much interest in distracting the good folks at Oxford, Webster's or other places. 

If I'm reading your thoughtful reply correctly you'd agree with the humorous assessment made years ago after a Democratic-Republican debate, in which some wag said that it was like "listening to the left wing of the CIA debate the right wing of the CIA." This meaning that we apparently don't have a particularly wide range of electable political philosophies in the main political parties of this country even though we use terms that appear to make them seem wide? Terms such as liberal, conservative, etc?

As for Jim Hightower, I'd love to see him as a viable candidate, something that would be possible only with national public campaign financing and the elimination of the current corruptions. I lived in Texas while he was the Ag Commissioner and frankly I'm pleasantly surprised he lived through that time, as mad as he made the grand old establishment in that vast and complicated state. But it's hard to get mad at someone like him when he's got such a grand sense of humor. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

A viable true liberal? In this country? 

That's a good one. 

I think you hit it on the head with the left wing/right wing of the CIA comment. Despite the protestations of nutters on Fox News, Obama, or anyone else with a chance of becoming president, is not going to take away the keys to your beamer. Although these oil prices....


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

A viable true conservative? In this country?

That's a good one.

We have Obama the socialist nationalist, and McCain the nationalist socialist.

(The idea that McCain is the heir of Goldwater is ... I don't know, more preposterous than pairing black pants and brown shoes. It's _just that ridiculous_. Goldwater stood for economic liberty and limited government. McCain stands for the Global Warming hoax as a justification for unlimited taxation and regulation, along with endless war. Not conservative.)


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

As I have said in other threads on this website, if AuH20 were alive today he would be a Democrat. He wasn't a fan of the religious right and he valued the Bill of Rights. Even Sandra Day O'Connor (a Goldwater Girl) has said he would be a Democrat today. In addition Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. That's how crazy the GOP has become.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> As I have said in other threads on this website, if AuH20 were alive today he would be a Democrat. He wasn't a fan of the religious right and he valued the Bill of Rights. Even Sandra Day O'Connor (a Goldwater Girl) has said he would be a Democrat today. In addition Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. That's how crazy the GOP has become.


Goldwater the Democrat... hardly.

Goldwater the Libertarian... maybe, but still, no. (More likely than Democrat, though)

If you recall, while he certainly was an opponent of the religious right, he was also very strongly opposed to the ideals that the Democrats embrace with a death grip: entitlements, ever larger federal government, labor unions, the welfare state.

The end result is that Goldwater would still be the same kind of Republican he always was. Trying to shape the Republican party to his principles, battling the religious right, and the Republican's late propensity to ignore, and even increase, the size of our obscenely bloated federal government.

By the way, Hillary jumped the Goldwater ship to become a Lyndon Johnson Girl and adopt his Great Society vision, diametrically opposed to Goldwater's ideals.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I agree Goldwater would be a libertarian-republican, as he was.

I think he would have supported Ron Paul in the last primary, maybe Romney until that Michigan speech.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Relayer said:


> If you recall, while he certainly was an opponent of the religious right, he was also very strongly opposed to the ideals that the Democrats embrace with a death grip: entitlements, ever larger federal government, labor unions, the welfare state.


Goldwater was a proponent of reproductive freedom, gay rights, and didn't really like religion in politics (sounds like a Democrat to me), He was for smaller government - something the Republican party doesn't seem to be for anymore (under Bush our government has grown - now it even listens to your phone calls). He didn't like entitlement programs (under Dubya we now have prescription coverage for medicare and $600 "stimulus checks" - talk about growing entitlement programs).

Watch, "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." More than one person agrees that today Goldwater would be a Democrat - including Sandra Day O'Connor - a conservative, Goldwater Girl, from his home state.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh well, I guess I think the country is better off with neither the "true" conservatives or "true" liberals imposing their extremism on the rest of us.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Goldwater was a proponent of reproductive freedom, gay rights, and didn't really like religion in politics (sounds like a Democrat to me), He was for smaller government - something the Republican party doesn't seem to be for anymore (under Bush our government has grown - now it even listens to your phone calls). He didn't like entitlement programs (under Dubya we now have prescription coverage for medicare and $600 "stimulus checks" - talk about growing entitlement programs).
> 
> Watch, "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." More than one person agrees that today Goldwater would be a Democrat - including Sandra Day O'Connor - a conservative, Goldwater Girl, from his home state.


Your points may have some truth, but Goldwater was *not* fighting for reproductive freedom and gay rights, he was fighting all the stuff you didn't list that liberal-democrats stand for; namely the new deal and other entitlements that steal from individuals for the benefit of the collective.

Do you really think Goldwater would support Obama's plans for nationalized healthcare and mortgage default protection, to name two of Obama's biggest domestic issues in this campaign?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Your points may have some truth, but Goldwater was *not* fighting for reproductive freedom and gay rights, he was fighting all the stuff you didn't list that liberal-democrats stand for; namely the new deal and other entitlements that steal from individuals for the benefit of the collective.
> 
> Do you really think Goldwater would support Obama's plans for nationalized healthcare and mortgage default protection, to name two of Obama's biggest domestic issues in this campaign?


I think he was fighting for reproductive rights. Didn't he have a gay son and a daughter known to have an abortion?

I don't think he would support Obama. I also don't think he would support Bush or McCain. But I do think he would be a Democrat (kind of the way Liberman supports McCain. I think he would be a neutral Democrat). Heck, I'm pretty "liberal" and if today the election was between Obama the Democrat and Goldwater the Republican, I would quit my job and go work for Goldwater full time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> I think he was fighting for reproductive rights. Didn't he have a gay son and a daughter known to have an abortion?
> 
> I don't think he would support Obama. I also don't think he would support Bush or McCain. But I do think he would be a Democrat (kind of the way Liberman supports McCain. I think he would be a neutral Democrat). Heck, I'm pretty "liberal" and if today the election was between Obama the Democrat and Goldwater the Republican, I would quit my job and go work for Goldwater full time.


He was against incorporating the religious right into the conservative coalition and codifying their values in the federal government.

That is different than "fighting for" which is the liberal-democrat position evidenced by producing protected classes and codifying their values in the federal government.

As you've been told repeatedly he was a libertarian-conservative republican.

V.P. Cheney has a gay daughter and you don't hear him 'preaching' about protected classes either or "fighting for" special rights either, but to say he supports the religious right view would also be incorrect.

add: I know nothing of Goldwater's son and daughter; as he would have wanted it. I only know about Cheney's because the liberals in the media made sure I knew and Gore or Kerry tried to make a political issue out of it. Frankly, it's no one's business either.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Goldwater was a proponent of reproductive freedom, gay rights, and didn't really like religion in politics (sounds like a Democrat to me), He was for smaller government - something the Republican party doesn't seem to be for anymore (under Bush our government has grown - now it even listens to your phone calls). He didn't like entitlement programs (under Dubya we now have prescription coverage for medicare and $600 "stimulus checks" - talk about growing entitlement programs).


And I agreed (to a degree) with most of that in my initial post. However, you choose to gloss over (actually, ignore) the things which he strongly opposed:

"the ideals that the Democrats embrace with a death grip: entitlements, ever larger federal government, labor unions, the welfare state."

He could never ever live with those platforms. And if you change that, the Dem party isn't the Dem party at all. It's the very essence of their existence.

The Republican party could once again represent the ideals of conservatism for Goldwater stood. The Dems could never ever do that.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Relayer said:


> And I agreed (to a degree) with most of that in my initial post. However, you choose to gloss over (actually, ignore) the things which he strongly opposed:
> 
> "the ideals that the Democrats embrace with a death grip: entitlements, ever larger federal government, labor unions, the welfare state."
> 
> ...


Well, Sandra Day O'Connor and I disagree with you. And she actually knew him - he helped her get through her nomination and I think they were friends before that (both conservatives from the same state).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Well, Sandra Day O'Connor and I disagree with you. And she actually knew him - he helped her get through her nomination and I think they were friends before that (both conservatives from the same state).


You do realize McCain holds Goldwater's old seat, right?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Lets be honest - most of the GOP wouldn't vote for Goldwater today. I admire his libertarian bent and the Goldwater-Nichols Act was revolutionary in the way it transformed the US military but I could never have been comfortable with Goldwater's militant pro-abortion advocacy. But I suppose given that Nelson Rockefeller was the GOP's alternative in 1964 that Goldwater was a good choice and besides his nomination brought Reagan to the national political stage.

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Goldwater was a proponent of reproductive freedom, gay rights, and didn't really like religion in politics (sounds like a Democrat to me)


Sounds like a libertarian to me.

You have to understand that the Democratic and Republican Parties live and breathe on ECONOMIC issues.

Social issues, like the ones you have listed here, are window dressing. They are sales pitches. They are the lighting rods, the red meat, the wedge issues that get headlines. The parties use them to get votes from people who don't pay attention to the economic issues.

Economics drives the bus in politics. Make no mistake. And economically, Goldwater was no Democrat.



> He was for smaller government - something the Republican party doesn't seem to be for anymore


No, they are not. They never really were committed to it. They were founded on the principles of right-wing socialism, protectionism, and special favors for big business, especially railroads and banking. Even as late as Herbert Hoover, the Republicans were spearheading the efforts to increase federal regulation of business. He nationalized the airwaves, for example, which at the time was an emerging technology. That's not a very free-market thing to do.

The Republicans only became the adopted home of the free-market, limited government people during the interminable reign of FDR. He was a socialist. He implemented economic legislation that was indistinguishable from Mussolini. So, all of the economically-conservative people in the Democratic Party who didn't like the idea of nationalizing one industry after another became Republicans.

But since then, there has always been an internecine war between the big-government side (Eisenhower-Nixon-Bush-Bush) and the free-market side (Goldwater-Reagan).

Goldwater lost, and even Reagan was a failure at achieving any real limitations on government interference in the economy. Budgets and deficits soared, paving the way for today's disasters. McCain doesn't even make the pretense of limited government that Reagan did, and instead promises to continue in the grand tradition of the big government types. Global Warming is the means by which he promises to control every aspect of our economic lives.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And McCain's not exactly looking presidential here:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

"I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer" is a very good answer.

And, for what it's worth-- the answer is *because it's insurance*.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Not quite today.

I think we could more accurately trace it back to July 2, 1964. That was the day that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. He just underestimated the length of time (his estimate was one generation) that the R's would control the South.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer" is a very good answer.
> 
> And, for what it's worth-- the answer is *because it's insurance*.


From the LA Times:

"But as the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America was happy to point out, McCain twice voted against measures that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control -- in 2003 and 2005.

The Republican said Wednesday that he did not recall those votes. "It's something that I had not thought much about," he added."

https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-carly10-2008jul10,0,228806.story

Great! He votes on things he doesn't think about first! Yeah McCain!!! He is like Bush after all.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> From the LA Times:
> 
> "But as the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America was happy to point out, McCain twice voted against measures that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control -- in 2003 and 2005.
> 
> ...


You're just betraying your ignorance of how our government works if you expect McCain to remember something like that.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're just betraying your ignorance of how our government works if you expect McCain to remember something like that.







This is a recurring problem for McCain. Maybe he doesn't remember, maybe he panders, maybe he just isn't very bright. Now, watch the entire thing Turkey.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Not quite today.
> 
> I think we could more accurately trace it back to July 2, 1964. That was the day that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. He just underestimated the length of time (his estimate was one generation) that the R's would control the South.


And those saying Goldwater would be a Democrat are obviously including Goldwater's opposition to the '64 Civil Rights Act. How convenient! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based on Constitutional principles and not motivated by racism. His argument in this case was wrong in my opinion, but defensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

"Goldwater supported the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. Nationally, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964. While he did indeed support the civil rights cause in general, he believed that this act unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens in its drive to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers. Since Dixiecrats were the main opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and previous civil rights legislation, Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Act, in which he was joined by only four other non-southern Republican senators, strongly boosted Goldwater's standing among white southerners who opposed such federal legislation."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Goldwater was absolutely right about the unconstitutionality of the "civil rights" acts, but the Supreme Court hasn't agreed since FDR threatened to appoint new Justices until he got the result he wanted, way back in 1937(ish).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

PT,

I know you think FDR was Satan incarnate but not sure what he has to do with Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. 

Karl


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Not too much, except that a politician's opinion about the constitutionality of "commerce" legislation is actually very important, because the Supreme Court has basically declared it a political question.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The Supreme Court's Commerce Clause opinions since 1937 are exactly what Jefferson warned about in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written in response to the patently unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts:

_the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers_

A government that is the judge of the scope of its _own_ power will tend to enlarge that power.

Like any other contract, voluntary employment agreements between two private persons are protected from government control by one of our ancient, fundamental human rights -- the freedom of association.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Not sure why I wade in here, but -
FDR save Democracy and Capitalism by implementing the New Deal, and preventing an actual socialist or communist revolution in this country. 

I also think that if you interchanged their spots in history, Reagan would have implemented the New Deal in the 30s, and FDR would have been a fan of dismantling it in the 60s-80s.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

To save capitalism, FDR had to destroy it. Marvelous!

At least a socialist or communist revolution (or the bloody putting down of one and the replacement of the American form of government with a fascist state) would have been something we could repudiate later, rather than this socialist, regulatory welfare state we have today that we all pretend is a continuation of the constitutional republic Madison and Jefferson fought for.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Not sure why I wade in here, but -
> FDR save Democracy and Capitalism by implementing the New Deal, and preventing an actual socialist or communist revolution in this country.
> 
> I also think that if you interchanged their spots in history, Reagan would have implemented the New Deal in the 30s, and FDR would have been a fan of dismantling it in the 60s-80s.





PedanticTurkey said:


> To save capitalism, FDR had to destroy it. Marvelous!
> 
> At least a socialist or communist revolution (or the bloody putting down of one and the replacement of the American form of government with a fascist state) would have been something we could repudiate later, rather than this socialist, regulatory welfare state we have today that we all pretend is a continuation of the constitutional republic Madison and Jefferson fought for.


Exactly. This slower, incrementalism is probably not as reversible.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Not too much, except that a politician's opinion about the constitutionality of "commerce" legislation is actually very important, because the Supreme Court has basically declared it a political question.


I'm not sure if I agree with this, but please see the conservative's opinion in Raich. Conservative justices are all bout state rights and a limited federal government, except when it is inconvenient for their political ideologies (see Raich and Bush v. Gore). Just one more reason why I don't like or trust the current GOP.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with this, but please see the conservative's opinion in Raich. Conservative justices are all bout state rights and a limited federal government, except when it is inconvenient for their political ideologies (see Raich and Bush v. Gore). Just one more reason why I don't like or trust the current GOP.


"The Conservative" opinion in Raich was Thomas's, if you recall. We're all disappointed that Scalia isn't prepared to throw out the entire New Deal and 90% of the government, but he's just one man.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> "The Conservative" opinion in Raich was Thomas's, if you recall. We're all disappointed that Scalia isn't prepared to throw out the entire New Deal and 90% of the government, but he's just one man.


I really don't remember but wasn't Rhenquist and O'Connor part of that opinion too?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I remember it was 6 to 3, so presumably, yes. 

Anyway, you shouldn't be surprised that the "conservative" Justices aren't terribly conservative with regard to federal power, considering how they got where they are in the first place.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I remember it was 6 to 3, so presumably, yes.
> 
> Anyway, you shouldn't be surprised that the "conservative" Justices aren't terribly conservative with regard to federal power, considering how they got where they are in the first place.


I'm not surprised. I'm merely saying they are political and believe what they believe...except when it is inconvenient.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm not surprised. I'm merely saying they are political and believe what they believe...except when it is inconvenient.


I think the answer is closer to what Scalia discussed when he called himself a "faint-hearted originalist." He's just not going to take the "right" answer to Constitutional questions too far if he doesn't like the result and it upsets things too much. That's Scalia.

I personally don't follow that, but what's the alternative? He's still better than just about any justice we've had in the last 70 years. Put me on the Supreme Court and I'll vote to strike down the entire New Deal, even the parts I like.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think the answer is closer to what Scalia discussed when he called himself a "faint-hearted originalist." He's just not going to take the "right" answer to Constitutional questions too far if he doesn't like the result and it upsets things too much. That's Scalia.
> 
> I personally don't follow that, but what's the alternative? He's still better than just about any justice we've had in the last 70 years. Put me on the Supreme Court and I'll vote to strike down the entire New Deal, even the parts I like.


I think you're missing my two points:

1) I don't think Scalia voted the way he did in Raich because of some affinity for the New Deal. I think he voted the way he did because he does not like pot.

2) Raich was not just about Scalia. Thomas, Rhenquist, and O'Connor took part in that decision too. The conservatives are conservative...except when it is inconvienient for them.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Your memory is defective. Scalia has been pretty consistent in his jurisprudence concerning the New Deal.

And, as we said, Thomas and co _dissented_...


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Stringfellow - Pedantic Turkey has already made up his mind, don't confuse him with the facts!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Stringfellow - Pedantic Turkey has already made up his mind, don't confuse him with the facts!


I can't believe anyone would make an ass of himself over such an easily checked fact. But, here we are, and here are the facts:

*Majority by:* Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
*Concurrence by:* Scalia
*Dissent by:* O'Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist (part I, II), Thomas (parts I, II)
*Dissent by:* Thomas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

I couldn't care less about a specific Supreme Court ruling, and am moreso referring to your constant mewling about the state of the world, and socialism conspiracy theories.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> *Put me on the Supreme Court *and I'll vote to strike down the entire New Deal, even the parts I like.


In the unlikely but truly frightening event that any American President put *you* on our Supreme Court, I would hope that our well regulated militia would rise to protect our republic from the tyranny of the ill-informed dull-to-sub-normals.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Senator LooGAR said:


> I couldn't care less about a specific Supreme Court ruling, and am moreso referring to your constant mewling about the state of the world, and socialism conspiracy theories.


Well, neither of you are going to convince anyone if you can't even get the basic facts straight. But I guess if you actually knew the facts, you wouldn't characterize my arguments as "conspiracy theories."

But, then, you don't know the facts. So why are you even here?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I can't believe anyone would make an ass of himself over such an easily checked fact. But, here we are, and here are the facts:
> 
> *Majority by:* Stevens
> Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
> ...


My point was that your beloved conservatives could have banned together and made the federal government less powerful and "upheld" the "true meaning" of the Constitution. They didn't. Why? They hate pot. Not because of a notion of stare decisis. Conservatives are all for their philosophies until they conflict with their politics.

On the one hand we can limit the power of the federal government via the Commerce Clause. But by doing that we essentially make pot legal. Well we hate pot. Therefore, forget about our gripes over the powerful federal government - damn pot heads!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> My point was that your beloved conservatives could have banned together and made the federal government less powerful and "upheld" the "true meaning" of the Constitution. They didn't. Why? They hate pot. Not because of a notion of stare decisis. Conservatives are all for their philosophies until they conflict with their politics.
> 
> On the one hand we can limit the power of the federal government via the Commerce Clause. But by doing that we essentially make pot legal. Well we hate pot. Therefore, forget about our gripes over the powerful federal government - damn pot heads!


A very strange way to make that point because:

1) there were only four conservatives, who couldn't have won if they'd banded together; and
2) three of them DID dissent; and
3) the only one who concurred did so on narrow grounds

The only thing I can conclude from this line is that you either:

1) do not understand how the Supreme Court works; or
2) do not understand what Raich was about; or
3) do not understand what the actual result in Raich was

Which is it?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> My point was that your beloved conservatives could have banned together and made the federal government less powerful and "upheld" the "true meaning" of the Constitution. They didn't. Why? They hate pot. Not because of a notion of stare decisis. Conservatives are all for their philosophies until they conflict with their politics.


What is your point if the Democrats do this compliant of yours more often.



> On the one hand we can limit the power of the federal government via the Commerce Clause. But by doing that we essentially make pot legal. Well we hate pot. Therefore, forget about our gripes over the powerful federal government - damn pot heads!


If I remember correctly the Democrats had more to do with making pot illegal than the Republicans, so you want more rules, since you are cheering for the Democrats?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

His "point" is even more hilarious because, if I remember correctly, O'Connor actually made the point in her *dissent* that she did not think medical marijuana was a good idea and that she wouldn't have voted for it if she were a legislator in California. Thomas and Rehnquist made a point of not joining the opinion until the part where she said, "but that's not the issue..."


----------



## sjm (Oct 6, 2007)

*Between guess-what and Shinola?*



Phinn said:


> _We have Obama the socialist nationalist, and McCain the nationalist socialist._
> 
> 
> > Priceless and apt.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was based on Constitutional principles and not motivated by racism. His argument in this case was wrong in my opinion, but defensible.
> 
> ...


Hi, Karl,

Welcome back.

I don't know much about Goldwater's history in Arizona and in the 1960's, but didn't just about every racist who fought against civil rights laws couch his opposition in terms of protecting the constitutional rights of the people and the states?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're just a master of fallacies, aren't you, Jack?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> ...I don't know much about Goldwater's history in Arizona and in the 1960's, but didn't just about every racist who fought against civil rights laws couch his opposition in terms of protecting the constitutional rights of the people and the states?


Some assuredly did, but Goldwater seems to have objected based on his reading of how the Constitution should be construed. He was not a racist.

However, the more charming general objections to civil rights were certainly couched in lovely legal theories about law and order and the rights of citizens in every state. Some folks I was around in the South that objected simply thought that "those" kind should not be allowed to vote or count as full citizens because they were either less than others or those same folks worried about change were very worried about what might happen if everyone got the vote.

In hindsight it's very difficult to discern motive in the objections to specific legislation like the Civil Rights Act but some did support the ends while objecting to the means. Today those objections seem quaint but then it seems to have made sense to otherwise thoughtful people.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The original meaning of the Constitution is "quaint"? Now I've heard it all.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The original meaning of the Constitution is "quaint"? Now I've heard it all.


Unless I am missing something, he said the objections to the Civil Rights Act now seem quaint.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And which of the enumerated powers gives Congress the authority to pass such acts?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You know that feeling of relief you get when that annoying yapping dog next door finally stops, or is brought inside?

I put the Turkey on ignore last night, and I feel so much better already.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And which of the enumerated powers gives Congress the authority to pass such acts?


Didn't congress do so via the Commerce Clause (the same Clause Scalia was fine with in Raich - you know, 'cause pot's bad and stuff)? I forget the name of the case but it involved a hotel that would not let black people stay in it. The SC agreed that it touched interstate commerce and affirmed Congress's authority to pass such laws.


----------

