I think Mr. Taylor meant "beknighted", rather than "benighted".

Conservative justices evolve leftward for the simple reason that having been appointed a lifetime traps them into making decisions according to that most fiendish of left-wing doctrines...conscience.

In general, I would note that the Constitution is a liberal document.  Moderates who read a liberal document fairly will produce liberal results.  Thus, all the moderates on the court save one, White, voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade, and all the moderate justices appointed since have agreed.  Calling Burger, Powell, Stewart, O'Connor, Kennedy "liberals" doesn't make it so.  The result in Roe was a moderate one, and the only way to get Roe overturned will be to appoint ideological conservatives such as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. 

But my specific issue with you is your generalization that it's hard to get conservatives with a paper trail through the Senate, with only a specific cite to Robert Bork. Now Stewart, we're taught from day 1 of law school not to generalize based on one example only.  And the one example, Bork, is not a good one.  Bork, you will recall, was on record stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "legislation of unsurpassed ugliness." 

Indeed, last year, YOU interviewed Bork for Newsweek.  You asked: "As it is currently composed, this is sometimes called a conservative court."

Bork's answer is astonishing.  He said of the Roberts court:  I don't see it at all.  It's a very left-leaning, liberal court."

Bork is no "conservative."  Bork is a genius in a tin foil cap.

Nathan - conscience cannot be the primary criteria for a judge unless you are willing to accord Conservative Justices the same privilege.  We would all be a lot better off if judges / Justices stopped imposing their personal, moral beliefs and interpreted the Constitution a lot more strictly and as intended, as far as the principle of the law is concerned (and don't try the "dead white guys with wigs" atttack - the principles matter).  The Court ALWAYS reserves the right to call for Congress, state governments, etc., to re-write their laws, but for the Court to decide that capital punishment is unconstitutional completely ignores the Bill of Rights language that denies Congress (govt.) the authority to deprive a person of his / her life without due process of law.  Brennan's oath was to support and defend the Constitution, not change it to fits his conscience.  WE always reserve the right to amend the Consitution through our elected representatives or call for a ban in our own states.  But individual conscience by 9 unelected and almost totally insulated Justices, not to mention the lower federal courts?  I hardly think that you would quietly accept a Conservative ruling that allowed for Bible teaching in the public schools because the majority believed that religion / spirituality in schools would be "best" for the children.

Yes, of course, Nathan!! All these years I’ve wondered what I lacked that caused me to identify with  conservative thinking.  All this time, and I only needed your brilliant observation to realize what is wrong with me:  I have no conscience!  Nor did William F. Buckley, or Edmund Burke, or or Sir Thomas More, or ... all of those evil, soulless people of whom I once thought so highly.  What on earth was I thinking? 

Stop listening to so much NPR and get a real argument.

Paul '52:

You think the Constitution is a liberal document??  Have you ever read the thing?  It is the quintessential conservative document.  It creates and preserves (i.e., CONSERVES) our system of government. It ensures our natural rights.  That is, by definition, conservative! 

Now, if you're thinking of "liberal" in the classic sense (having to do with "ordered liberty"), then yes, it is a "liberal" document.  My guess, however, is you mean liberal in the modern American sense, and today's American liberals wouldn't recognize the concept of liberty if it came up and kicked them in the ass.

The attitude becomes "I am the law".

The taking is always from the small and unapparent to the identifiable whether it is a woman v. unborn, individual v. many (as in Kelo), or individual group v. some undefined and hard to identify group.

It is a matter of power corrupting as simple as that. Ego is what propels the decisions.

The "liberal" movement is not liberal--it is anti-liberal rule of the jungle where laws that protect the small are mere inconveniences.

 There's a giant hole in your argument, Stuart:  the last three GOP nominees haven't moved leftward -- not an inch, not an even a millimeter.  Indeed, the four GOP nominees who served in the Reagan Executive Branch haven't deviated a bit from the ultra-conservative views that they expressed within the Administration.  The shame, in my opinion, is the extent to which Democrats deluded themselves, especially regarding Roberts and Alito, into believing reassuring, but meaningless, confirmation-hearing spin from nominees with proven track records as hardline conservatives.

Paul '52, most judges consider most of their decisions to be "moderate."  But that hardly makes it so.  Classifying Roe v. Wade as a moderate decision is incorrect.

Roe declared a right to abortion for any reason whatsoever, up through 28 weeks of pregnancy.  the point of "viability" was at 28 weeks in 1973.  In contrast, a human being completes the embryonic stage at 8 weeks after conception, at which time all organs are formed including hands, fingers, brain, heart, et cetera.  Complex movement can be seen at 8 weeks.  And so the judges decided to let them all be dismembered alive for another 28-8=20 weeks.  If a fetus is as human as you or me, then the Roe decision would have to be classified as one of the great acts of barbarism in human history.  On the other hand, if meaningful human life does not begin until the instant of birth, then the Roe decision was merely barbaric in the sense that it butchered the United States Constitution, which gives judges no legislative authority to rule however it pleases.

Moderate?  Not by a long shot.

Consciences must be trained and should not be used as a guide in making these decisions.  A child raised in certain environment would not have a problem "popping a cap" in someone.  It would not affect his conscience at all.  The question is what to you train the conscience with.  I would suggest the bible.  That is the book that we will all be judged by in the end.  Others may disagree.  Maybe we should ask a wise Latina woman.

S.Ct. justices in particular become accustomed to the perqs and privileges of power.   Further, for some reason judges seem to revel in the deference others give them.  They succumb to being celebrities quite readily.  How difficult it must be then for them to face wrathful indignation from their own profession -- when all they have to do is "evolve" to the other side.  Then, instead of student protests when they are invited to speak, they are feted and adored.  They soon find themselves invited to parties that include network anchors and hollywood movie stars.  They are invited to speak, and warmly received, at every major law school.  Legal scholars write dissertaions on their every opinion.  Law review students make a a fetish out of their words.  University publishing houses beg to publish their books.  Think of the rewards that await Clarence Thomas should he decide to "evolve."

Yet, it is what it is.  The right is doomed simply because it will never be able to provide the cultural benefits and associated remuneration that the left can.  Then again, isn't it corruption of our intellectual and political elites that has gotten us here?  But, so what -- does anyone know a way out?

" that most fiendish of left-wing doctrines...conscience."

Yes, here we go again and again--only liberals are people of conscience. Does Nathan mean the liberals who cooperated with the lynchers of blacks in Mississippi and Alabama (e.g. Kluxer Hugo Black and virtually every Democrat Party committee chairman during the New Deal)? Or perhaps he means the State Department bureaucrats who turned their backs on escaping Jews during World War II and consigned them to the gas. Perhaps he means the legislators who constructed unsustainable economic redistribution programs and demagogue every attempt to correct them. I need to see examples of "conscience" before I concede Nathan's point, but he wisely, from his point of view, doesn't give any.

CincinnatusDC, there is no hole in his argument. Roberts and Alito had proven track records on the Federal bench. The "evolving" Republican Justices did not. This is exactly as one would expect - a Federal appeals court judge with a record is not likely to evolve much unless he has some truly life changing event. A judge from a state court (OConnor, Souter) is more likely to evolve in that he/she is new to Washington culture, and is hearing issues and arguments that he has never had to consider before. In fact, I would expect that judges from the DC Circuit (Roberts) and prominent law professors (i.e. Bork)  would be the very least likely to evolve at all, since they will have already been heavily exposed to liberal elite culture. If one has a demonstrated ability to resist elite culture in DC or a major university, that person will probably be a pretty reliable conservative.

I have a problem with any score or scale which describes Felix Frankfurter as a "moderate liberal". Dude was a flat-out originalist before the term "originalist" had to be invented to describe a jurist who actually reads the constitution.

Frankfurter was the biggest disappointment for FDR vis-a-vis court appointments (i.e. he wouldn't kowtow to FDR's attempted takeover of the entire U.S. government and evisceration of the institutions of federalism and separation of powers), and was the anchor of the originalist camp, even succeeding in convincing Earl Warren to stick with the conservatives in Warren's early years.

Although Justice Frankfurter had no judicial record prior to his appointment (which is how he snuck by FDR, who thought he had a solid New Deal-er in Frankfurter when FDR nominated him), I think Frankfurter's shift from liberal, expansive executive branch public servant to ultra-restrained judicial originalist, deserves at least a parenthetical mention by Mr. Taylor when Taylor says near the top that "no Democratic-appointed justice has become substantially more conservative over time."

 Stuart: Responding to your Citizens United reference - if the members of the S&P 500, the 500 biggest companies in the US, pooled 100% of their profits for a year to spend and bribe their way to election wins, the resources at their command would still be only about half of the $800+ billion that congress appropriated as a "stimulus". That "stimulus" spending has provided an almost inconceivable amount of speech for incumbent politicians and government officials, and I see no limit to their appetite.

Respectfully, in this clash of titans, I fear Government more than I fear Corporations. The court got Citizens right.

 Stuart: Responding to your Citizens United reference - if the members of the S&P 500, the 500 biggest companies in the US, pooled 100% of their profits for a year to spend and bribe their way to election wins, the resources at their command would still be only about half of the $800+ billion that congress appropriated as a "stimulus". That "stimulus" spending has provided an almost inconceivable amount of speech for incumbent politicians and government officials, and I see no limit to their appetite.

Respectfully, in this clash of titans, I fear Government more than I fear Corporations. The court got Citizens right.

Liberal justices rule on whim, made up at the time, with no lasting principle. Everyone will suffer if we allow ourselves to be governed by whims. I've spoken to enough liberals to know that they have no reverence for the constitution unless it suits them at the time. 

 Paul 52

The Constitution is not a liberal document in the modern sense of the term liberalism as it is understood in today's Democratic party and Roe was not so much a moderate decision as it was a complete refusal on the part of the court to rule on the relevant issues brought by the case before the court.  Is there any other case in the history of the court which arrives at its conclusions based upon ignorance and a proclaimed inability and unwillingness to rule on the pertinent facts of the case as Roe (See section IX. B. of Roe in which the court asserts that it need not determine when life begins) but these are not the portions of your post with which I take exception.  You state that Stuart generalizes from one example, Bork, but in fact Bork is just one example indicative of the trend.  If you had learned how to do your own research in law school you would have been able to examine Mr. Stuart's list of judicial nominees and derive from the Segal Cover scores provided there that their have been 13 liberal nominees to the court and only 11 conservative nominee's since Hugo Black.  A further examination reveals that their have been 6 justices confirmed who had a score of 1.0 (most liberal) and only one justice with a score of .00 (most conservative).  If you would do a little more research you would find that all 13 liberal nominees were confirmed (9 of them with only a voice vote) as compared to only 8 of the 11 conservative nominees (in other words 28% of conservative nominees to the court are rejected).  Every conservative nominee has been put to a roll call vote.  Has any liberal nominee had to endure the type of confirmation hearing that Justice Thomas endured? (perhaps Fortas should have given the circumstances under which he was forced to resign).  Do your research. It is decidedly harder for conservative nominees and the history of the past 80 years bears that out conclusively.

A Judge's duty is to interpret and apply the law---NOT to create law out of thin air, which is what happened in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.  NOWHERE does the Constitution grant a right to abort.  The Justices in the majority fabricated the right and in so doing violated the Constitution, which clearly states that the LEGISLATIVE branch will make laws, NOT the Judicial. 

If a Justice doesn't like what the Constitution says or doesn't say, then he should seek to amend it, otherwise, he is bound to judge according to the original intent of those who created the law.  Otherwise, everyone of the Articles and Amendments in the Constitution have no fixed meaning, only what five Justices say they mean.

For example, if we don't interpret the laws according to the intent of those who created them, a future Supreme Court could decide that the 19th Amendment  was okay for the 20th century, but now, in the 21st century, things have changed so much, and women have so much on their mind, that they just don't have time to become informed on the issues of the day, and so they shouldn't have the right to vote.

Original intent, not conscience or political philosophy must be the only thing that informs a Justice's thinking.  Otherwise, the law is not fixed and dependable.

Peace!

 Paul 52

The Constitution is not a liberal document in the modern sense of the term liberalism as it is understood in today's Democratic party and Roe was not so much a moderate decision as it was a complete refusal on the part of the court to rule on the relevant issues brought by the case before the court.  Is there any other case in the history of the court which arrives at its conclusions based upon ignorance and a proclaimed inability and unwillingness to rule on the pertinent facts of the case as Roe (See section IX. B. of Roe in which the court asserts that it need not determine when life begins) but these are not the portions of your post with which I take exception.  You state that Stuart generalizes from one example, Bork, but in fact Bork is just one example indicative of the trend.  If you had learned how to do your own research in law school you would have been able to examine Mr. Stuart's list of judicial nominees and derive from the Segal Cover scores provided there that their have been 13 liberal nominees to the court and only 11 conservative nominee's since Hugo Black.  A further examination reveals that their have been 6 justices confirmed who had a score of 1.0 (most liberal) and only one justice with a score of .00 (most conservative).  If you would do a little more research you would find that all 13 liberal nominees were confirmed (9 of them with only a voice vote) as compared to only 8 of the 11 conservative nominees (in other words 28% of conservative nominees to the court are rejected).  Every conservative nominee has been put to a roll call vote.  Has any liberal nominee had to endure the type of confirmation hearing that Justice Thomas endured? (perhaps Fortas should have given the circumstances under which he was forced to resign).  Do your research. It is decidedly harder for conservative nominees and the history of the past 80 years bears that out conclusively.

You were doing just fine, and then you made the inevitable, INACCURATE remarks about the Court's move to conservatism in striking down a "63-year-old federal ban on independent campaign spending by business (and other) corporations and unions." With all due respect, your description of Citizens United, characteristically flawed of what has been potrayed in the media, is simply a disservice to one of the greatest civil liberty decisions the Supreme Court has written in the past 50 years. First, the Court overruled its 1990 Austin v. Michigan decison, but case arose under Michigan law (not federal law), and it was not a six decages old law either in 1990 or 2010. In addition, the Court struck down a provision of McCain-Feingold (BCRA of 2002). This is, in fact, a federal law but not one which has stood for 63 years or even a decade for that matter.

I applaud the Court's decision, which by the way, has the support the staunchly "conservative" organization called the "ACLU." Also, the "radical right-winged" group called Emily's List just won a campaign finance case in the DC Circuit of Appeals -- often called the 2nd most important court in country just below SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court followed the First Amendment and got it right. Any American or group of Americans, whether they are gathered for Church, a political rally, or business purposes have all the rights in the world to "refer to the name of any candidate for office" in a tv broadcast within 30 days of primary election or 60 days of a general election in spite of what BCRA purports to ban.

The First Amendment expressely protects the rights of groups. CJ Roberts lays out the principle, but I shall provide the ensuing examples. If the corporate Time Warner via CNN, GE via MSNBC, or News Corp., via Fox News can mention the names of federal candidates during blackout, then so can any other corporation or any other American, as the rights of Speech, Press, and Association give it to those corporations as much as it does the Mom & Pop store corporation, NAACP (501c3) corporation, Exxon Mobile, Google Corporation, or the politically-inclined corporation named Citizens United.

What is more than startling is the self-interest of the incumbent lawmakers who enact such proposals. If Barak Obama can spend a $1 billion to promote himself for an election, then any other American can bankruptcy himself, if he so desires, to opposed Obama or McCain as well. Why in the world is it a surprise that corporations have rights? The NAACP doesn't have the right to march and protest? The FBI doesn't need a warrant to seize the computers of a corporation? A corporation isn't protected by the 8th Amendment excessive fines prohibition? A corporation wouldn't be able to have a lawyer, if it is sued? All of the aforementioned protections are also in the Bill of Rights, but what does that matter when there is vitrol to be spewed?

Ruling that corporations (like groups of lawyers, doctors, college professiors, electricians, carpenters, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers) have First Amendment rights is not the folly some "unwise" radically conservative court. It is, in fact, the absolute command of the Constiution of the United States.

 In response to Paul '52:

The Constitution is a liberal document? This is an asinine suggestion, one that could only be made in ignorance. Although this is what lawyers are taught these days. The framers were "classical liberals," i.e., they took the individuals side in the fight against state authority. What Paul means for us to believe is that the Constitution is a "progressive" document... an absurd notion for anyone with a real education... the progressive ideology not yet conceived till the late 19th century. The framers with our Constitution were motivated by one overarching objective beyond making a government that could survive... it was to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE STATE! Surly now, Paul doesn't believe this is a progressive impulse. If so, might I suggest a basic political science course for remediation.

 Nathan McKnight

Conservative justices evolve leftward for the simple reason that having been appointed a lifetime traps them into making decisions according to that most fiendish of left-wing doctrines...conscience.

aka Hubris

I think Justice Stevens is correct. Political climate and particularly political class moved right. Some examples? Arch-conservative President Nixon offered Democrats Health care plan similar to one which passed recently - and which Republicans now fight tooth-and-nail. Recent ruling made any armed individual equal to Militia (and Founding Fathers used "Militia" as name for Armed Forces). Removinglimits on financial contribution (which stood for decades) will make politicians even more dependent on Special Interest Groups. Where is now Eisenhower and his warnings about Military - Industrial complex?

Nathan McKnight -

Right, that's what we want.  Legal scholars that abandon their entire training to rule on the basis of their "feelings" or their "conscience."  That's the legal standard by which the constitution should be interpreted and applied to law, "conscience."

Simpleton.... 

So in other words, CincinnatusDC, "hardline conservatives" as you call them are not allowed on the court.  Where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme Court Justices must be, well, to paraphrase you "ultra-liberal"?

I'm confused, maybe someone can help me. A lot of the commenters above seem to suggest that there is some correlation between conservatism and liberty. I am, admittedly, quite confused by this. Looking at the decisions written by conservatives along the way, when exactly did they support the liberty interest? Was it in bravely standing against removing a myriad of police searches and seizures from constitutional scrutiny? Hmmm, no, conservatives trip over themselves to remove as much protection of all individuals and not just criminals against the police as possible. Oh, it must be whether the state can regulate private, consensual sexual conduct, that must be the hallmark of the small-government conservative, right? No, it seems that conservatives insist that the state has this power. Hmm, well, they must be strict constructionists when it comes to habeas corpus, right? I mean its in the Constitution! But wait, again, they try their best to deny it to as many people as possible while limiting its efficacy to those they permit to enjoy this 500 year old right. After the fact searches? No, this is alright as well.

Jeez, I am getting really, really confused here. I look at conservative opinions, and in every case where the government is not trying to help someone, they side with the government against the individual. So I have to agree with the people above who said that the government is the one to fear. But, the evidence clearly points to conservative police, military and morality powers as the threat, not the fairly strict criteria of public use in Kelo.

Since the Constitution was undeniably written to protect individual liberty, and since real personal freedom, whether of conscience, action, or protection from the coercive arms of the state has become anathema to conservatism, it seems that the only possible result is that the Constitution is indeed a liberal document (though the point is taken that it may not be a progressive one).

Nathan -- your argument seems to forget that all federal judicial appointments are for life. You could ascribe a change in philosophy to life tenure in the case, perhaps, of O'Connor, who had served as an elected representative in Arizona prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court. However, both Stevens and Breyer had appellate court appointments (in the 7th and 1st District, respectively), prior to their nomination to the Supreme Court, and Souter had effective life tenure -- until retirement or the age of 70, whichever comes first -- as a member of the New Hampshire State Supreme Court. Thus, I cannot see how the fact that Supreme Court Justices serve for life could explain any change between these Justices' judicial philosophy on SCOTUS as compared to their philosophy on the lower benches on which they previously served.

Re: Nathan McKnight & Conscience

My dear friend Mr. McKnight,

I am at a loss of  how to respond to the idea that people whose legal opinions you agree with have a conscience, and those who you do not agree with lack a conscience -- except that it seems to reinforce what I have already said.  For instance, Claren Thomas will continue to be villified by the left as evil, while the right will simply respect him for having legal opinions that they believe to be correct.  On the other hand, should Thomas "evolve", he will be adored and celebrated by the left.  In turn, the right will simply no longer respect him -- because they would view his legal opinions as wrong.  He would not be villified.  He would not be prevented from speaking on certain campuses.  He would not be considered to have lost his conscious.

Consdier the "Kelo" decision.  I think it was profoundly and wrongly decided.  But I am not qualified to examine whether those on the court with home I disagree are without conscience.  On the other hand, I can state without equivocation that it is morally wrong and takes overwhelming hubris to exercise great power simply on the basis that one believes (quite vainly) that they have a superior conscience. 

Of course, the idea that our political opponents are not wrong, but evil has roots in either camp.  Still, it does seem to that the left is much more comfortable living with the weeds rather than pulling them out. 

Victor Welch

Galveston, TX

I think Nathan has a point. Once a justice is confimed, it's a lifetime appointment and it's the top of the food chain for them, there's nowhere else to go. Because of this, they now have the luxury of sitting back and thinking deeply about the cases before them in a way that is all too often subject to political influences at lower levels of the judiciary.

In human terms, if you actually have everything you need or want or can get you're more apt to consider the needs and wants and desires of others. Also, in the context of the Supreme Court, you're dealing with the most intractable issues with reference to a famously interpretable document.

Given this kind of situation it's not surprising that justices tend to develop, if not 'conscience', at least empathy, which does incline to the liberal side of most issues. 

Re: Libertyman13

My dear friend Libertyman,

Your points are well taken, and I find your piece is almost persuasive.  But, I think it fails for the following.  In essence, you are happy with the arbitrary rule of an insular aristocracy answerable to none -- because you agree with the policy outcomes of their decisions.  Note that in 1883 an insular and arbitrary S.Ct. dismissed the outcome of the civil war, as well as the 14th and 15th amendments and associated civil rights acts of the 1870s -- all because they capriciously thought they new better (see, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)) .  Their affront to majority rule (remember the concept of consent of the governed) made a sizeable minority group happy.  Southern whites were thrilled.  Yet that decision doomed America to another 100 years of  struggle.  The point being that no-one has a monopoly on truth, especially not those trained in the law.  However, if justices characterized as liberal could be relied upon to always make decisions that restrained the power of government -- I might join your side of the argument.  But, in what way did the "Kelo" decision side with individuals in the face of the abritrary and capricious power of government?  And then, what of the court ordered busing fiascos of the 1970s?   How did the individuals opposed to shipping their children to distant schools based only on the color of their skin fare against the arbitrary power of government?  And I have only gently mentioned the seething frustration that a governed people feel when they are deprived of making the simplest of rules on how to order their lives and live?  Despite the fact that voters from Maine to California have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of gay marriage -- five states and the District of Columbia have been forced to accept gay marriage by judicial fiat, even though substantial majorities in those jurisdictions oppose it.

In short, your acceptance of a permanent, insular aristocracy with the power to arbitrarily make rules binding all Americans is a Devil's bargain.  What you think you have gained in the short run in terms of limitations on government action, you will surely lose that and more in the long run.
 

So I ticked a few of you off, eh? 

Well, here's one:  "You think the Constitution is a liberal document??  Have you ever read the thing?  It is the quintessential conservative document.  It creates and preserves (i.e., CONSERVES) our system of government. It ensures our natural rights.  That is, by definition, conservative! "

Do you understand the contradiction in your argument?  The constitution "created" our government.  What kind of government did it create?

Well, pre 1776 the settled notion was that authority & power runs thusly:  God - > King -> Man.

The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, TOTALLY REVERSED this.  Power runs from God -> People -> government. 

That, folks, was freakin' RADICAL.  

To continue, and address Roe (not the subject of the original post or the blog, but we do get so hung up on things)...

Power flows to the People, and from them to government.  The Constitution is thus a limit on the power given to government by the People, who got the power from God.  Thus, under the constitution, "government's" power to regulate people is limited to the powers given it. 

Clearly, government can limit what people do to other people.  You can't pollute my yard, or dump your garbage in water flowing downstream to me.  You can't rob me, or discriminate against me, and I can't do that to you.  You can't hire my 13 year old to work in your factory.  We're people.  Government can regulate what we do to one another.

A fetus is not a "person."  Medically, legally, this has always been the case.  A fetus is, well, a fetus.  It doesn't have the rights of a person, and government cannot regulate a person (the pregnant female) based on its vew of the rights of a non-person.  

That's Roe.  And that's why Roe is a MODERATE decision. An Activist, like Thomas, would readily re-define the legal definition of Fetus.  But Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, Potter Stewart, Sandra Day O'Connor, etc., they weren't ready to do that.

Yea, howcome y'all conservatives nominated judges who stayed what they was?  That ain't fer!!!

Seriously, you consider yourself a Moderate?  Talk about self-deceived!

If Obama has done nothing else he has proved there is no such thing as a Moderate Democrat.  If you can call your self a Democrat you are for government control of everything and everyone.

Regrettably, there are some Republicans who don't realize that if they call themselves moderate they too put all our liberty in jeopardy.

We need a court that doesn't drift toward the control freaks on the left.

Hopefully a few justices can also see, by what has happened this year in Congress, that liberty is threaten by the leftward tilt and will start to reconsider their "liberalism" that removes individual liberty.

The contributor who said he fears goverment more than the corporations, may be defining a major difference between today's so called conservatives and so called liberals.  The logic and even common sense of his position really escapes me. Corporations always have profit as the bottom line. They operate on business plans geared to that profit. They never act solely in the people's interest, and they choose their own leaders. Government in a democratic society  is created in the people's interest, codified in a constitution, and, while it may not always act in the people's interest, at least the people have a vote. So I think I'll be a liberal.

noecan vote them in or out!

This gives me hope for the future of the court... particularly if President Obama can replace a conservative or three (along with the likely 3 liberals he is replacing) during his 8 years as President.

Obama has a chance to make a real mark on the Supreme Court... here's hoping.

Libertyman13, that's some interesting cherry pickin' you're doin' there, dude.

You're wrong even with your examples -- but let's talk about some others.  Tell me more about how liberal Justices used the language of the Constitution to protect liberty interests in Commonwealth of Mass. v. EPA, McConnell v. FEC, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.  Then give me your full elaboration on how Kelo provides more protection for private property than existed beforehand.  When you're done with those four, there's a couple hundred more about which I'd love to hear all of your wisdom. (Note to sane people:  Do liberals think things through at all? Ever? Without provocation?)

Now, let's briefly visit your sacred cows.  In general, and dumbing it down considerably, conservative jurists believe that the government's power should be limited by the language of the Constitution, or statutes.  Your problem appears to be that the opinions written by some "conservatives" did not support the outcomes desired by those accused of crimes, and homosexuals.  So what?  Tell me why you disagree with their reasoning -- not why you disagree with the outcome of the decision.  Show me some Constitutional language that supports the outcome you want.  Tell me why those searches are "unreasonable," and exactly what language calls for the government's police powers to be limited to the extent that you desire.  Tell me all about how to find penumbras, and that elusive "right to privacy."

If you can't find plain language that supports your preferred outcome, tell me why in the world I should let nine lifetime appointed, unelected, political hacks and/or academics decide such issues without the threat of an election. Tell me why they should not limit their decisions to interpreting law rather than making it.  Show me how liberal jurists do less legislating from the bench than do conservatives.

You're full of it, dude.

Craigdp, I'm sorry, but the "empathy" to which you refer only inclines "to the liberal side of most issues" those who have an inherent inability to think through the consequences of their paternalism, which is normally employed solely for self gratification.

Liberal: "Oh dear, we must help the poor lost soles, for surely they are unable to help themselves.  And even if they think they are, we surely know better, wise as we are."

Normal person:  "Leave us alone.  We're much better off figuring out how to fend for ourselves without your friggin' empathy."

When I think about the responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice to rule on the law and only the law, without either making assumptions or allowing personal bias to influence their findings, I am reminded of a passage I read in a fictional novel some years ago. 

One of the characters was a "witness", whose sole job was to state the facts as observed, and nothing more.  As a kind of test, one of the other characters pointed to a house and asked the witness what color it was.  The witness responded, "White...on this side."  No assumptions about what color the other unseen sides were.

Is it really too much to ask of an occupant of a seat on the highest legal authority in the land to exercise the same objectivity?

doctoretty:   Which means that the corporation is self-interested and predictable - I can deal with that much more easily than a bloated government which wants to smother me in its love (and maybe break a few eggs/kulaks) along the way.  Corporations also can't fine me, tax me, put me in jail, conscript me or take my unembumbered house (well, not without the help of gov't - see Kelo).  There are lots of corporations I don't like (Obama-loving GE for instance) but I don't fear them, because if I don't choose to do business with me, there's not much that they can do to me.  The government can, apparently, fine me for breathing without health insurance.

Marvin, keep dreaming. When obama winds up as a one term president I'll be thinking of people like you.

I think there are a couple of things said that have merit. They were either not Conservative to start with, or were seduced by ego and vanity. Those are MAJOR traits of liberals-see Nathan's or Shauna's post as evidence.

Hey, doctoretty -- do you know how corporations make profits?  People buy stuff from them.  Kind of like voting, only a lot more frequent, and a lot more direct.  Get it?  People vote with their money.

Guess what happens when people don't buy stuff from the corporation.  That's right!! They don't make a profit!!  Remember K-Mart, Texaco, and Northwest Airlines?  Looks like they got voted right out of office, huh?

Now, tell me again.  Who is more responsive to the public: a corporation that depends on a constant stream of income for its survival, or a Senator who has to worry about an election every six years?  And who does a better job of providing services for value:  FedEx, or the Postal Service?

Hey Craigdp- think about what you are saying.  Did mother Teresa reach the top of the food chain before she dedicated her life to helping others?  Conservitives out give liberals more than 2 to 1 in every measurable category.  Go study Mississippi.  Liberals only care about themselves and try to help others out of guilt while ever increasing their personal wealth.  How many 10's if not 100's of Billions of dollars are at the Academy Awards.  Why don't they give  1/2 of their money to the un-insured? 

Stuart was headed in the right direction regarding the pressure justices get from academia.  However, they turn liberal due to their selfish desire to fit in with the "DC" crowd and get invited to the many "A-Listed" parties.  In other words they don't have the guts to stand up for what they believe.  They so deparately want approval from everyone else.  I'd like to see the graph correlating the parites justice O'Connor attended to her increasing liberal opinions. 

 When I took ConLaw way back in 1959, we used Professor Corwin's Annotated Constitution (prepared at the instance of the Senate) as a textbook. It was written in 1952, I think. Sometimes I pull it out and read it for comic relief.

Used to be that the "legal" approach was to refer back to the written document to test the decisions made since adoption, to identify the errors that sequential "interpretations" could make. Like the cascading of errors in modern computer technology. Nowadays, even members of Congress state openly that they don't care what the Constitution provides.

As a citizen of the United States, I always thought I had rights under the Constitution that the SCOTUS could not take away from me. Part of those rights was the assurance that the invention of new areas of federal jurisprudence would be tested against the concept of a government of defined powers. Chuckle.

Any Constitutionalists left?

 When I took ConLaw way back in 1959, we used Professor Corwin's Annotated Constitution (prepared at the instance of the Senate) as a textbook. It was written in 1952, I think. Sometimes I pull it out and read it for comic relief.

Used to be that the "legal" approach was to refer back to the written document to test the decisions made since adoption, to identify the errors that sequential "interpretations" could make. Like the cascading of errors in modern computer technology. Nowadays, even members of Congress state openly that they don't care what the Constitution provides.

As a citizen of the United States, I always thought I had rights under the Constitution that the SCOTUS could not take away from me. Part of those rights was the assurance that the invention of new areas of federal jurisprudence would be tested against the concept of a government of defined powers. Chuckle.

Any Constitutionalists left?

Nathan has a point, but draws the wrong conclusion.  Justices do not develop consciences because of their lifetime appointments; rather the lifetime appointment imbues them with a sense of power.  We have learned by sad experience that most people, given a little power, will seek to expand it and to wield it to control others.  The liberal mindset is that people generally need to be controlled.  Justices drift leftward because they recognize that liberal reasoning results in decisions that increase their control over others.   It takes a strong conscience indeed to withstand the allure of power.  Those who become liberal do so not because they develop a conscience, but because they slowly abandon whatever conscience they had.

Ryan, you are exactly right.  And this is not a problem which is limited to judges who are appointed for life.  I see it all the time with many of the elected udges before whom I practice.  Some simply cannot resist the "allure of power," as you so aptly identify it.  I recall one trial court judge who very proudly told attorneys during a break in that morning's call about the time that he "ran the bailiff out of handcuffs, locking up deadbeat fathers."  He went on to add that he "didn't care what the statute said he could do."  He locked them up because he knew it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Unfortunately, this sort of attitude isn't rare, especially among judges who have been on the bench for many years.  It seems that they start to think to themselves, "Damn it, I know what's right and wrong, and I'm not going to let the law get in my way of doing it."

Heaven help us all if the entire Supreme Court is ever overtaken with this mentality. 

Who do you think you're kidding, Mr. Taylor? The SCOTUS most definitely has made a "dramatic right turn", whether you ackowledge it or not. To paint the current Court as being remotely left-of-center is beyond absurd.

Wisdom and knowledge are derived from sublime experience as well as a good repertory of what has been.  You dont need 40 years of college to learn these things and unfortunately career college students (academics) are severley lacking on the first part.

Many get caught up in defending what is disseminated as knowledge (Vanity of the Sciences, Agrippa, 1502) and they lose sight of of the pursuit of knowledge.  Today they are called activists, but they have been around for thousands of years.  They tend to seek ingratiation with the existing system and they nest in our universities.  People like that are why Alchemy was around so long.  When put to the test by a "rebel" it was finally found to be a sham.  One that had cost billions over the course of centuries and bankrupted many in its vain pursuit.

Who is supporting modern alchemy?  Which modern academics want to define truth instead of seek it?  Will their false admonitions bankrupt us or cause us harm?  I think if you take a look around you will see many alchemaical truths being spread today, but the snake oil salesmen hide better inside of a vague cloud of of circular logic.

A modern alchemist (activist) on the high court today behaves no different than when they were on the high court in Vienna (1400's), legitimizing alchemy as a science as the Austrian Empire fell into ruin and bankruptcy.  That is until Cornelius Agrippa exposed it as fraud.  He was viciously attacked, by the media, the courts, the church, and the rulers of the time yet he pressed on until he brought the false science down (his exhaustive work is the basis of modern chemistry)

Who will be the Cornelius Agrippa of today?

Is there anyway Republicans in the future can do a better job

of appointing their justices. Further, I remember when Senator Orin

Hatch didn't even vote against teh Clinton era pcik Justice R.Bader

Ginsburg even after she had a long history

as being an ACLU advocate and high executive. What was Hatch

thinking??? What's wrong with Republicans like him

and Bush One and still others who don't  thoroughly check out their

nominees. Considering these picks are LIFE LONG choices? Perhaps,

if they did a better job perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.

Nice articles thank you for sharing I just bookmark this artilces for my further referance thank you forex trading

I think the republicans over the years have done a much better job overall.  i think obamas reign might end when his term is up.  Lisa free credit report

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

Singapore Singapore Hotels

it's a great and valuable information. glad to find this post. you did such a great work. thanks Heavy Equipment Moving

I'm happy to find this post. your tips are very usefull.  you did a great work.. after reading other's comments i can say that you are kidding.. Austin Home Builder

 your post is very useful for me. thanks for your great tips. I'm tottely agree with you. Circle C Ranch Austin

wow.. it's amazing post. i was looking for this information before many days. cedar park real estate

i was looking for this information for my project. i have found many useful contant but this one is very useful.. thanks for shairing this..

It's so tough to encounter right information on the blog. I really loved reading this post. It has strengthen my faith more. You all do such a great job at such concepts. ..can't tell you how much I for one appreciate all you do.
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/how-republican-justices-evolve.php

Spenidng money is a tough thing and we all love so save money with discounts wherever possible. That is why we have printable talbots coupons to help you save big when making purchases from the nation's leading women's apparel store.

i have many content like this but this is best.. this is a wonderful post. lago vista real estate

Law and lawyer has become a part of our life. We should more careful about it. Because i am see only crime and law as well as lawyer. I am very glad to see some elite lawyer. Chair Guide They are providing very good facilities for us. Thanks

Hey, doctoretty -- do you know how corporations make profits?  People buy stuff from them.  Kind of like voting, only a lot more frequent, and a lot more direct.  Get it?  People vote with their money.

Guess what happens when people don't buy stuff from the corporation.  That's right!! They don't make a profit!!  Remember K-Mart, Texaco, and Northwest Airlines?  Looks like they got voted right out of office, huh?

Now, tell me again.  Who is more responsive to the public: a corporation that depends on a constant stream of income for its survival, or a Senator who has to worry about an election every six years?  And who does a better job of providing services for value:  FedEx, or the Postal Service?........ bedbathandbeyond coupons

I am glad to found such useful post. I really increased my knowledge after read your post which will be beneficial for me. sexy lingerie

Alladeen, please upload asap. I need this as well. Android blog

I recently finished reading through your post regarding how Republican Justices and I’m very impressed. I do have a couple questions for you personally however. Do you think you’re thinking about doing a follow-up posting about this? Will you be going to keep bringing up-to-date as well?

Facebook status

I always follow all your news but this one I have missed. It is really a new fact for me  and I will definitely try to find more publications about her. Well, I have to admit that she is really a beautiful woman and personally I think that she is very similar like Alexis Texas! Look at her. Anyway thanks a lot for sharing this wonderful news!

I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good. So I want some information for sharing this side with some of my friend. Thanks for sharing the information in this article.essay help

  I recently finished reading through your post regarding How republican justics and I’m very impressed. I do have a couple questions for you personally however. Do you think you’re thinking about doing a follow-up posting about this? Will you be going to keep bringing up-to-date as well?

best ipad app

Hello. Consciences must be trained and should not be used as a guide in making these decisions.  A child raised in certain environment would not have a problem "popping a cap" in someone.  It would not affect his conscience at all.  The question is what to you train the conscience with.  I would suggest the bible.  That is the book that we will all be judged by in the end.
Sandra @ ювелирный интернет магазин
 

I think this shift is common among politicians now.  They are fading the lines between both parties to appeal to a wider range of people.  The problem is that many of these politicians sway from their parties to get voters and then forget the reasons why they originally ran for office.   steak n shake coupons

 I especially like the breakdown at the end of the different Demo and Repub presidents and how that affected everything else. Great work keep it up, lord and taylor coupons

 I am glad to found such useful post. I really increased my knowledge after read your post which will be beneficial for me Yankee Candle Coupons

Aw, this was a really great post. In theory I'd like to write like this also - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate alot and never seem to get something done. weber genesis

Not sure why this page is taking too long in loading, please enhance the speed of your website. Thanks

So informative things are provided here. I am really happy to read this post.I have got the valuable information and have bookmarked it already for more.
cute quotes

Hey buddy,this is one of the best posts that I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the sametheme. I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.
change quotes
 

Your post is fine enough to make someone understand this important thing, and I’m sure some will find it interesting because it’s about a topic that’s widely discussed. Will comeback soon to get more..

Hey buddy,this is one of the best posts that why am i always tired I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the sametheme.fatigue symptoms I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post

agnes water accommodation  

your article is so nice and very descriptive ,knowlegeable and informative article. this article help to improve the knowledege of nation.thanks to post this nice article.

This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job, indeed.

bed bath and beyond coupon codes
 

Thanks for contributing your important time to post such an interesting & useful collection. It would be knowledgeable & resources are always of great need to everyone. Please keep continue sharing.

I really don’t think anyone has put it that way before!. Your blog is definitely worth a read if anyone finds it. I’m lucky I did because now I’ve got a whole new view of this...    Property Preservation  |   Property Preservation Companies

You must have done good research with the work, I thank you for efforts.. I actually added your blog to my favorites and definitely will look forward to get more detailed updates. Congrats, Keep writing. options trading software
 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me. binary option trading