My friend, I did not label you. Your about page where you provide personal information did that. I checked it before I replied.
Second, this issue is racial. The Judges opponents have made it so. They are desperate to not have a second Clarence Thomas on the Federal bench.
The hardest thing about being conservative is having to explain to people that I have my own mind. I see those too far to the left and those too far to the right operating from a list of assumptions.
I congratulate you for being a conservative, and recognize that having conservative views may be hard for you. That must expose you to a lot of criticism in your community. My only reply to your comment is that EVERYONE operates from a list of assumptions. Consider it your own personal philosophy.
The point of my reply was to challenge you to reconsider some of your assumptions. To consider where the middle of the stream is, and to determine if the Judge resides there. I always try to keep in mind that people like the editors of the NY Times and the anchors at the major broadcast networks consider themselves to be in the center of the mainstream. Are they? I dont think so. But thats my perspective.
I can only speak my opinion based on what I perceive the truth to be. Please tell me if the purpose of this forum has changed.
I could not agree with you more. Further, I dont run this forum and have no say over its purpose or philosophy. So my comments would have not value regarding any changes.
To the specifics, please refer to her speeches to the federalist society and come up with your own conclusion.
I will see if I can access her speeches to the Federalist Society. In general, I find myself in agreement with the philosophy of that group, so from what I know if this issue so far, I would not define her opinions there as ultra.
As I stated before, her problem seems to be that of the inconsistency between her public statements and her record on the bench. My opinion and apparently that of several others.
Thank you for validating a discussion I have had on another forum. She is a JUDGE. That means she has to follow the law and precedents. That means if she is a good judge that she cannot substitute her own opinions for the law. That means that if she is opposed to abortion, but abortion is legal, she cannot rule that abortion is illegal. The primary problem with todays judiciary is that they have begun substituting their personal views of the just, the good and the right for the law. If thats the case, lets dispense with legislatures and city councils as a waste of taxpayer dollars and be ruled by judges.
"where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit."
The paragraph you cite refers to the rule of subsidiarity. It is anathema to those who believe that all good things flow from government. But think of it in this way using a very simple example:
Lets assume that in an effort to stamp out child abuse the government passes a law that prohibits a parent from punishing a child. Instead, the government passes laws that say when your child misbehaves, you have to call a cop. All sorts of procedural safeguards are established to protect the child there must be witnesses, evidence must be introduced, people must show up in court, testimony is taken, etc. What do you think happens to a community under these circumstances? The parent cant spank a child for misbehaving, cant send the child to his room, cant make him turn off the TV, cant force him to do his homework. The community (parents in this case) retreats as the state moves in to take over what was previously a family function. Our ability to manage our own families atrophies. For a real-life example that is especially destructive of the black community, think about the way that kids in many schools are disrupting their schools because of laws that severely limit what a teacher can do to an unruly student.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to have this discussion. You are - of course - free to disagree. But I hope we understand each other better.