Let the Obama Supreme Court rumors begin (Sotomayor is selected)......

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Then they're not really constructionists. I mean, do you think the authors of the 14th intended for it to be used for desegregation of schools, for interracial marriage? If not, then a constructionist would have to argue that Brown and Loving should be overturned.

I think you're getting a little confused. Constructionism just means that the judge relies on the written text. There's nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment that would preclude a constructionist judge reaching the majority opinion in either Brown or Loving.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Are you trying to tell me that under the Constitution before the 14th Amendment blacks did have rights? I would hope that any judge nominated to the Supreme Court, regardless of their judicial philosophy, would at least have a solid grasp of history... including our flaws.

No they didn't. And strict constructionist judges helped maintain that status quo against civil rights before the 14th amendment.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No they didn't. And strict constructionist judges helped maintain that status quo against civil rights before the 14th amendment.

So did the Democrat Party, both before and after the passage of the 14th amendment. Are you saying that a black man should have a difficult time voting for Democrats now too?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Constructionism just means that the judge is arrogant enough to call their every vote the absolute right answer to every constitutional question.

Fixed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Fixed.

You know, a wise Latina woman would have come up with a funnier "fix".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So did the Democrat Party, both before and after the passage of the 14th amendment. Are you saying that a black man should have a difficult time voting for Democrats now too?

Your mixing a politician and an ideology. The ideologies of people like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia are the same as they were 100 years ago. Strict constructionists.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You know, a wise Latina woman would have come up with a funnier "fix".

Badda bing.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Serious question. Will any decision the Supreme Court makes in the coming years have any impact on our daily lives?

I think it depends who you are. For instance, I'll bet that Kelo impacted the daily lives of at least a few people.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think that definitely depends on where you define "center".

I think we (by "we" I mean FOFC) had a discussion on this and someone linked to a supposed historical ranking of the ideology of SC Justices that showed that the Supreme Court is skewed right and Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are just barely left of center with the only real "liberal" currently Stevens.

I'm not sure if this was that ranking, but it's what I found, so I'll link it and leave others more familiar with this to comment.

Of course, what people view as a "liberal" "conservative" or "centrist" justice probably varies from person to person.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wasn't trying to "get you".

Sorry Cam, but that's the way I read your question to Larry as well. It may just be me, but I think you often ask questions in a way that implies you already know the answer, and that the answer displays some hypocrisy or logical inconsistency on the part of the person of whom you are asking the question.

In general, I assume you do this somewhat involuntarily because it is the nature of your work to exist in a somewhat rhetorically combative atmosphere, and that carries over to your conversations (of a political bent, clearly) in FOFC.

It's probably why you're often on the receiving end of people who feel you've twisted their argument against them, instead of discussing an issue on consistent grounds.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Your mixing a politician and an ideology. The ideologies of people like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia are the same as they were 100 years ago. Strict constructionists.

And you're confusing ideology, political philosophy, and judicial interpretation.

A constructionist judge making a civil rights ruling pre-14th Amendment is going to have a very different result than a constructionist judge making a ruling post-14th Amendment... because the post-14th Amendment judge is going to closely examine the text of the 14th Amendment in making their decision.

This is one reason why Hugo Black, a strict constructionist, voted in favor of both Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

With that in mind, how is supporting a constructionist judge in 2009 any harder than supporting the Democrat Party in 2009?

From reading your posts, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a half-assed inference that strict constructionists are racist. If you're going to make that argument, at least have the balls to say what you mean.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sorry Cam, but that's the way I read your question to Larry as well. It may just be me, but I think you often ask questions in a way that implies you already know the answer, and that the answer displays some hypocrisy or logical inconsistency on the part of the person of whom you are asking the question.

So how could I have phrased "Like Obama voted against Roberts and Alito?" less combatively?

It's probably why you're often on the receiving end of people who feel you've twisted their argument against them, instead of discussing an issue on consistent grounds.

Nah. I think it's because they get annoyed that I'm right.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So did the Democrat Party, both before and after the passage of the 14th amendment. Are you saying that a black man should have a difficult time voting for Democrats now too?

I ain't even a registered Democrat...and everytime I see somebody do that, I take the Republican Party and the conservative "movement" in general just a little less seriously.

Expected better from you, Cam.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And you're confusing ideology, political philosophy, and judicial interpretation.

A constructionist judge making a civil rights ruling pre-14th Amendment is going to have a very different result than a constructionist judge making a ruling post-14th Amendment... because the post-14th Amendment judge is going to closely examine the text of the 14th Amendment in making their decision.

This is one reason why Hugo Black, a strict constructionist, voted in favor of both Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

With that in mind, how is supporting a constructionist judge in 2009 any harder than supporting the Democrat Party in 2009?

From reading your posts, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a half-assed inference that strict constructionists are racist. If you're going to make that argument, at least have the balls to say what you mean.

Strict constructionist is not simply looking at the text and basing a decision on the words in the text. It's much more complicated than that. Three's been thousands of pages of academic literature published on the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis the "strict constructionist" view and even what it means to be a strict constructionist. In fact, even calling a jurist "a strict constructionist" is an oversimplification of the debate, because there isn't one accepted definition of strict constructionism or even if it's possible to be a strict constructionist. There is no justice on the current court that is a strict constructionist or even a constructionist. I know many argue Antonin Scalia--but there is a difference between strict constructionist and original intent.

Constructionist or strict constructionist is now becoming a misused pop culture term like "judicial activist." Russ Feingold had it right -- judicial activism is now thrown around by people on both sides of the ideological spectrum when it involves a case where the person disagrees with the outcome.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I ain't even a registered Democrat...and everytime I see somebody do that, I take the Republican Party and the conservative "movement" in general just a little less seriously.

Expected better from you, Cam.

I was trying to point out how ridiculous RainMaker's argument was by making an equally absurd point. Sorry if you expected better.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And you're confusing ideology, political philosophy, and judicial interpretation.

A constructionist judge making a civil rights ruling pre-14th Amendment is going to have a very different result than a constructionist judge making a ruling post-14th Amendment... because the post-14th Amendment judge is going to closely examine the text of the 14th Amendment in making their decision.

This is one reason why Hugo Black, a strict constructionist, voted in favor of both Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

With that in mind, how is supporting a constructionist judge in 2009 any harder than supporting the Democrat Party in 2009?

From reading your posts, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a half-assed inference that strict constructionists are racist. If you're going to make that argument, at least have the balls to say what you mean.

Not saying that they are racist at all, although using Hugo Black as your example is a bit ironic considering he was a member of the KKK.

You are correct that things have changed since the 14th Amendment. But before that, a constructionist judge would have a much tougher time considering a black "equal" than a more liberal judge. Constructionist judges also are not supportive of civil rights issues such as the Voting Rights Act or Affirmative Action.

You can go one step further and swap blacks with gays in today's culture. If a case for gay marriage reached the Supreme Court, a conservative judge would rule against allowing it. I just find it much tougher for a minority or even a woman who has had to fight for civil rights to side with a Judge who has an ideology that isn't favorable to it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Jon

Strict constructionist is not simply looking at the text and basing a decision on the words in the text. It's much more complicated than that. Three's been thousands of pages of academic literature published on the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis the "strict constructionist" view and even what it means to be a strict constructionist. In fact, even calling a jurist "a strict constructionist" is an oversimplification of the debate, because there isn't one accepted definition of strict constructionism or even if it's possible to be a strict constructionist. There is no justice on the current court that is a strict constructionist or even a constructionist. I know many argue Antonin Scalia--but there is a difference between strict constructionist and original intent.

Constructionist or strict constructionist is now becoming a misused pop culture term like "judicial activist." Russ Feingold had it right -- judicial activism is now thrown around by people on both sides of the ideological spectrum when it involves a case where the person disagrees with the outcome.

Well yes, but I didn't really feel like getting into a really long debate over the differences between constructionism, textualism, or originalism. I figured I'd just use the language RainMaker was comfortable with to keep the discussion as focused as it could be.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I was trying to point out how ridiculous RainMaker's argument was by making an equally absurd point. Sorry if you expected better.

Look at the bolded text, Cam. It's not the absurdity of your point that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it depends who you are. For instance, I'll bet that Kelo impacted the daily lives of at least a few people.

I'm sure it did and I'm sure every ruling impacts someone. But for the most part, I doubt many of us on the board have or will be impacted by the ruling. It's going to be an extremely small percent of the population that deals with the consequences.

I guess my point is that we aren't in line for many landmark rulings that will change the entire course of the country and society in general. Even something as hot button as gay marriage or abortion doesn't pose the same impact that civil rights rulings did. I just don't see the course of American history changing over a couple judges on the Supreme Court anymore.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not saying that they are racist at all, although using Hugo Black as your example is a bit ironic considering he was a member of the KKK.

You are correct that things have changed since the 14th Amendment. But before that, a constructionist judge would have a much tougher time considering a black "equal" than a more liberal judge. Constructionist judges also are not supportive of civil rights issues such as the Voting Rights Act or Affirmative Action.

You can go one step further and swap blacks with gays in today's culture. If a case for gay marriage reached the Supreme Court, a conservative judge would rule against allowing it. I just find it much tougher for a minority or even a woman who has had to fight for civil rights to side with a Judge who has an ideology that isn't favorable to it.

If constructionists are blinded by their ideology, as you say they are, then how could Justice Black have reached the conclusion he did in either Loving or Brown?

Constructionist is not a synonym for conservative, nor is it an antonym for liberal. That's part of your problem right there. And as I keep trying to explain, ideology and judicial philosophy are two different things.

Not to get all Flasch-y on you, but if you're going to start throwing out statements like "constructionist judges are not supportive of civil rights issues such as the Voting Rights Act or affirmative action", I'd like some citations from these judges.

You're also aware, I'm sure, that there are plenty of non-constructionist legal arguments against affirming a right to gay marriage through the courts, rather than the legislature or through a constitutional amendment.... unless you for some reason think that the California Supreme Court and the NY Court of Appeals are made up of strict constructionists.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Look at the bolded text, Cam. It's not the absurdity of your point that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

Honestly, I didn't even realize I typed that. Democratic party. Better?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Look at the bolded text, Cam. It's not the absurdity of your point that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

dola... I do believe that people should show their political opposition enough respect to refer to their party by its proper name. I'm still having trouble figuring out what's so demeaning about the phrase "Democrat Party" as opposed to "Democratic Party". Don't we call individuals "Democrats" and not "Democratics"?

Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not flaming, using sarcasm, or any other verbal jousting tool. I'm just a little confused at the vehement reaction to a missing "ic".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola... I do believe that people should show their political opposition enough respect to refer to their party by its proper name. I'm still having trouble figuring out what's so demeaning about the phrase "Democrat Party" as opposed to "Democratic Party". Don't we call individuals "Democrats" and not "Democratics"?

Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not flaming, using sarcasm, or any other verbal jousting tool. I'm just a little confused at the vehement reaction to a missing "ic".

Because those that do it purposely do it solely to piss off members of the Democratic party. It isn't the word per se, it's the intended asshatish behavior that's the problem. It doesn't bother me, as I think it's better to ignore such childish behavior, but that doesn't make it any less childish.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because those that do it purposely do it solely to piss off members of the Democratic party. It isn't the word per se, it's the intended asshatish behavior that's the problem. It doesn't bother me, as I think it's better to ignore such childish behavior, but that doesn't make it any less childish.

Got it. That wasn't my intent, and I apologize.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Got it. That wasn't my intent, and I apologize.

I wonder what you would have gotten if you used my preferred spelling of Demoncrat?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If constructionists are blinded by their ideology, as you say they are, then how could Justice Black have reached the conclusion he did in either Loving or Brown?

Constructionist is not a synonym for conservative, nor is it an antonym for liberal. That's part of your problem right there. And as I keep trying to explain, ideology and judicial philosophy are two different things.

Not to get all Flasch-y on you, but if you're going to start throwing out statements like "constructionist judges are not supportive of civil rights issues such as the Voting Rights Act or affirmative action", I'd like some citations from these judges.

You're also aware, I'm sure, that there are plenty of non-constructionist legal arguments against affirming a right to gay marriage through the courts, rather than the legislature or through a constitutional amendment.... unless you for some reason think that the California Supreme Court and the NY Court of Appeals are made up of strict constructionists.

Like I said, Black is a horrible case to study here. He was in the KKK in his early years and many believe he went outside his judicial beliefs on civil rights cases as to not look like a racist.

The "strict constructionist" view of Plessy vs Ferguson was that seperate but equal didn't violate the 14th amendment.

The word "strict constructionist" does get thrown around in the wrong way, but that's what conservatives want out of a judge. They believe that judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are constructionists (whether that term is right or wrong is another matter). Thomas doesn't believe in the Voting Rights Act and Roberts has tried to change the burden of proof. Others like Scalia and Alito have spoken out against parts of it.

Almost all those guys have spoken out against affirmative action as well. Scalia wrote a wild dissent on the denial of review regarding Denver's Affirmative Action program. He has also given many speeches on the topic which have caused massive protests. Alito has material from the 80's too.

Are you really telling me that people on the right are not against affirmative action? Are you trying to say that a black man should feel comfortable voting in someone like Alito and Roberts?

[sterlingice]

Ok, I had never heard the "Democrat" party thing. I guess I don't see the distinction- what the difference?

This isn't Fox News putting a "D" next to Mark Sanford or continually using "Barack Hussein Obama".

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I said, Black is a horrible case to study here. He was in the KKK in his early years and many believe he went outside his judicial beliefs on civil rights cases as to not look like a racist.

Even if many people believe that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that a strict constructionist used a strict constructionist argument to vote in favor of cases like Brown and Loving.

The "strict constructionist" view of Plessy vs Ferguson was that seperate but equal didn't violate the 14th amendment.

And in my opinion, the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson was much more "constructionist" than the majority opinion. The majority had to discount the text of the 14th Amendment, which spoke simply of "equal protection of the laws" as somehow protecting political equality without protecting social equality.

The dissent (by another former KKK-er, oddly enough), said (in part):
But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.

Are you really telling me that people on the right are not against affirmative action?

Nope. I don't even know where this comes from, unless you're once again using the words constructionist/conservative/right incorrectly and interchangeably. I will say that opposition to affirmative action can be found among those on the left as well, and it isn't limited only to those who are white.

Are you trying to say that a black man should feel comfortable voting in someone like Alito and Roberts?

Any reason you decided not to include Clarence Thomas in this sentence? Did it look absurd even to you? Yes, I am absolutely saying that a black man (or woman) for that matter can feel comfortable voting for someone like Alito or Roberts. I think I've been saying that for at least a page now.

Would you think less of a black person who supported Roberts or Alito?

[CamEdwards]

Dola:

The reason I substituted the word "can" for "should" is because it's pretty damned ridiculous to think that you can sum up an entire person's political philosophy based on the color of their skin. Whether or not they "should" feel comfortable depends far less on them being black than on their political philosophy in general. I hope you'll agree that "can" is a better word to use.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Even if many people believe that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that a strict constructionist used a strict constructionist argument to vote in favor of cases like Brown and Loving.

But, Hugo Black did not use a strict constructionist argument for his vote in Brown. If you look at interviews that he gave later on, as well as his private papers, it was based on . . . empathy. He has stated countless times that he grew up in the South and he knew that it was wrong, and it wouldn't have mattered if things were equal.

To be fair, that doesn't mean that he wasn't a strict constructionist. I just don't think Brown is a good example of that, given the circumstances under which it was written.

A better example would be Hugo Black's opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421---which invalidated a school prayer. Black's view was "no law" means "no law." If a policy promoted one religion, a few religions, or a family of religions, it would still be unconstitutional.

I will give you credit, though, for mentioning Hugo Black. A lot of conservatives tend to stay away from him, because most conservatives disagree with the outcome in a lot of his decisions.

One more thing--I'm kind of surprised that you didn't know the "democrat" party slam that many republicans started pulling a few months ago. It does undermine the credibility of your post. Not that my opinion matters much around here (since I'm a lurker for the most part), but I find many of your arguments "persuasive" in the sense that it won't necessarily make me change my mind, but it sound and well-reasoned. In fact, one of the arguments you made in the Heller discussion convinced me on the Second Amendment "right to bear arms," not in a textual or strict constructionist sense, but from John Marshall Harlan's "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" approach. (And, for the record, I am a constitutional law geek and, a long time ago, spent a lot of time researching various issues for an article that included reviewing many justices private papers at the Library of Congress).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Even if many people believe that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that a strict constructionist used a strict constructionist argument to vote in favor of cases like Brown and Loving.

He also sided against the Japanese in regards to the internment camps.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And in my opinion, the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson was much more "constructionist" than the majority opinion. The majority had to discount the text of the 14th Amendment, which spoke simply of "equal protection of the laws" as somehow protecting political equality without protecting social equality.

I don't see it that way at all. The majority opinion stated that there was nothing in the 14th Amendment that extended equality into social areas. Isn't that the same argument being used on the right for not allowing gay marriage?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The dissent (by another former KKK-er, oddly enough), said (in part):
But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.

That's a rather liberal view he takes. That decision would be considered liberal activism by today's standards. Like I said above, you could swap this out with gay marriage and make the same argument. Harlan is saying that all citizens are equal before the law but the other side is saying that there is nothing in the constitution that says that it counts in social matters. That the states have the right to make up their own mind there.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Nope. I don't even know where this comes from, unless you're once again using the words constructionist/conservative/right incorrectly and interchangeably. I will say that opposition to affirmative action can be found among those on the left as well, and it isn't limited only to those who are white.

I'm sure there are. But recent cases like Gratz vs Bollinger show that the right-leaning judges are much more likely to side against affirmative action. Considering Roberts and Alito are against it as well, would you really expect a black man who is schooled in constitutional law to vote for them? This all started because of a comment about Obama voting against those two. I would find it wrong for him to vote for them if his beliefs are strong.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Any reason you decided not to include Clarence Thomas in this sentence? Did it look absurd even to you? Yes, I am absolutely saying that a black man (or woman) for that matter can feel comfortable voting for someone like Alito or Roberts. I think I've been saying that for at least a page now.

Would you think less of a black person who supported Roberts or Alito?

Thomas is a little farther to the right than anyone else on the court. I mean this is a black man who dissented to the latest Voting Rights Act decision. It's safe to say he has a much different view of race relations in this country than most blacks.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Jon

But, Hugo Black did not use a strict constructionist argument for his vote in Brown. If you look at interviews that he gave later on, as well as his private papers, it was based on . . . empathy. He has stated countless times that he grew up in the South and he knew that it was wrong, and it wouldn't have mattered if things were equal.

To be fair, that doesn't mean that he wasn't a strict constructionist. I just don't think Brown is a good example of that, given the circumstances under which it was written.

A better example would be Hugo Black's opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421---which invalidated a school prayer. Black's view was "no law" means "no law." If a policy promoted one religion, a few religions, or a family of religions, it would still be unconstitutional.

I will give you credit, though, for mentioning Hugo Black. A lot of conservatives tend to stay away from him, because most conservatives disagree with the outcome in a lot of his decisions.

One more thing--I'm kind of surprised that you didn't know the "democrat" party slam that many republicans started pulling a few months ago. It does undermine the credibility of your post. Not that my opinion matters much around here (since I'm a lurker for the most part), but I find many of your arguments "persuasive" in the sense that it won't necessarily make me change my mind, but it sound and well-reasoned. In fact, one of the arguments you made in the Heller discussion convinced me on the Second Amendment "right to bear arms," not in a textual or strict constructionist sense, but from John Marshall Harlan's "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" approach. (And, for the record, I am a constitutional law geek and, a long time ago, spent a lot of time researching various issues for an article that included reviewing many justices private papers at the Library of Congress).

Thanks Jon. I honestly don't pay much attention to the partisan bickering on both sides these days... with the exception of diving into the POL threads here at FOFC every now and then.

Most of my reading is news, not opinion, and I don't watch or listen to political talk shows (don't get me started on the Fox News lineup). The only blogs I read on a regular basis these days are Instapundit, the Volokh Conspiracy, various gun blogs, and the Campaign Spot. None of them really engage in the "nyah-nyah" back-and-forth name calling, which is why I've missed it.

I will say that after reading four years of "Rethuglican" comments, I don't really get the big deal about Democrat versus Democratic, but since I wasn't trying to piss someone off I don't mind apologizing.

When it comes to Engle v. Vitale, I don't have a problem with Black's reasoning, though I wonder what he'd think about how far we've taken the issue of banning prayer in school.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words and the food for thought. I'm going to do some more reading on Brown v. Board of Education after I get off the air tonight.

[RainMaker]

For what it's worth, I had no idea that Democrat was seen as such a bad word when referring to the party.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I wonder what you would have gotten if you used my preferred spelling of Demoncrat?

I've usually seen that as DemonRAT while browsing the Free Republic threads in horror.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Honestly, I didn't even realize I typed that. Democratic party. Better?

Sure.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola... I do believe that people should show their political opposition enough respect to refer to their party by its proper name. I'm still having trouble figuring out what's so demeaning about the phrase "Democrat Party" as opposed to "Democratic Party". Don't we call individuals "Democrats" and not "Democratics"?

'Democratic,' I would suggest, stands for the principles to which the party claims to adhere. Sorta like Christian as an adherent, and Christianity as the collective set of principles, y'dig? Would you shorten the reference to the religion because we call its adherents Christian? Or, heck - would it be legitimate to refer to, as a collective, the "Jew people" because we call an individual of that faith a Jew? Why call them the "Jewish people" and waste a perfectly good 'ish,' am I right?

Not to inject religion into a perfectly good political flamewar. Just saying, there are other examples of the principle I'm talking about here.

Just to be perfectly clear: I'm not flaming, using sarcasm, or any other verbal jousting tool. I'm just a little confused at the vehement reaction to a missing "ic".

As someone else pointed out, it's that most of the people who do that (and, to be honest, use that precise reasoning behind it), are doing it with asshattery aforethought and using that as kind of a "what, what'd I do?!" injured innocence defense.

Frequently - and not always, I realize this - the people who play the "We call them Democrats, not Democratics" card are the same people who use the pejorative shorthand "libs" in place of "liberals" to describe those of a particular ideology. It's as though a dismissive diminishment of the name automatically equals a diminishment of the principles they stand for.

It isn't so much a vehement response - I'm not stamping my feet and demanding you refer to them the 'right' way. Just pointing out that, for me, the use of 'Democrat Party' has the effect of causing me to take the Republican Party less seriously as a political entity. A little more on why that is in a bit.

But first, I'll take in good faith that you didn't mean it that way, and for anybody else who shares your honest curiosity as to 'why do we call the party one thing and the individuals another?' we'll have a history lesson - once upon a time, back in the early 1800s, there existed a party known as the Democratic-Republican Party. There was a falling-out after Monroe's Presidency, and Andrew Jackson took with him a large part of that group to form the Democratic Party.

Now, I'm not the most astute student of politics, but I would suggest that the name choice was a deliberate one, especially as the Democratic-Republican Party ended up disbanding much as the Federalist Party had before it. I would suggest that it was meant to be a familiar name to people who had been Democratic-Republicans before we went from Federalist/Democratic-Republicans to Democrats/Whigs (to, later, Democrats/Republicans). Sort of a security blanket. "Your party may not exist in body anymore, but in spirit, it lives on. Why don't you caucus with us?"

So that's where the name comes from. That's why, even though we refer to an individual as a Democrat, the proper reference for the party, if one is being polite or at least not deliberately antagonistic, would be the Democratic Party.

Jon's usage of Demoncrats, eh, that's also a pejorative, but at least it doesn't try to hide behind 'what? what am I doing wrong?' the way so many of those who insist upon 'Democrat Party' do. Basically, if you're going to belittle the other side, have the cojones to do it overtly.

Rush and Hannity use 'Democrat Party' in that way, even if they trot out the same 'but, but, we call the individuals Democrats' line. It's petty, childish, and smacks of the kid who wants to antagonize his brother but doesn't dare do it openly in case mom or dad threatens to turn the car around. Which, whatever, fine - but that's why I have a tough time taking seriously folks who use that turn of phrase.

And for what it's worth, if the Democrats were to try the same thing ("why do we call it the Republican Party? We live in a Republic, not a Republican!") I'd have a tough time taking them seriously, too. If it's absolutely imperative that I vote for one group of folks over another, name-calling, overt or subtle, isn't going to impress me. What you intend to do about the Momentous Issues That Make My Vote For You Imperative, on the other hand, that I'll listen to. I won't necessarily agree with it, but I'll lend a civil ear to a civil tongue.

Trying to hang your opponent with a pejorative, diminutive name just doesn't suggest to me that the person or group trying to push that name is taking those issues seriously at all. Those are playground games. If the population is stupid enough to vote for you because of how you refer to your opponent's party, I got news for you - they're stupid enough to vote for the other guys for far more asinine reasons. Is that really the sort of political engagement you want to encourage?

/rant

[flere-imsaho]

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good writeup on the history of the whole "Democrat" thing. I had no idea it went back as far as it did. I thought it was largely a product of 2002-2006.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I wonder what you would have gotten if you used my preferred spelling of Demoncrat?

No way that's your preferred spelling. It's not nearly pejorative enough.

[ISiddiqui]

Would you shorten the reference to the religion because we call its adherents Christian

You mean like calling it "the Christian faith"

[flere-imsaho]

All Things Considered had a funny interview with Senator Grassley last night. Grassley started off by saying he and other Republicans were concerned about the empathy thing, to which Robert Siegel responded: "What do we want? Callous judges who just disregard the impact of the law on people?"

Following-up, he also quoted Alito from his own nomination hearing: "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background, or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that in to account." Siegel suggested that by Grassley's criteria, he shouldn't have voted for Alito.

Anyway, the end of the interview had Grassley sort of meekly saying that Sotomayor was positive and that if the things she said are merely political statements, and not reflected in how she works from the bench, he'll vote for her. Which I wasn't suggesting.

NPR won't have a transcript for a while, so there's just the audio clip.

[flere-imsaho]

So far, the most notable aspects of the hearings so far are:

1. Exactly how much of an idiot Jeff Sessions is making himself look

2. Lindsay Graham being the most "reality-based" senator in his comments so far, by saying that unless Sotomayor melts down, she'll be confirmed, because elections matter.

[JPhillips]

Honorable mention should go to Coburn saying she'll have "some splaining to do."

I'm so old I remember when the Republicans were trying to get a lock on a Latino majority.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Honorable mention should go to Coburn saying she'll have "some splaining to do."

Yeah, it would appear that Coburn is just using this opportunity to give a national platform for Pro-Life arguments, even going so far as saying "you don't have to answer this" to her.

I'm so old I remember when the Republicans were trying to get a lock on a Latino majority.

Wasn't that, like, 4 years ago?

[albionmoonlight]

I have not read this yet, but here's a link to a new article about Judicial Activism, trying to view it in an objective manner. This page is the abstract. Click on the link at the top of the page to download it.

SSRN-Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Courts of Appeals by Corey Yung

[flere-imsaho]

It's official: Senate Approves Sotomayor to Supreme Court - NYTimes.com