 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
how old are you? the beautiful thing about my friends is i know 3 of them will never get married and ill probably be the first one
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Hi all,
A quick question; When a Yank congressman that's Republican calls' a view "Liberal" does he intonate they really are Liberal (in true meaning), or is he using the word to indicate a Democrat view?
Another question: Why, in the US, can't a person be both liberal and Republican? (With "Liberal" meaning it's true meaning). Do all Repulicans therefore have to be defined as intolerant?
I'm Liberal on many subjects, and vote for the (UK) Labour Party (Democrat), but I like some policies of the Conservative Party (Republican).
If a Bill is presented in Parliament in the UK that is considered to be a personal moral issue, the Government, and all opposition Parties will allow a free vote on it, then liberalism/dogmatic views on an issue comes to the fore.
Has the meaning of the word "Liberal" been hiijacked by the Republicans to describe any Democrat in a negative manner?
Toby?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:16
|
|
Once upon a time, both major U.S. parties had liberal and conservative wings. President Ford's VP, Nelson Rockefeller, was a liberal Republican. The "South" [the old Confederacy], although very conservative, was a Democratic bastion.
Then, first starting with Goldwater's campaign in 64, accelerating with the election of President Reagan in 80, and culminating with Newt Gingrich's rises to the Speakership of the House of Representatives in 92, the two parties have become more and more polarized.
I don't think "liberal" means the same in the U.S. and in Europe. Here, it tends to refer to people wanting strong governmental programs: such as Social Security, Medicare, state-run schools, etc.
Conservatives traditionally have wanted much smaller government: private pensions instead of Social Security, out-of-pocket spending or private insurace for medical care rather than anything supplied by the govement. Remeber's Reagan's saying the "Government isn't the solution to the problem; government is the problem." Two big exceptions: conservatives like bigger military and less restrictions on the powers of the police. (Edit: oops, three exceptions -- they also want government to dictate how people should have sex and with whom.)
And finally, yes, Republicans have hijacked to word "liberal" and used it as a perjoritive to describe Democrats. Even Democrats are shying away from its use, with some calling themselves progressives. 
Last edited by Zkribbler on 10-04-2005 at 22:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Cheers mate!
Alas I sense a trace of bias within your reply, like my own posting, even though I tried not to be so, as it now seems to have been well and truely taken over (the meaning) by Politics.
I'm lucky in that I have a 1959 Oxford University Dictionary, which I've just looked at, so ignoring the few arcane meaning within it it states:
"generous. open-handed, not sparing of; ample, abundant, not rigorous or literal; open-minded, candid, unprejudiced;
(Pol) [edit;Political] favourable to democratic reforms & abolition of privilege (esp. L~ party; [Liberal]
cf. CONSERVATIVE L~ conservative, member of Conservative party not ill desposed to reforms"
[don't forget the UK has no constitution, unlike the US]
It states on the word libertarian:
"Believer, believing, in free will (opp. neccessitarian); advocate of liberty"
It also has the word "lliberticide" which apparently means "Destroyer, destructuctive. of liberty" as we would expect with cide as an ending.
Finally it describes the word "libertine" [although I think a part is already arcane] thus:
"Free-thinker on religion; licentious (man); free thinking, antinomanian[? what!!]; chartered ~e, person allowed to do as he pleases."
Reading all the meanings vis 1959, I've come to the conclusion that Politics has well and truely stolen away the real meaning of the word, at least in the UK, we can discuss a non-political like Fox hunting etc, and then argue our case for or against.
It appears the real meaning of Liberal is pretty well forgotten.
I heard President Bush use the word "leftfield" or "sits on the leftbank" when describing his rival on my BBC News during your elections, fine, we all know left and right in Politics, liberalism is seperate to all parties.
I want life to mean life in prison for murderers in the UK, (they currently serve 11 years on average), whilst I believe heroin addicts that commit a crime to feed their addiction should be sent to a rehabilitation centre, not a prison.
I think both these views Liberal as I'm thinking about society first, not how a political party acts for votes.
In matters religious, I should be free to criticise any religion I choose, unfortunately the Labour Government is about to make it illegial. Religion is a belief, not a dogma we must all bow down to, although I'm agnostic.
I don't want my right of free speech tempered.
A free thinker is a Liberal.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
This is
****ed
up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
...the appeals by her parents, not by Terri herself.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a factual finding earlier on that Terri had left oral instructions she didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, presumably including a feeding tube?
Usually, a court of appeal can only look at the trial court's ruling on legal questions. The only time it can overturn a ruling on a factual question is if no evidence supports it. These weren't wacko left-wing judges looking at this. They were IIRC judges appointed by Bush and Reagan.
(Of course, this doesn't explain why Schiavo's husband waited until after he'd collected on the medical malpractice case before carrying out her wishes.) |
I think the issue that was finally raised and got the vote of two of the 11th Cir. judges was whether the evidence submitted was sufficient for federal due process standards. The evidence submitted included testimony by Terri's friend from college that Terri said after watching a movie about Kathleen Quinlan that she thought the feeding tube should stay in. That is what her mother testified to as well when the Quilan case was in the news seven years earlier.
The judge said he would not credit the testimony of Michael Schiavo, but proceeded to do so anyway. He said that Terri had watched a movie about someone being in a coma, IIRC. She is reported to have said that she didn't want to live with a machine keeping her alive. Michael's brother and sister-in-law also testified even though they were not on the witness list, over the objections of the Schindlers, who did not have a opportunity to investigate or conduct depositions. They reported a similar conversation with Terri at a funeral reception for a Schiavo grandmother: coma, support by machines. Terri said, "Pull the plug."
The standard for clear and convincing evidence is that it must be more than a preponderance, but less that beyond a reasonable doubt. The state judge found clear and convincing under these circumstances. At least two members of the 11th Circuit said the case raised doubts under the due process clause. Another member, writing in support of the court's denial of a rehearing, said that the Federal courts would have to accept the findings of fact by the state courts. The central problem with this position was that the statute giving the Feds jurisdiction mandated a hearing de novo on the fact issues in order for the Feds to make an independent assessment of whether the state court had denied Terri due process. The fact that no such de novo review was ever conducted is central to ire of many.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
I think I might have missed something. Maritime cases seems to be banging around in my head, but I'm unsure.
I read a good chunk of a book called, A People's History of the Supreme Court. Fascsinating, I wish I could read the rest of it. Originally the SC was a circuit court. The justices went around the U.S. hearing cases. The SC did get smacked down hard in the 1790s, arising out of a case in Georgia, where, IIRC, the state basically took the property of some Georgian citizens. This ultimately resulted in the 11th Amendement.
I think a lot of people put too much into this whole seperation of powers thing. The way the government was originally constituted, it seems clear the Framers intended for Congress to be the leading branch of government, but not unlimited.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think a lot of people put too much into this whole seperation of powers thing. The way the government was originally constituted, it seems clear the Framers intended for Congress to be the leading branch of government, but not unlimited. |
Well, presidents surely held this view until Jackson.
The problem with the Supreme Court today centers on "substantive due process." Once it was used to declare social economic legislation unconstitutional. Now it is used to rewrite the laws of this country the way the Supremes see fit. The reaction the earlier "Lochner" era of the court was so strong, that the Supremes officially junked the doctrine as unsound, only to have it reappear two years later in Griswold.
Clearly, the role that the Supremes are the ultimate lawmaker in this society is controversial because, as you say, the founding father never intended this.
What we really need is a constitutional amendment that denies the Supremes the power to base any decision on "substantive due process." Either that, or a court that rules, once again, that substantive due process is not a viable legal doctrine.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005 08:58
and, if the statute is as you say, the federal courts fouled up badly. They cannot just ignore a statutory dictate of Congress. They can declare it to be unconstitutional or perhaps in conflict with another statute which is controlling for some reason -- but they can't just ignore it which it looks like they did here.
I myself keep spending most of my time with my girlfriend but I at least make time for boy's night out once a week but even when we plan ahead it seems like 50% of them can't make it because of girlfriend related issues. 
|