Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nomad, good questions.
The court rationalized its decision based on several previous lower federal and state rulings that laws outlawing abortion were constitutionally suspect. It also placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that no state (or at least the majority of them) considered a fetus a "person" for legal purposes, hence killing a fetus is legally different than killing a "person." Relying on a previous decision regarding contraception (Griswold) the court jumped to the conclusion that family planning is a private right protected by the constitution and that since abortion is a kind of family planning, it was protected too. It's a tortured decision and even people who support abortion question its reasoning, and with good reason.To me, the essence of liberalism is the “we know better what you need than you do” attitude that the French Revolution pioneered. The genius of the American Revolution was they didn’t try to reinvent the wheel in terms of human nature and attitudes. Actually, the Founders were marvelous students of the human condition and constructed the Constitution as an instrument in tune with what they knew of our nature, abilities, and propensities, but I digress.
As to de Tocqueville's observation, I think it's spot on and we need look no farther than very recent events to vindicate it. Observe Katrina and its aftermath. While it may be a less than apt ananlogy (of course no one could have prevented the hurricane, moonbat logic aside) we see that centralization is a poor actor. The federal government was the worst possible level of authority to respond to a crisis such as this (the best ones being, in order, the individual, the city and the state governments) because it was so far removed (in distance, experience, motivation, and everything else). It was precisely because authority and responsibility had been centralized that the more local levels of authority couldn't respond in as effective manner as possible.
The other half (the prevention by centralization) is a topic for another dayI’d agree with what Don said. The Declaration of Indpendence wasn’t just our way of saying “we’re not part of England anymore.” It was a declaration of man’s independence from the suffocating paradigms that preceeded it.
It's instructive that the Founding generation were all intimately familiar with the Crown and the concept that all sovreignty rested in it, yet roundly rejected an Ameican King or even titles of nobility. That says something. It says that they were fully committed to the experiment of self-government, freedom, responsibilty, self-reliance, and constitutional restraints on power. They wanted nothing to do with the old ways, even though they all could have benefitted immensely from the royal institutions or their American equivalents if they so chose.I think I read the Ambivalent Conquests book in college. I found it boring personally, but I’m not much into pre-20th century history in any depth, especially outside of Europe.
Nazi Germany, A new History by Fischer is worth the read and them some. Great meta-synthesis of a lot of things.Phidippides wrote:Donnie, I would have to agree that fighting a war on two fronts did it in for Germany. I’m still uncertain as to why Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union, other than perhaps a) he knew he’d have to fight them sooner or later, b) he thought the time was ripe for a surprise attack, and c) his maniacism was getting to him and convinced him his armies were invincible. Germany was advancing technologically at a pace that made for some close calls; fortunately, the V-2 was only available toward the end of the War, and I believe that better aircraft like the Heinkel He 162 wasn’t able to be produced fully because it was released just before Nazis were getting pounded. Had Hitler waited on attacking the Soviet Union, he may have had enough time for R&D and for the manufacturing of these advanced weapons.
I think it's fairly clear that Hitler invaded Russia not for any stragtegic reasons (Russia and Germany signed a non-aggression pact and carved up Poland and the Baltic states remember) but for his own personal reasons. he hated Russia, Russians, Communists and Jews, all of whom were in Russia in copious quantitites. He was driven to this act by his own psychosis and race-hatred. To Hitler, everything revolved around Race and his platform was clear: kill or enslave all "inferior" races, of which the Slavs were in his view. There may have been advantages in conquering Russia (huge raw material reserves, food, a substantial industrial base) but to Hitler, these were a distant second to his race agenda.Although I’m no lawyer (yet) I think I’m going to have to disagree with your assertion that judges are neutral magistrates weighing the evidence before them. More often, they seem to have a predetermined outcome in mind and give inordinate weight to the evidence that supports their favored outcome. They look over the crowd to pick out the heads of their friends, as Scalia says.
And even if this weren't the case, the role of an appeals judge shouldn't be to decide who argued better, but TO APPLY THEY LAW HONESTLY, FAITHFULLY AND WITH INTEGRITY. Once they start playing verbal games and manipulating the outcome to serve the policies they favor, the whole meaning of "the rule of law" is corroded and our system becomes just as suscpetible to the rule of men as the tyrannies we so roundly condemn.All Prohibtion did was prove that the Constitution in particular and the Feds in general are poor instruments for social engineering.
Glory is a fantastic movie for a number of reasons. Schindler’s List should be on any top-whatever list for so many reasons.
Gladiator was good but more than somewhat inaccurate and yes, predictable. The fact that they left no possibility for a sequel was pretty cool though.Unlike most conservatives, I don’t blindly jump on the “there’s no rights but those mentioned in the Constitution” bandwagon. I’m too much of a libertarian for that and I think the Founders intended other rights to be protected judicially from encroachment other than those given specific mention. however, I don’t believe abortion is one of those rights.
I was taking with a friend the other day (we're both in law school currently, FWIW) and we came to the same conclusion: on a sensitive, personal issue such as abortion, the courts are the worst possible instrument to effect rational policies. He made the point that in a lot of decisions on a number of issues, the evidence and rationales the court relies upon to reach their conclusions often point to exactly the opposite result upon further inspection.No doubt. It distorted everything: judicial analysis, respect for precedent, politics, the localization and resolution of issues, the political process, everything. Even if you believe in abortion, Roe’s consequences have been nothing short of disastrous for everyone involved. It desperately needs to be overturned so tha some modicum of sanity can be restored to the judicial process.
In terms of “impact” (meaning controversy, infamy, and long term effects on the nomination and confirmation process) I don’t think anything can compete with the Griswold/Roe/Casey line of cases. Though I believe at least 2 of them were wrongly decided, I can’t deny the effect on the legal and political systems that they’ve had.
