Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
We want your feedback! Complete our survey and enter to win one of four $25 gift cards.

GOP Specter switching parties

15678911»

Replies to: GOP Specter switching parties

  • factoidfactoid Registered User Posts: 6 New Member
    Novelista said.." Re: wife swapping. You've got to mention Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat that Barack Obama won in 2004. If it hadn't been for the revelations that he'd taken his wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, to sex clubs, he might have won the seat. ""

    And then you've got left-wing newspapers suing to open Ryan's sealed divorce documents and then a liberal judge okaying the release of the documents, to the detriment of their child. Liberal judges can be dangerous.
  • cartera45cartera45 Registered User Posts: 12,446 Senior Member
    There is no complete protection of property rights in the Constitution. Only due process is guaranteed - and compensation if it is taken for public use.
  • HannaHanna Registered User Posts: 14,418 Senior Member
    'I think you have to be careful with judicial appointments that go too far to the left. For example, the SCOTUS case involving eminent domain, Kelo vs. New London, was an eye opener."

    Are you suggesting that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stephens, and Souter voted the way they did because they are "too far to the left" and perhaps should not have been appointed for that reason? If so, you're arguing for an unbelievably right-wing court. The left-wing intellectual equivalents of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are miles to the left of anyone currently on the Supreme Court, while in contrast there really aren't many legal thinkers out there who are to the right of Justice Thomas; the purists think that he's wonderful. Justice Marshall was the last justice who could possibly be understood as a left-wing equivalent to Scalia. The current court has four moderates who lean left, one moderate who leans right, and four justices who occupy various spots on the far right end of the spectrum. That is very unlikely to change much in the foreseeable future.

    Check out the American Constitution Society (an organization for left-leaning lawyers and law students) and see what its members had to say about Kelo. Many, many people on the left did not agree with either the majority or the dissents in Kelo.
  • EMM1EMM1 Registered User Posts: 2,583 Senior Member
    There is no evidence to suggest that more liberal justices would have would have joined the dissenters in Kelo. Indeed, all of the most liberal justices of the late twentieth century, including Marshall, Brennan and Douglas consistently voted against providing any significant substantive protection for property rights, making the transparently absurd argument that property rights were not personal rights.
  • HannaHanna Registered User Posts: 14,418 Senior Member
    More liberal justices certainly would not have joined the dissent in Kelo -- but some might have concurred in the judgment of the dissenters and written separately. There's a reason why Kelo, and not any of the earlier cases about property rights, is such a lightning rod. It's because the facts were so unusual and the people with the least power lost. Left-wing equivalents to Clarence Thomas quite often view the role of the judiciary as giving a voice to the voiceless and protecting the vulnerable. Clearly, the vulnerable here were the poor people in the slum. Read some of the far-left commentary on the case. The socialists (real socialists, not Obama fans) do not think highly of government giveaways to rich developers.
  • factoidfactoid Registered User Posts: 6 New Member
    cartera45 said.."I have such huge issues with the Republican platform that I will vote a straight party line - with no apologies. I couldn't vote for anyone who supports that platform - period. Voting across the board for Democrats, for me, is a vote based on conscious."

    What issues do you have? Gay marriage and abortion? I agree with you, although you would find my solution to the abortion debate quite novel. My problem in voting for the democrats is their terrible history. I would definitely get a very dirty feeling coming out of the voting booth. Let's see...in the not too distant past, the Democrat President, Truman, dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians. Another Democrat, FDR, interned 75,000 American citizens of Japanese heritage against their will, in concentration camps.

    In addition, it was the Dixie Democrats who were against the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's. As I said, they have a terrible history.
  • cartera45cartera45 Registered User Posts: 12,446 Senior Member
    The Thomas and the O'Connor dissents are very interesting reads.
  • EMM1EMM1 Registered User Posts: 2,583 Senior Member
    Perhaps I should make the point more clearly--none of the liberal justices even VOTED to protect substantive property rights per se. It is no accident that all of the more liberal justices on the court voted with the city. There was no doctrinal hook available that might have avoid a direct vindication of property rights. To suggest that Brennan, Marshall, et al. would have found some way to overcome their established antipathy to claims of property rights is nothing more than rank speculation.
  • factoidfactoid Registered User Posts: 6 New Member
    Also, todays news credits the Republicans for thwarting that hideous cramdown bill in the Senate today..

    "WASHINGTON (AP) -- With President Barack Obama largely on the sidelines, Senate Republicans are poised to defeat his promise of a bankruptcy court refuge for hundreds of thousands of families about to lose their homes to foreclosure.

    The vote would mark the first major legislative setback for the popular president, who supported the legislation and whose administration has made saving the economy its No. 1 priority. And several lawmakers said they remained worried that the forced easing, or "cram-down," of mortgage terms would unleash a torrent of bankruptcy filings and ultimately drive up interest rates.""

    Some democrats are wise..""Do I want to have my rate go up so that somebody else might be able to cram down" their mortgage payment? said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., an opponent of the bill.""

    ""The bill would have allowed bankruptcy judges to rewrite a person's mortgage terms, if a bank refused to offer better terms based on income and home value. Only 45 senators voted in favor of the bill, with 51 senators opposed.""

    Thank goodness that bill failed. Yet another reason why I lean to the Republicans and am deathly afraid of liberal judges.
  • factoidfactoid Registered User Posts: 6 New Member
    Here's an eminent domain abuse case that is close to where I live. Town wanted to build a golf course. The cost to these fine people was $300,000 of their retirement savings.

    Save Our Farm
  • HannaHanna Registered User Posts: 14,418 Senior Member
    "To suggest that Brennan, Marshall, et al. would have found some way to overcome their established antipathy to claims of property rights is nothing more than rank speculation."

    Whereas your source is that you dug them up and asked them? It's all rank speculation to predict how any individual would have voted on a case with facts they never saw. The question was what a far-left justice would have done on those facts, and the best indicator is the reaction TO THESE FACTS of liberal thinkers who might have been become far-left justices under a McGovern or Dukakis administration. Read what they have to say.
  • bulletandpimabulletandpima Registered User Posts: 9,826 Senior Member
    The latest on Specter is becoming quite interesting. It has become a he said/ he said fight between Harry and Arlen, so bad that Biden's office is getting involved.
    The White House is concerned enough about the developments that deputy chief of staff Jim Messina and Ron Klain, a senior adviser to Vice President Biden, traveled to Capitol Hill on Wednesday and huddled with Specter to try to iron out the problems, according to informed Democratic officials

    I said it before and will say it again, those that cheered when he switch parties were fooled. Arlen is in it for Arlen. Just because he has a D behind his name doesn't mean he will be voting that way. If you vote for him now because he is a dem, than you really are voting for a Republican, and you are only voting for him because he has the letter D.

    Some of his latest comments since switching over
    Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do "justice" and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election.
    Specter has done little to back off his initial assertion that his decision to switch parties was based almost entirely on political calculations and had little to do with ideology

    And I don't have a quote but he is still opposed to card check
  • tegatega Registered User Posts: 1,792 Senior Member
    The kelo ruling is one of the worst rulings in the post WW2 era.
15678911»
This discussion has been closed.