What's the difference?

[joelberg]

What is the originalists view of the federal judiciary? What is the "progressive" view? Which do you find most persuasive and why? Which is likely to dominate the Supreme Court in the future? What do you see as the relationship between federalism and anti-federalism and progressivism and constructionism?

[kinoxi]

'define the word 'is''

[Lunatic Fringe]

Are we going to be graded on this? I have enough final exams this week.

[pgyanke]

Hi, Jack!

Did I just hijack this thread?

[Prokopton]

IBTH

[TChris]

What is the originalists view of the federal judiciary? What is the "progressive" view? Which do you find most persuasive and why? Which is likely to dominate the Supreme Court in the future? What do you see as the relationship between federalism and anti-federalism and progressivism and constructionism?

I sincerely hope this is a rhetorical question. Do you really not know the difference? Do you really think that judges following, being bound and restricted by the Constitution is no different than judges who bend and twist the Constitution to fit their particular ideology?

The difference is the rule of law vs. the rule of five.

It's the difference between By the people, for the people and of the people and By lawyers, for lawyers and of lawyers.

It's "obey your sacred oath of office" or "obey your particular ideological leanings"

[Krodg]

Do you have a question??

[VanShuyten]

He must be using a wireless PDA. That's question #7 on my Amer. Gov. 102 final!

[joelberg]

There is no difference! Progressives and Constructionists have become the same thing! Which wants to see a reduction in the size of the federal government? You'd think it be the constructionists, but why aren't the alleged "constructionists" in office now repealing federal programs en masse? Because they are really progressivist liberals? Or is it because there is really no difference anymore?

[Lunatic Fringe]

And exactly which federal programs do you expect the judiciary to repeal?

Education? Not a wise choice. An educated citizenry is beneficial to us all.

Social Security? Mmmmaybe, but I would want all my money back with interest.

Medicare? Right, kick millions of old people off the only insurance program they can get.

The military? Umm, next...

So... which program should be eliminated?

[joelberg]

Wow, are you a fullblown socialist? What more welfare programs should we add to the Federal budget?

[joelberg]

But seriously, the ATF and the DEA should immediately be scrapped. If Roberts and Alito were true constructionists, the ATF would at least be gone by now.

[Cyclopean Squid]

Cutting programs is not a job for the judiciary. It should be the job for Congress and the President. They won't do it because the system is geared to be such that meaningful reform is virtually impossible. So we'll just have to go down on the sinking ship and start anew one day.

[TChris]

There is no difference! Progressives and Constructionists have become the same thing! Which wants to see a reduction in the size of the federal government? You'd think it be the constructionists, but why aren't the alleged "constructionists" in office now repealing federal programs en masse? Because they are really progressivist liberals? Or is it because there is really no difference anymore?

You're all over the map, man. Weren't we just talking about the Supreme Court? I could have sworn you asked about the Supreme Court.

You really need to get your brain wrapped around a couple of key concepts.

1. The Supreme Court is not "The Federal Government". They are one branch of it.
2. The Supreme Court does not, indeed cannot, "repeal...federal programs en masse". That's the job of Congress. (One of the other branches of our government.)
3. The term "constructionist" or "originalist" refers to a judicial ideology, specifically that the Constitution of the United States should be interpreted as it was written and intended by its authors, not according to current political fads or pressures. Changes to the Constitution are made through the amendment process, by the voice of the voters.
4. The term "progressive", while sounding acceptable enough, is code-speak for Socialist. In politics, a "progressive" is nearly always an enemy of the Constitution, often openly so.
5. Originalists and "living Constitution" tyrants are most decidedly not the same thing.
6. The current messes in our laws and government bureaucracies can be laid at the feet of specific groups, individuals and ideologies. Not everyone is to blame. Your comments are rather like running into a bank during a robbery and wildly shooting every living soul, just because you know there are bad guys in there.

The enemies of the Constitution and our country are, in no particular order:

1. Liberals/progressives who are socialist wolves in American clothing
2. Politicians with too little spine and/or too little personal character to act and vote according to proven, conservative values, despite their Republican title.
3. Politicians who consider all the wealth of America to be theirs to take, redistribute or spend without conscience or accountability.
4. Those who would ignore the law in their own conduct yet loudly condemn others for the slightest perceived or invented infraction.

If you open your eyes and ears, you will find those of sterling character and solid, conservative record among the junk in the government. Identify them and support them. Elect more like them.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

None of those words matter much. What matters is that someone can actually read our constitution and follow the guidelines the founders painstakingly wrote for us...