CONSERVATIVE- the term is misused often, especially in the media.
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.
( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.
( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
Usually it applies to anyone who is not a liberal. for example Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman get wrongly tagged with the label often.
Today it happened again. This interesting story about Justice Antonin Scalia where he is described as “The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court’s conservative wing,…” Although I do not know what is conservative about just being wrong. He has proven throughout the years to not have a thorough understanding of the law. Now he shows us he does not have a thorough understanding of the Constitution. Despite the “tea partiers” considering themselves conservative and not understanding the constitution being in the news daily, I expect more from a Supreme Court Justice. He recently had a question and answer session with, UC Hastings College of the Law.
Here are a few of his head scratchers:
* The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.
* But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against “a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
* He also described the legal underpinnings of the court’s 1965 ruling declaring a constitutional right of privacy – the basis for Roe vs. Wade – as a “total absurdity.”
As if those are not crazy enough he comes out with this:
Scalia asserted that the Constitution’s authors always meant for religion to play a large role in US politics.
“Don’t tell me that the framers of the American Constitution never had that in mind,” he said. He added that the United States is superior to some other countries because it “does God honor.”
“It’s not unconstitutional,” he said.
Instead of labeling him conservative in the future, he should be just labeled “head of the erroneous wing!
Nice regurgitation of an article. Why don’t you provide your REASONING why you think he’s wrong instead of just saying he’s wrong. I would love to hear your counterpoint to Scalia.
Sorry, sometimes things are so blatantly obvious to me I never think to explain, I assume everyone knows it.
* Despite the fact that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, its pretty obvious what the founders meant when the first line of the Declaration of Independence is.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…. self evident to all but Scalia i guess.
* Do i even need to explain why its wrong to compare gays and lesbians to incest and beastiality?
* The word “privacy” is NOT in the constitution. That is fact but why isnt it? Not because the Founders did not feel we had a right to privacy, but because at the time it meant go to the bathroom. So if the founds wrote in a right to privacy, it would of meant we have the right to go to the bathroom. It is however inherent in numerous amendments in the Bill of Rights. I would hope that an “originalist” like scalia would get this.
* There is no justification of anyone who is not rewriting history to think that the Founders wanted “religion to play a large role in Us politics.” There is a reason that God is not mentioned in the Consitution. John Adams write it in there and Jefferson changed it to Nature’s God. There is a reason that George Washington NEVER went to church. As Jefferson wrote http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl134.htm , “And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” he was talking about Christianity and how every religion wanted him to declare them the official religion. Most of the Founders were deist and came here to escape the religious loons. Its really sad that someone with his education and position does not understand this.
You actually made Scalia’s point. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. So if the framers of the 14th amendment thought it also applied to women, then why was there a need for the 19th amendment? He said in the article that obviously there shouldn’t be discrimination, his point was that the people who crafted the 14th in the time it was crafted didn’t apply it that way. It’s called context. The first ten amendments didn’t apply towards slaves in the time period they were written did they? Nope.
Yes, you do need to explain why it is wrong. Whether you believe it or not, a lot of people do equate it to immorality. Allow me to put on a liberal hat for a moment. If gay people don’t have a choice about their sexual identity, then wouldn’t that also be true about those who engage in bestiality or consensual incest? I mean come on, they were born that way, right? So if that latter is morally wrong, why can’t homosexuality also be viewed as morally wrong? I can easily use your same arguments for accepting homosexuality and apply it to everything else viewed as morally wrong.
I have no idea where you are trying to go in your “privacy” comment and how it pertains to Scalia’s thoughts. The Supreme Court believed in Roe v Wade that a woman has a right to abortion because of the Constitutional right to privacy. While there isn’t a direct written right to privacy in the Constitution, that is hardly the point. Let’s pretend that there was an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. How can abortion be justified by claiming a right to privacy? I believe that is absurd and evidently so does Scalia. I don’t claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but they couldn’t at least find something better in the Constitution to justify abortion? Hell, your liberal, broad interpretation of the general welfare clause would justify abortion better.
As for the role of religion in government issue – you just said John Adams had it in the Declaration. Wasn’t he one of the founders?
One final thought on this. I really don’t see where how you think Scalia could be outright wrong in any of his points. I’ll give you the religion issue, because you made a well-thought argument, but you should at least be able to see his point of view in the others. The bottom line here is he views the Constitution in black and white and takes into the context of the time these things were written. That’s not wrong – you just don’t like it.