Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Speaking of the Constitution
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, October 04, 2007

While it came as no particular surprise that Wesley Clark was all for throwing the 1st Amendment under the bus, it appears that he has company:
As the Supreme Court begins a new term, 44% of Americans would counsel the justices to base their decisions “strictly upon what is written in the Constitution and legal precedents.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% say the Court’s decisions should be primarily guided by a sense of fairness and justice rather than strict constructionism.
"A sense of fairness and justice".

Defined by whom? Or what?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Defined by those who feel that way, of course. I mean, I’m all for killing off 75% of the population if I get to be the one to make the lists. Otherwise, let’s not get hasty.

I suspect that the reason that people who believe that "a sense of fairness and justice" should guide the interpretations are the same ones who automatically think that anyone to the right of Ginsburg has no sense of fairness or justice, and that is why they feel utterly justified in themselves slandering, demeaning and otherwise destroying the lives of nominees such as Judge Bork or Justice Thomas. It’s as if they cannot envision withholding powers from their own ideological compatriots, nor can they envision granting those same powers to their ideological opponents. I suspect that same impulse — as profoundly elitist and unamerican as it is — is at the heart of BDS and the anger leveled at Reagan and Bush pere in their time, or for that matter at Limbaugh now. Even the basic human right of free speech is, for some, conditional on what exactly you are going to say.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Me!!!! Me, me, me, me!!! *I* get to define "fairness and justice." Trust me. Really. Trust me. I won’t do anything you don’t like.


Hillary Clinton
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
To state the obvious, it’s all about controling the narrative. Got to make sure that commercials that question legislative decisions of a vet are protraited as questioning ones patriotism whereas when calling someone "unpatriotic" is not.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"In another coincidental poll, 38% of the population can’t find its cheese and is clamoring for Congress to ban cheese that cannot be found."

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Well, if you think Clark’s position is somehow unconstitutional, then certainly your view of strict constitutionalist is just as misguided as someone’s notion of fairness.

There is no way government limits on what kinds of things can be said on AFN can be considered a first amendment violation. And I say that as someone who is a strict constitutionist! After all, what if AFN carried a commentator, and he started belittling the troops and the war? Wouldn’t the government be right to say "that’s not appropriate for our listeners on the armed forces network?" Or would that be freedom of speech and they’d have to let it continue?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
There is no way government limits on what kinds of things can be said on AFN can be considered a first amendment violation.
Yes, there is.
Its’ a government entity.

And if as you say, someone started to belittle thr troups on AFN, trust me, likley not make it to their car from the studio before getting an education in the matter from the listeners.

No government involvement is needed.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I think is was Scalia who said something to effect that if people want the Supreme Court justices to decide the "right or wrong" of an issue, they might as well just pick 9 people off the street.
 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
We can thank the NEA for their part in encouraging ignorance in Americans. Then we can thank Americans who fail to vote in school board elections. The lack of voter participation in school board elections usually results in former teachers and former administrators running the school board. Ignorance and apathy has cost us plenty. This survey is just a sample.
 
Written By: River City
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider