Skip to main content

View Diary: White House says Obama considering rolling back mandatory insurance coverage of contraception (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Social moderates, economic conservatives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NyteByrd1954, JVolvo

    And he said that this was a liberal he was going to go.

    •  WTH (0+ / 0-)

      is a social moderate?

      •  The President is a social moderate (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, NyteByrd1954, 4kedtongue, JVolvo

        He responds to the gay marriage issue not by saying he's for or against anymore but that he's "evolving"

        In other words he's sticking his finger in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing

        A liberal would answer- yes marriage equality is a right

        A social conservative would answer no.

        This is how a court might do it- sensing that an issue is political, they may punt on it although its dealing with an oppressed minority. A liberal court would rule on Brown v Board. A moderate one would punt on it. A conservative one would rule against the expansion of equality to include separate but equal is unequal.

        •  So (0+ / 0-)

          anyone that has not a YES/NO answer to social issues is a social moderate?

          •  I gave you an asnswer that is more (5+ / 0-)

            complicated than yes no

            The moderate is not worried about yes/no. They are worried about maintaining the status quo. Thus, it takes 50 years to get to Brown v Board of education because the prior justices refused to make the necessary leap that the first cases decades before were already indicating- that separate but equal was unequal

            So we got several decades more of injustice.Its not about the yes or not. Its about the effect of the decisions on the precedents

            For example a liberal ruling by non liberasl justices was Lawrence in 2003. It made a leap by reversing a relative young case in Bowers

            But its not the weight of where the court is and the make up has changed even further right so you need justicies who are liberal  just to push the c ourt that way. If its moderate liberal you get m ore changes. If it moderate  ti conservative  less and if extreme conservative to moderte you get conservative to reactionary rulings

            This is not just an issue of social issues by t he way. One can see the effect of this in areas like SEC rulings that allowed over time regulatory capture to increase through the courts rulings being too conservative.

      •  Practical reason why that matters (5+ / 0-)

        If one views laws as moderate, one leaves injustices in place. If liberal, one tries to address them within the flexble frame work of COn Law. If conservative, one tries to pretend such things aren't in COn Law and that in fact the reactionary positon (Con law in exile) is there.

        HEre's an example of how that works out

        The  s ct to jurisprudence right now has turned free speech on its head

        grouping together to protest the government is wrong because one can use the subtext of nuisance laws like an 1845 law saying one can only wear a mask in NYC when going to a masked party (not making that one up- it was the first arrest of OWS)

        Whereas billionairnes under Citizens United have greater speech than you do due to money despite the equal protection clause

        Under the above situation I want a liberal justice on the court. Not a moderate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site