RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: "The Bureau Breaks into Spontaneous Cheers" - RightNation.US

Jump to content

  Like

17 Comments On This Entry

Slang, on 08 July 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

I was watching Fox News as the decision came down. They first reported it overruled, however, it was Megan Kelly(damn she is hot) who said hold on, according SCOTUSblog, the decision was upheld. This happened in a matter of maybe two minutes. That the AP wanted this to go one way, is entirely predictable. And like you, I am trying to teach my child, now children, not to believe what they are spoon fed, but to always verify it for yourself. Unfortunately, this seems to not be the norm these days. Unless we teach our children to push back the indoctrination, we are doomed as a nation.



I'm not even sure it was the norm when we were kids - at least not in my world. Until a decade or so ago, I thought "liberal" was middle of the road. And what Cronkite, Rather & Brokaw said was gospel.
0
Thanks for your response Jax. I appreciate the thoughtful response to a thorny issue. I also think you must be doing a great job with your daughter if she is curious about things that do not ordinarily pique the interest of a 10-year-old (and many adults). It is likely she will turn out to have the same broad view of her world that guides her mother.

I have one bone to pick though, and that is about the real meaning of "judicial activism". It seems to me that it could be used to describe any number of judicial outcomes that people don't like. For example, the "discovery" in the constitution of a right to privacy by the Warren court that was used to justify legal abortion. In that case the court extrapolated a right not explicitly enumerated. There are obviously many others where the court used a specific philosophical perspective to uphold or strike down legislation deemed constitutional or unconstitutional.

The fact these cases are rarely unanimous suggests the outcomes are more the consequence of current majority group-think than any hard and fast objective analysis. Therefore, the term judicial activism must necessarily also be somewhat fuzzy and subjective. I would suggest a reasonable definition of judicial activism would be a court's willingness to go along with legislation and laws that imposes a cultural change on society, or a tendency to reject legislation which protects society's cultural values. It would also label Roberts' decision, since it upholds perhaps the most aggressive intrusion into healthcare the nation has ever seen, an activist position.

However, using that definition, which seems reasonable to me, judicial activism is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, laws that prohibit governmental discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc., could very well lead to societal changes, but most of us would consider that reasonable activism and reasonable accommodation. However, laws that would require quotas in governmental activities, along with those affiliated with the government, would be a form of activism many folks would oppose. I guess I am saying that courts may not be the best place to resolve cultural issues that impact how we will live our lives. Certainly in split decisions, the legitimacy of the law, and any kind of sacredness attached to the decisions, is highly suspect. In the case of ACA, the "constitutionality" of the law was only technically addressed, and what we saw was the consequence of a philosophical or political agenda of the chief justice. I don't know if he is a closet statist, afraid of the consequences of overturning the law, easily influenced, indecisive, or what. Whatever the case, it seems a poor way to legitimize what may be the greatest attack on personal freedom in modern times.
0

Slang, on 08 July 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

I was watching Fox News as the decision came down. They first reported it overruled, however, it was Megan Kelly(damn she is hot) who said hold on, according SCOTUSblog, the decision was upheld. This happened in a matter of maybe two minutes. That the AP wanted this to go one way, is entirely predictable. And like you, I am trying to teach my child, now children, not to believe what they are spoon fed, but to always verify it for yourself. Unfortunately, this seems to not be the norm these days. Unless we teach our children to push back the indoctrination, we are doomed as a nation.

Same here. My dad and I were watching while eating breakfast. Half way through my biscuit sandwich, I nearly lost my appetite. Nearly.
0

Quote

At some point, I hope to wander back through my notes on the decision and compose a thorough, thoughtful piece on it, which 2 or 3 people might be charitable enough to read.


Preach it, sister. It seems like the more thought and work you put into it, the fewer people will read it.

(That's why you throw a Coke vs. Pepsi post in there once in a while. Makes you feel like someone is listening. :D )
0
I think it's great that your 10 year-old is interested in politics, and - not surprisingly - is already smart enough to want reasonably objective news stories for current events.

According to a joint study by Stanford University's Political Science Department, and Economics Department - not known for being right-wing fanatics, Fox News has the most objective, fair, and balanced news in the land of TV.

Fox may seem far to the right in news to some, but that's only because most other news sources are so far to the Left that the perceptive Center Point has actually been moved. Papers such as The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Chicago Harald-Tribune, once considered bastions of good journalism and even a little pro-conservative and pro-establishment, are now as in-the-tank for Obama as the DNC.

The FAULT is actually that of editors and college Journalism teachers. But, that can't be cured any time soon.

I find the following to be fairly objective news sources:

1) The Wall Street Journal

2) Investors Daily

3) The Houston Chronicle (a little left, but not bad)

4) Christian-Science Monitor (selected writers, to be sure)

5) Charlotte News and Observer (a little parochial and community-chummy, but at least an attempt to be balanced and objective)

Despite the fact that my writing skills have seriously regressed, I grew up working in a small-town newspaper in summers, and took Journalism in high school and college. Even worked on the school papers. ALL of my J professors would have shot anyone who wrote biased stories or betrayed a bias in their writing. And, that's without a trial. :)

Yet, recently, we had the head of CBS (Les Moonves) declare that the trade has returned to the biased journalism that existed (in spades) before the Great Depression. (For sure, CBS has certainly returned - if it ever left.)

Since the Revolutionary War, newspapers used to write with a bias and a vengeance. One of my great-grandfathers ran for public office in Kansas eons ago. Some of the newspaper clippings are beyond scary in their tone. Reading the papers in Lincoln's time would convince even the most stalwart patriot that our country was doomed.

Of course you already know that YOU are the best and most-reliable source of news, what's fact/fiction, and what's worth reading or even caring about. Sadly, these day, you even have to battle bias from the schools.

Our greatest hope is always the next generation. Thanks for giving us one.
0
  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Recent Entries

1 user(s) viewing

1 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Tags

    Search My Blog