Next new Supreme Court Justice?

Originally posted by sh76
I was commenting only on this statement:

[b]"I use the term welfare right to mean an affirmative constitutional right to particular social goods such as education, shelter, subsistance, health care and the like, or to the money those things cost."

Tell me something, do you think that inferring this as a Constitutional right is a fair reading of the C ...[text shortened]... ay that. If he never said it, then fine, he never said it. I was assuming that he did say it.[/b]

No and neither does Liu. Please read my first post.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No and neither does Liu. Please read my first post.

Okay; great. He never said it.

Believe me when I say that's a relief.

Originally posted by sh76
I was commenting only on this statement:

[b]"I use the term welfare right to mean an affirmative constitutional right to particular social goods such as education, shelter, subsistance, health care and the like, or to the money those things cost."

Tell me something, do you think that inferring this as a Constitutional right is a fair reading of the C ...[text shortened]... ay that. If he never said it, then fine, he never said it. I was assuming that he did say it.[/b]

He did say it. It's called a definition.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; great. He never said it.

Believe me when I say that's a relief.

Have you ever read a Law Review article? It's kind of difficult to discuss a concept without people knowing what you mean by the terms you are using.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Unsurprisingly in a right wing hack job, the quote was taken out of context to ascribe to Liu a position he does not believe in. All he does there is define a "welfare right" in a non-controversial way. He then argues that courts should [b]not recognize such "rights". http://www.supportgoodwinliu.com/2010/03/q-on-goodwin-liu-welfare-rights.html

...[text shortened]... bit of research before swallowing whodey's right wing cut and pastes hook, line and sinker.[/b]

So let me get this straight, you use a web site called "We Support Goodwin Liu" and call me a partisan hack? All I can say is that to get to the bottom of this one will have to read his writings for themselves. I am more curious than ever to get to the bottom of what he refers to as "weflare rights". If they should be left to the legislature, then what in the $@@ is he talking about them then?

Originally posted by whodey
So let me get this straight, you use a web site called "We Support Goodwin Liu" and call me a partisan hack? All I can say is that to get to the bottom of this one will have to read his writings for themselves. I am more curious than ever to get to the bottom of what he refers to as "weflare rights". If they should be left to the legislature, then what in the $@@ is he talking about them then?

The page gives an overview of Liu's philosophy rather than tearing a definition out of context and than falsely claiming a person's position was the opposite of what it actually is.

Here's the Law Review article written by Liu that the quote is contained in: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3435/is_200811/ai_n32305705/?tag=content;col1

Knock yerself out.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Lets suppose some backwoods militia group decided to take up arms against the federal government. How long do you think they would last? They wouldn't last more than a day or two against Iran's security forces.

The only way the US government could be overthrown would be to get a large percentage of the federal troops to turn against it. And I don't think that even you would want to see that happening.

Lol, boy are you mis-guided.
By the way, barrett Rifle now has a lay-away plan for their 50 caliber sniper rifles,, you want semi-auto, or single shot?
They don't have to fight an up-front war with the Feds.......
There is a Militia made up entirely of ex military, police, etc..... open your
eyes.
YouTube
for your viewing pleasure...
or..........
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/64/2/Guns/Rifles/Barrett-Rifles.htm
or......
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
The page gives an overview of Liu's philosophy rather than tearing a definition out of context and than falsely claiming a person's position was the opposite of what it actually is.

Here's the Law Review article written by Liu that the quote is contained in: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3435/is_200811/ai_n32305705/?tag=content;col1

Knock yerself out.

Knock yourself out indeed!! Why is it that any time you wish to get at the truth about progressivsm you must first wade through thousands of pages of letigious mombo jumbo? Next I will endevour to read our new health care bill in its entirety. All I need is a rope and a ladder.

Although I am tired and don't have the stomach for it tonight, I will endevour to look into this later. I only have enough stamina to scroll back to the ending as it reads:

"The moment of ultimate judgements need not come either suddenly or haphazardly. Its timing and circumstances can be controlled. Over time , as a problem is lived with, the court does not work in isolation to divine the answer that is right. It has the means to elicit partial answers and reactions from the other institutions, and to try tentative answers itself. Should the court ever reach a "moment of ultimate judgement" in teh course of a continuing colloquey with the political institutions and with society at large, the Court has shaped and reduced the question, and perhaps becasue it has renedered the answer familiar if not obvious. In the quest for Constitutional welfare rights, our political commitments in many areas currently provide too little grist for the judicial mill to render enduring solutions to distributive injustice either familiar or obvious. There is no substitute for the hard work of constructing, contesting, and enacting the distributive commitments in our public culture, and it is there that any effort to engage the courts in adjudicating welfare rights must begin."

I am no lawyer, but from what this sounds like he is advocating a collaborative movement with the legislative and executive branches via public support to help initiate our "welfare rights". In other words, only through this "evolutionary process" can the courts participate in rendering decisions for our "welfare rights". So he is not ruling out interpreting such rights as Constitutional, rather, he is simply stating that what is needed is a consensus of some sort to proceed down that road. Then we will be ready for that "ultimate judgement". Am I right? Well it seems to me that both the executive and legislative branches have already ruled in favor of a wide variety of "welfare rights". So there you have it, the stage is set.

Edit: If only this were the approach taken when ruling on Roe vs. Wade. 😛

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Lol, boy are you mis-guided.
By the way, barrett Rifle now has a lay-away plan for their 50 caliber sniper rifles,, you want semi-auto, or single shot?
They don't have to fight an up-front war with the Feds.......
There is a Militia made up entirely of ex military, police, etc..... open your
eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU
for you ...[text shortened]... egory/64/2/Guns/Rifles/Barrett-Rifles.htm
or......
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

you think even this Militia would last more than a day if it seriously tried to overthrow the US government?

Originally posted by whodey
Knock yourself out indeed!! Why is it that any time you wish to get at the truth about progressivsm you must first wade through thousands of pages of letigious mombo jumbo? Next I will endevour to read our new health care bill in its entirety. All I need is a rope and a ladder.

Although I am tired and don't have the stomach for it tonight, I will end .

Edit: If only this were the approach taken when ruling on Roe vs. Wade. 😛

He seems to be trying to say that landmark judicial decisions are preceded by a very complex process of previous legislation and judicial rulings. I also understand that the sky is blue.

Beyond that, it does seem like he is interested in welfare issues. Perhaps somewhere in there lies a radical agenda. But give him a decade and he'd probably still be "constructing, contesting, and enacting" his final version of it.

Originally posted by whodey
Knock yourself out indeed!! Why is it that any time you wish to get at the truth about progressivsm you must first wade through thousands of pages of letigious mombo jumbo? Next I will endevour to read our new health care bill in its entirety. All I need is a rope and a ladder.

Although I am tired and don't have the stomach for it tonight, I will end .

Edit: If only this were the approach taken when ruling on Roe vs. Wade. 😛

LIU: In the quest for Constitutional welfare rights, our political commitments in many areas currently provide too little grist for the judicial mill to render enduring solutions to distributive injustice either familiar or obvious. There is no substitute for the hard work of constructing, contesting, and enacting the distributive commitments in our public culture, and it is there that any effort to engage the courts in adjudicating welfare rights must begin."

"too little grist for the judicial mill to render enduring solutions to distributive injustice" sounds like he is saying the exact opposite of what you are.

I admit I really don't want to wade through a 64 page law review article (been there done that), but I guess I'll give it a gander over the weekend and try to discuss it with a little more exactness.