Random Events - Essay by Thomas Sowell

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

He sneaks this in, in an otherwise rational argument. Separate the wheat from the chaff.

Agree completely....problem is, and the purpose of my previous post was that I believe that most people don't listen closely enough or read carefully enough or think clearly enough to "separate the wheat from the chaff".

And the "super wordsmiths" like Sowell and Obama and half of Congress (or more?) depend on that and use that to further their self-serving agendas by misleading us with grand rhetoric.

It all sounds so pretty. As they pi$$ down our backs and tell us it's raining. (Yeah, I know...I've said that before...What can I say? I like the metaphor. Sorry for being repetitious)....



Peace,
D.

[Frenchy]

It's called...reading between the lines. ascertain the motive or agenda. positive or negative.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

It's called...reading between the lines. ascertain the motive or agenda. positive or negative.

Easy for you to say. But you are not as intellectually lazy as the majority of people.

(IMHO).

Peace,
D.

[jmichna]

AFAIK, there are not yet cures for Lazy or Stupid.

[akhimark]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

In fact, Mr. Sowell's whole column is divisive.

IMO the piece was meant to be devisive. It divides those of victim theology from the hard working overcomers.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by jmichna

AFAIK, there are not yet cures for Lazy or Stupid.

Sure there are....they just happen to be illegal.

I can't think of much use for lazy people, but stupid people certainly do contribute to society. And ambitious stupid people make the whole system work. They are sort of like the civilian version of non-coms....LOL (IMHO).




Peace,
D.

[Brickboy240]

I KNEW Etta would find it "devisive" because anything that criticizes Democrats or those on the left is seen as "devisive." However any and all criticism of anything right of center is completely fair game and never see as "devisive."

Funny how that works!

LOL

- brickboy240

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

I KNEW Etta would find it "devisive" because anything that criticizes Democrats or those on the left is seen as "devisive." However any and all criticism of anything right of center is completely fair game and never see as "devisive."

Funny how that works!

LOL

- brickboy240

That's not true, Brickboy. I tend to stick up for the left here because you guys are a bunch of rabid right wingers. I don't like to see either side demonized like they were aliens from another planet, which is what you guys do to Democrats and liberals. So, somebody has to take that side.

Personally, I am independent. I find plenty wrong with the Democrats. But to say that the liberal courts have been ideological or have created social policy from the bench while conservative judges are strict constructionists is inaccurate. Roberts, Alito and Scalia have definite agendas. Did you know that the favorite judge of business is Stephen Breyer? I wish I could find the source, but I cannot immediately locate it.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Did you know that the favorite judge of business is Stephen Breyer? I wish I could find the source, but I cannot immediately locate it.

Found it - I think.

For Supreme Court nomination, business has agenda
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
By Jeanne Cummings, The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- When religious conservatives rally their troops for the much-anticipated fight over the Supreme Court's next vacancy, they invoke Roe v. Wade. When regulatory lawyer C. Boyden Gray recruits business executives for the battle, he cites Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.

In that 2000 case, Alexis Geier sued the auto maker over injuries suffered in an accident, arguing that the company should have installed airbags, even though federal regulators didn't require them at the time her car had been made. The high court sided with Honda, but only barely, in a 5-4 split. The votes didn't follow stereotypical ideological lines. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist sided with a majority that flexed federal muscle to protect a big corporation. Fellow conservative Clarence Thomas voted with a minority defending states rights -- in this case, the authority of state courts. If President Bush were to replace the ailing chief justice with a Thomas-like conservative, Honda would have lost, and a new avenue to sue corporations might have opened.

***

The spotlight has focused on the religious right and its efforts to leverage its political muscle in reshaping the American legal system. But the other major pillar of the Republican coalition -- business -- has realized that with cases like Geier v. Honda in the balance, it needs to join the fray.

The emerging corporate agenda is different from, and at times contradicts, that of their religious-conservative allies. The Christian right, represented by groups such as the Family Research Council in Washington, has been lobbying the Bush administration to appoint a Supreme Court justice who opposes abortion and gay marriage and favors school prayer and public religious displays. Top business priorities include more protection for intellectual-property rights, more flexibility in clean-air emissions standards, restriction of jury awards and a lenient interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley law that imposes new accountability and disclosure requirements on businesses.

Business cases, many concerning the reach of regulation and interaction of state and federal governments, consume a large chunk of the Supreme Court's docket. Now for the first time, the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents big corporations, is creating a committee of executives to screen the business rulings of prospective nominees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has a broader business constituency, is combing federal rulings and readying a team to analyze a nominee's record as "a liability expander or a liability restrainer."

Business advocates concede that previously they hadn't been as aggressive as social conservatives when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. The complexity of the business issues that come before the high court and worries about alienating Senate allies help explain the difference.

But attitudes are changing, says Stan Anderson, executive vice president of the chamber. "If we're going to be proactive, it may be that you should get involved earlier in the process."

What business wants from the high court sometimes undercuts basic conservative principles. One example has to do with federal authority and states rights. Corporations increasingly have sought protection from unfavorable state laws and court rulings by arguing that federal law "pre-empts," or sets aside, that of the states. This argument could be used to rein in ambitious state attorneys general, such as New York's Eliot Spitzer, who has tried to apply more stringent standards for corporations than those sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency.

Religious conservatives, by contrast, tend to embrace the more traditional conservative position favoring states rights. So they encourage states and municipalities to stretch or go beyond high court precedent on abortion, prayer in public or religious displays. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a former Louisiana legislator, says he is well aware that businesses wants national rules that pre-empt the sometimes-conflicting patchwork of state and local regulation. But "that is inconsistent with the predominant judicial philosophy that the president has nominated," he says.

In some cases, the biggest heroes of social conservatives -- Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- have given jitters to corporate lawyers. This often-allied pair has concluded that the Constitution contains nothing that protects business from huge punitive damage awards. In 1995, a court majority threw out a $2 million damage verdict against BMW for failing to disclose that a car had been damaged before sale. Justice Scalia dissented. In a speech earlier this year, he mocked the majority for inventing a nonexistent "Excessive Damages Clause of the Bill of Rights."

The potential for outright conflict between business and religious conservatives is personified by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee. Pro-business legal scholars and practitioners say the former law professor and aide to liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has the best understanding of corporate issues of any current member of the court. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion favoring Honda in the Geier case.

James Dobson, president of the Colorado-based conservative-advocacy group Focus on the Family, once said Justice Breyer ought to be impeached because he was too sympathetic to gay rights.

Business goals at the high court often don't arrange themselves along neat political lines, says the Chamber of Commerce's Mr. Anderson. "The issue just doesn't square between who is conservative and who is liberal."

Social groups, especially on the right, see judicial appointments as their top priority and are prepared to fight ferociously for them. Conservative activists blame the high court for thwarting their legislative victories in the states and on Capitol Hill.





***

First published on June 28, 2005 at 12:00 am

For Supreme Court nomination, business has agenda

[mgeoffriau]

Is it just me, or does the author of that essay simply misunderstand the order of priorities in each ideology? I don't see either side breaking from their ideological perspective in that case: the right wing judge strengthened the position of the state courts, and the left wing judge strengthened the position of the federal court to overturn a state court.

What's new in Washington? Nothing, it would appear to me.