To understand any political ideology, one must understand what most animates it. For the Left, it is hatred of inequality. As noted in a previous column, the Left hates inequality even more than it hates evil. Or perhaps more accurately, for the Left, inequality is the ultimate evil.

If ever there were a smoking gun as to what animates most leftists, the many expressions of the need for judges to favor "the little guy" in their courtroom constitute that smoking gun. The prime Democratic objection to confirming Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court was that he does not rule in favor of the average Joe in his courtroom.

Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy: "Average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his [Alito's] courtroom."

Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin: "I find this as a recurring pattern, and it raises the question in my mind whether the average person, the dispossessed person, the poor person who finally has their day in court...are going to be subject to the crushing hand of fate when it comes to your decisions."

Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl: "The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . "

For those on the Left, law, and everything else, is subservient to equality.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx. For both, the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.

Some years ago in Idaho, I moderated a panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the panelists was a former California Supreme Court justice, a leftist. He noted in his remarks that he saw the primary purpose of a judge as the righting of society's economic and other social inequalities.

In response, I noted that, with all due respect, that is not the purpose of a judge. The purpose of a court proceeding is to render a just verdict; if he wanted to end inequality, the judge had entered the wrong profession. He should have been a politician, a social activist, a clergyman or a radio talk show host. But not a judge.

As is true of most the Left's values, this ideal of favoring the little guy in a courtroom runs directly counter to a basic Judeo-Christian value. Exodus 23:3 expressly prohibits it: "Do not favor the poor man in his grievance."

This idea that one should use virtually all of society's institutions to shape society in its image is a trademark of the Left. Another example is the news media. The primary purpose of news reporters and newspapers is to report the news. However, for most news journalists today, that goal is actually boring. One is supposed to use news columns to advocate social change. That is the reason for leftist news media, just as it is the reason for leftist justices. For left-wingers, judging and news reporting are vehicles to achieving equality and other goals of "social justice." The New York Times put Abu Ghraib prison abuse stories on its front page for 30 consecutive days not because it merited such attention but to further its antiwar and anti-Bush politics.

Yet another example is education. The Left rejects the notion that the primary purpose of education, whether middle school, high school or college, is simply to educate young people. The purpose is to promote the values the Left believes in, from environmentalism to sex education to multiculturalism and its understanding of tolerance.

That is why Judge Alito is so frightening to the Left. He truly believes that the purpose of a judge and of the Supreme Court is to apply the law in as agenda-free a manner as humanly possible. He knows that the role of the Supreme Court is not to promote socioeconomic equality but to preserve the rule of law.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20945

I suspect that is overthought. Alito has personal views that are opposite of many Liberal's personal views. They are concerned that his views will overturn what they feel are positive actions of previous SCs.

It isn't any more complicated than that.

It isn't any more complicated than that.

No, the Left are evil, eeeevil I tell you! It's not for nothing that we write "Left" with a capital L, it makes them more evil and sinister, like some conspiracy.

There is a grain of truth to this article I think, but no more than that.

Originally Posted by lrsudog

I suspect that is overthought. Alito has personal views that are opposite of many Liberal's personal views. They are concerned that his views will overturn what they feel are positive actions of previous SCs.

It isn't any more complicated than that.

Doesn't this piece make precisely your point? Since they oppose inequality, and law often protects it, this is where the gripe is, right?

He truly believes that the purpose of a judge and of the Supreme Court is to apply the law in as agenda-free a manner as humanly possible. He knows that the role of the Supreme Court is not to promote socioeconomic equality but to preserve the rule of law.

Again...to the right wing extremist (neo-nazi, neo-con, skinhead, 'libertarian, ad nauseum) the 'law' is simply a tool to achieve a political end.

Alito, for example....

He has ruled against precedent as a member of the court more often than any supreme court nominee in recent history.

There can be no better definition of an 'activist judge' than his or her propensity to overturn precedent.

But the wingnuts would have you believe the opposite.

Because to the wingnut, everything is the opposite of what it is.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Doesn't this piece make precisely your point? Since they oppose inequality, and law often protects it, this is where the gripe is, right?

First you are too expansive, then too reductive. Inequality is only one issue among many. How many Leftists wouuld barter away some inequality in exchange for the right to choose and anti-gun legislation? How about giving up some anti-gun legislation for tougher environmental protections?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but the motivation of "The Left" is less than an agenda driven by equality, and also more than equality in of itself.

Again...to the right wing extremist (neo-nazi, neo-con, skinhead, 'libertarian, ad nauseum) the 'law' is simply a tool to achieve a political end.

I see. The left has no political ends in mind when crafts legislation? Law isn't a tool to be used for political reasons?

He has ruled against precedent as a member of the court more often than any supreme court nominee in recent history.

So? What matters is in what cases, and WHY. Reasons matter. No precedent should ever be inviolate simply because it is precedent.

There can be no better definition of an 'activist judge' than his or her propensity to overturn precedent.

I disagree.

What's with this left = hate stuff anyways? That some kind of twist from the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Cloutier and the like?

The left wants to feed, cloth and shelter poor people, as well as give them a hand UP from their less-than-envious situations. Plus they would like all people to have access to cheap quality medical care so that normal-folk don't have to declare bankruptcy if unlucky enough to be stricken with a nasty illness or accident. The right would rather keep all their tax dollars for their own plus keep the best medical services for themselves.

The left would rather rehabilitate a prisoner if at all possible, or at least improve the social conditions in poor urban areas so that crime becomes a less-attractive choice. The right just wants to lock more them up, throw the keys away and execute as many as possible.

The left would like to legally recognize and thereby give equality and value to the union of same-sex relationships. The right thinks of these people are nothing more than deviants who brought AIDS upon themselves because of their immoral life-choices.

The left would rather not go to war and kill innocents, and if so then only as an absolute last resort. The right see warfare as an extension of economic policy; a method to protect their interests and expand their markets at all cost.

Somehow peace, health, equality and prosperity for all doesn't sound like much of a hateful message to me. Selfishness, revenge and prosperity for the few does.

The left wants to feed, cloth and shelter poor people, as well as give them a hand UP from their less-than-envious situations.

Sure it does. The problem is, it wants to use other people's live and resources to do what they want.

Plus they would like all people to have access to cheap quality medical care so that normal-folk don't have to declare bankruptcy if unlucky enough to be stricken with a nasty illness or accident. The right would rather keep all their tax dollars for their own plus keep the best medical services for themselves.

You mean people want to keep what they've earned, including what keeps them alive? Bastards. How selfish. Much less selfish to take it from them for what you want instead. After all, you know better than them what goals they should serve, right? You know better than them what they earn should be used for, right?

Somehow peace, health, equality and prosperity for all doesn't sound like much of a hateful message to me. Selfishness, revenge and prosperity for the few does.

You'd best deal with your own selfishness, before claiming that others resisting your selfishness makes selfishness a problem. Apparently, it's only a problem when it's someone elses... and your doesn't count, even though you're willing to threaten people to get your way.

MtnGoat, you seem a little too keen on using words like "threaten" and "violence" as if those whose political opinions are to the left of yours had some sort of monopoly on them.

can't really do much about how something seems to you, can i now.

i don't claim the left has a monopoly on those methods, i do point out factually that is the methodology they rely on which underlies their entire platform.

the fact is, they intend to, and support, threatening people into doing what they would otherwise not do, because the left thinks it knows better than them what their lives should be directed towards.

if mentioning this fact is unseemly, i'd posit that the side using such methodology should repudiate it.... instead of complaining that I point it out.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

You'd best deal with your own selfishness, before claiming that others resisting your selfishness makes selfishness a problem.

Wanting to use the public purse to do the most public good is selfish? So corporate welfare is what, the definition of altruism?

Apparently, it's only a problem when it's someone elses... and your doesn't count, even though you're willing to threaten people to get your way.

I wasn't aware I had a problem or, for that matter, posted a threat. Or is this some generic leftist threat you're referring to?

I did not intend you not to point it out, rather that you seem to associate it exclusively with people on your left. From what I've read of your views, that would include many Conservative governments as well. Strange as it may seem, there are very few laws enacted that do not involve the use of what you would define as threats or violence.

The left wants to feed, cloth and shelter poor people, as well as give them a hand UP from their less-than-envious situations. Plus they would like all people to have access to cheap quality medical care so that normal-folk don't have to declare bankruptcy if unlucky enough to be stricken with a nasty illness or accident. The right would rather keep all their tax dollars for their own plus keep the best medical services for themselves.

Or from another perspective, some of the left just want to create a society dependent upon their generosity of others' money so they can control the vote. In essence that part of the left wants everyone except them to be the same in every way.

The left would rather rehabilitate a prisoner if at all possible, or at least improve the social conditions in poor urban areas so that crime becomes a less-attractive choice. The right just wants to lock more them up, throw the keys away and execute as many as possible.

I have yet to see that in reality that is a workable solution for many cases. Many who are left never really wants to admit that some are just bad seed.

The left would like to legally recognize and thereby give equality and value to the union of same-sex relationships. The right thinks of these people are nothing more than deviants who brought AIDS upon themselves because of their immoral life-choices.

I have yet to see any society improved because of such action. Have you?

The left would rather not go to war and kill innocents, and if so then only as an absolute last resort. The right see warfare as an extension of economic policy; a method to protect their interests and expand their markets at all cost.

You are correct with this statement. Only trouble is that you choose to kill the unborn innocents and scream to keep the guilty alive which makes little sense to me. I wonder where the world would be if we (under liberal and conservative governments) hadn't chosen to go to war.

Somehow peace, health, equality and prosperity for all doesn't sound like much of a hateful message to me. Selfishness, revenge and prosperity for the few does.

Until we first find truth we will never have peace. Equality and prosperity cannot be dictated, create, or applied by an outside force. Words make nothing true, realistic, pragmatic or probable as you last statement shows.

Sorry to burst any bubbles,
Lyle

Precedent before Roe v. Wade was abortion for convience was illegal.