Did Warren and the other conservatives change into liberals as a result of their independence after their appointments, or were their rational applications of constitutional theory actually conservative? Were Brown v. Board, prohibiting official prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, and all those other good judgments really liberal, or just go…
Did Warren and the other conservatives change into liberals as a result of their independence after their appointments, or were their rational applications of constitutional theory actually conservative? Were Brown v. Board, prohibiting official prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, and all those other good judgments really liberal, or just good old fashioned protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like the founders intended?
IMO it's a stretch to think those protections were "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" or that this was what the founders intended." Keep in mind, for instance, that a major motive behind the 2nd Amendment was maintaining slavery in the South. However, and to their ever-lasting credit, the drafters and the rest of the founders didn't see the Constitution as static either. Most of them realized that the country would evolve and the Constitution needed to be flexible enough to accommodate that.
The "good old fashioned protections" that we (fingers crossed) have today mostly came about because those of us who weren't in on the drafting (and, pace Abigail Adams, were barely in the thoughts of those drafters) organized and fought for them. The text of the Constitution alone did not bring about the Warren Court -- don't look now, but that's exactly what the "originalists" abhor about liberal jurisprudence. What Warren, Brennan, and others did was read the Constitution through the lens of what was happening in the real world, which I believe is what most of the drafters intended.
I stand corrected. You are right. I believe you are saying that the Constitution is a framework and a starting point for achieving “a more perfect union” through innovation and change brought about by debate, advocacy, objection, and compromise. My point was that we who identify as liberals are the real conservatives when it comes to essential rights and protections. Those decisions should not be seen as liberal so much as they are in conformity with the stated ideals of the framers, however poorly they were originally practiced or implemented.
Agreed! Liberal/conservative is a bit of a conundrum anyway. I don't see the current crop of Republicans as conservatives in any sense of the word. "Reactionaries" is more like it -- is there any such thing as a "utopian reactionary"? Someone who wants to go back to a past that never existed? Long time ago, reading Edmund Burke for the first time, I admired and often agreed with his insights -- antiwar activist though I was, and radical feminist in the making. I never believed in "blow it all up and start over," though I knew some people who did (mostly guys), back in the day. I didn't believe in it because I already knew enough history to realize that it never works out the way the dreamers want it to. The goal matters but how you get there matters at least as much.
Did Warren and the other conservatives change into liberals as a result of their independence after their appointments, or were their rational applications of constitutional theory actually conservative? Were Brown v. Board, prohibiting official prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, and all those other good judgments really liberal, or just good old fashioned protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like the founders intended?
IMO it's a stretch to think those protections were "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" or that this was what the founders intended." Keep in mind, for instance, that a major motive behind the 2nd Amendment was maintaining slavery in the South. However, and to their ever-lasting credit, the drafters and the rest of the founders didn't see the Constitution as static either. Most of them realized that the country would evolve and the Constitution needed to be flexible enough to accommodate that.
The "good old fashioned protections" that we (fingers crossed) have today mostly came about because those of us who weren't in on the drafting (and, pace Abigail Adams, were barely in the thoughts of those drafters) organized and fought for them. The text of the Constitution alone did not bring about the Warren Court -- don't look now, but that's exactly what the "originalists" abhor about liberal jurisprudence. What Warren, Brennan, and others did was read the Constitution through the lens of what was happening in the real world, which I believe is what most of the drafters intended.
I stand corrected. You are right. I believe you are saying that the Constitution is a framework and a starting point for achieving “a more perfect union” through innovation and change brought about by debate, advocacy, objection, and compromise. My point was that we who identify as liberals are the real conservatives when it comes to essential rights and protections. Those decisions should not be seen as liberal so much as they are in conformity with the stated ideals of the framers, however poorly they were originally practiced or implemented.
Agreed! Liberal/conservative is a bit of a conundrum anyway. I don't see the current crop of Republicans as conservatives in any sense of the word. "Reactionaries" is more like it -- is there any such thing as a "utopian reactionary"? Someone who wants to go back to a past that never existed? Long time ago, reading Edmund Burke for the first time, I admired and often agreed with his insights -- antiwar activist though I was, and radical feminist in the making. I never believed in "blow it all up and start over," though I knew some people who did (mostly guys), back in the day. I didn't believe in it because I already knew enough history to realize that it never works out the way the dreamers want it to. The goal matters but how you get there matters at least as much.
Susanna, "Gentleman in Moscow" is now streaming and makes your point about how go wrong.
Good point, Robert.