Redstate

"Look, I am no legal eagle; however, it seems kind of silly to me to not only put state rights over doing the right thing in the case of abortion, but also over individual liberty. Just because one doesn't think the court was wrong in this area doesn't mean he or she supports sodomy."

I don't care about whether or not he supports sodomy (the law itself was absurd in Lawrence). It is that this is simply not a constitutional issue, and to talk about putting states rights over "individual liberty" just mimics the talking points the left has used to justify the Griswold line of decisions.

"By your logic there is no individual qualified to be President, because it simply isn't possible that any Presidential candidate agrees with you 100% of the time on every court case decided throughout history. To take one case, where he again used the word "probably," and conclude that the Governor is a closet liberal who will stack the court with non-Conservatives is to me an example of how in some ways this nomination process has become completely and utterly assinine. For gosh sakes, let's at least make an attempt to gain an understanding of how someone feels in regards to various issues before we clobber him over the head over one statement, where again he used the word "probably.""

I don't expect anyone to agree 100% of the time. However, there are certain cases that I think there is only one correct way to decide. Lawrence is one of them (others would include Roe and Griswold). Just for me personally, the result from Lawrence should be a 100%, unequivocal "NO" from anyone who is going to have power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court; it would be disturbing for a candidate to even say that it was "probably" the wrong decision, much less probably the right one. It also wasn't just any case; it was one of the biggest one's of the decade. As an aside, I agree with Thomas's dissent that the law in Lawrence was asinine, but that shouldn't have anything to do with whether it was constitutional.

"Furthermore, to state that a particular candidate doesn't understand judicial appointments over one statement seems to be jumping to conclusions at best, and doing or saying anything to trash his name at worst. We are better than this."

Again, it wouldn't have bothered me as much if it was some minor case. However, Lawrence was an absolute blockbuster. Huckabee is arguably the frontrunner for the nomination now; he should know better.

"Even if Huck thinks the Lawrence case was decided correctly, there is a logical and conservative reasoning for such a belief."

I find no convincing conservative reasoning for the decision. It was an epic disaster.

"On a final unrelated note, George W. Bush gave us Alito and Roberts where Ronald Reagan gave us O'Conner and Kennedy. The President has done a lot of stupid things, but his appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is not one of them. I think some of us need to get over Harriet Miers and lay off. After all, we got what we wanted."

He did give us two wonderful justices; however, we should have pause about whether or not we have to fight tooth and nail again to get a justice like Alito. We might not be so lucky next time.

He did give us two wonderful justices

How do you know? They haven't said or written that much yet. Also, you say that after saying Griswold was a disaster. They said in their confirmation hearings they favored the Griswold ruling (and the one that followed for unmarried couples).

I would not call them "wonderful" by any means. At best, they are still complete unknowns. It is quite likely that we may have two more Kennedys on the court.

You're right, I should've said "he gave us what appear so far to be 2 wonderful justices," because we don't know for sure yet. With the exception of Wisconsin Right to Life they haven't had any troubling rulings yet though as far as I'm concerned (not joining Scalia's concurrence in the partial birth abortion case could've just been strategy).

As for their supposed support for Griswold (and Eisenstadt after that), I'll admit I don't have a perfect memory of the hearings, but wasn't it equivocal at best? Some quick research on wikipedia seems to indicate that Alito didn't really say anything strongly one way or the other about Griswold, and that Roberts has in his opinions taken on the language of Stewart's dissent from Griswold when dealing with similar matters. I'm kind of skeptical about anything anyone says as part of a confirmation hearing anyways; it's all just a game. You could make the argument that Roberts has been more aggressive than the impression he gave at his hearing.

I probably should have put that differently than to say you had "mimicked liberal talking points." I didn't mean to come off that harshly.

So long as you agree with the ruling. It seems that you and Huck have the same judicial philosophy: the Constitution is a "living" document that simply reflects your beliefs, whatever they happen to be. The actual text of the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

He only has had to read the Constitution to know there is no right to sodomy mentioned there. Of course, he knows it isn't there, but he doesn't care. It's not about the Constitution. It's about getting an end result he approves of. SCOTUS is just an unelected legislative body to him, apparently.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The way I read that second paragraph was him justifying why he thought the decision was right, which would further play into the results oriented view. I agree that it is possible the AP could have screwed up; however, even by their standards it would be a pretty big stretch to take "I don't like this law" and turn it into "SCOTUS was probably right to strike down that law."

Sure, Huckabee agrees with Justice Thomas on the merits of the Texas law, and that is a respectable position. The problem is agreeing with the Supreme Court's result, which Justice Thomas surely did not do. The placement of the paragraphs implies that Huckabee agreed with the majority because people should have privacy. But that is not really relevant. Whether he sees this as privacy or just a right consensually to sodomize, or whatever else -- there is no such right in the Constitution. Judges who have invented the right are usurping the voter's power of self-governance, and politicians who agree with those judges cannot be trusted to make appointments to the Supreme Court.

"I just don't think he is really intellectually up to par enough to know a thing about half the stuff he speaks about."

That must be it!

Scalia and Thomas were right about Lawrence v Texas.
Bad laws are not always unconstitutional laws.

We had all but Rudy saying i nthe debates they were for overturning Roe v Wade. Lawrence v Texas was decided along similar lines, the ol' oxymoron 'substantive due process' with a dash of equal protection thrown in by O'Connor. A true conservative majority would declare that the Federal courts didn't have a dog in that fight, like Thomas and Scalia did. We need to nominate those kinds of judges.

This Huckabee guy doesnt really get foreign policy:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTcyMTM5YzRiMzVjMjA3MGEwMjUwM2Y3NGJ...

I figured from his tax-and-spend record that he doesnt get capitalism.

If he doesn't get constitutional law, he's pretty much back to being a feel-good preacher who on a good day can do a passing impression as a Republican candidate. all talk and no cattle.

In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as gay marriage or domestic partner benefits

Assuming for a moment that that is an accurate recounting of his statement, that is clearly not the same as Justice Thomas's position on the issue. If it was, Thomas would have been writing a concurring opinion. If the statement was just made up by the reporter, there's no issue, but I don't see any reason to just assume it is.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'd wager the question was "should the U.S. Supreme Court have upheld anti-sodomy laws?" as opposed to getting into the details. What Lawrence opened us up to had a lot less to do with the actual decision - they could've gone very narrow with it and no one would've minded - than it did with the details included in that decision, which opened us up to a lot more.

Seriously, if you can dig up that 2003 article where Huckabee said it, I'd be interested to see it. Ping me if you do.

AS REPORTED, there is no way to square Huckabee's position with anything but the majority in Lawrence, and directly opposed to Thomas's dissent. I have no problem at all if Huckabee thinks the law was bad as policy (I would agree); however, the statement reported by the AP, assuming that it is accurate, displays a complete lack of regard for the difference between what the law is and what one wants the law to be.

The key is in the third word of the quote you give -- dissenting. Justice Thomas dissented from the judgment of the Court. Huckabee says he agrees with it.

You cannot assume from the information we have that Huckabee believes the same as Justice Thomas. The evidence indicates he believes the opposite -- at least with regard to the constitutionality of the Texas law.

The difference between Justice Thomas and Governor Huckabee is the crux of the battle over judicial appointments and confirmations. So far, Huckabee's position is completely in line with Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Is that what we want from the Republican nominee?

I don't think anybody here approves of them or wants to see new anti-sodomy laws written or have them enforced vigorously... so that's all just a big straw man you set up there.

This is about judges making it up as they go along. It is about judges substituting their own personal opinion of what should be there for the actual text of the Constitution, usurping the power of the legislative branch. Roe and Lawrence are both branches from the same poison tree. If you can't see any problem continuing down that road, I can't really help you there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...we shouldn't bother trying to even overturn Roe v. Wade, since you know, those laws would be such a pain to enforce.

It doesn't matter whether another anti-sodomy law is ever passed again. The damage done by opinions like Lawrence goes far beyond their unique factual circumstances. Do you ever want to be able to pass a law based on community morality again? Sorry, Lawrence said that isn't even enough to pass rational basis. Additionally, as Scalia's dissent pointed out, it is only the very smallest of steps to extend Lawrence's protection to gay marriage.

I really can't buy the line of reasoning that we should just throw in the cards and give up on ever reversing a disastrous constitutional decision just because the law involved was difficult to enforce, or because such laws might not be popular again. The stakes are way too high.

I could care less about the law at issue in Lawrence. I care about the Constitution. The pragmatist argument is a nifty variant on Roe v. Wade that we have heard for 30+ years now. I would expect a little more doctrinal purity from the self proclaimed social conservative "Christian leader." Huck's position is exceptionally dangerous -- either he doesn't understand the issue, which is unforgiveably bad; or he does, which is worse.

And writes better music too.

...and kindertotenlieder wasn't bad either :P

"I could care less about the law at issue in Lawrence. I care about the Constitution. The pragmatist argument is a nifty variant on Roe v. Wade that we have heard for 30+ years now. I "would expect a little more doctrinal purity from the self proclaimed social conservative "Christian leader." Huck's position is exceptionally dangerous -- either he doesn't understand the issue, which is unforgiveably bad; or he does, which is worse."

WELL SAID!

Whether it is pragmatism or just mere ignorance, Huck shouldn't be supporting a ruling that is not constitutionally sound.

With Huck's type thinking, before we know it, we'll be back to the Marriet Miers moment, with an unqualified USSC nominee who we are going to have to 'trust' on account of being a good Christian whose heart is in the right place.

Not good enough. Not good enough for a supreme court nominee, and not good enough certainly for a President!

In fact, come to think of it, Huckabee *IS* the Harriet Miers of the 2008 race.

It's very troubling that we have this clarion call for results-based jurisprudence from Huckabee, no matter what the pragmatic goal he might be trying to attain. How can we expect someone who directly disagrees with Thomas's dissent on this atrocious case to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia?

One of the constant arguments we get from Huckabee supporters, in response to the myriad examples of his liberalism in pretty much every other field of policy is: "well, he's really socially conservative!" As Mahler has said, the main vector for social change a president has is the judicial appointment process. This article proves that this tool would be in uncertain hands at best under Huckabee. This question, then, begs to be asked: how is this candidate the least bit tolerable to any form of conservative? I could not, in good conscience, support someone who so blatantly advocates the results-based rationale constantly used by Breyer and Ginsburg in their writings.

Of the United States! At what point is there a requirement that someone be able to say what they mean on the first try?