Justice Stevens to Retire Soon

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by NonCon

When the Republicans stop being violently opposed to socialized health care, stop being opposed to gay marriage, stop trying to continue Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just generally grow the fuck up, then maybe I'll consider bipartisanship a thing that should happen.

You shouldn't generalize everyone who calls him or herself a "Republican" like that.

I mean I don't even consider myself a Republican anymore, I'm officially an Independent, but I know plenty of people (including friends and family members) who consider themselves Republican or conservative and who don't actively oppose gay marriage or hate minorities, and who actually have brains in their heads and treat their opponents with respect.

The Tea Party and the likes of Beck and Limbaugh have hijacked the movement, but that doesn't mean everyone's on board with their shenanigans.

Insofar as you might believe that every Republican or conservative is violently opposed to everything you hold dear, and given the attitude permeating through your argument, the ultimate irony may well be that you're every bit as much a part of the problem as the members of the Tea Party you're probably so upset with. They, like you, are driven by the irrational beliefs that all those who disagree with their positions on certain complex policy issues are violent, destructive, and immature malcontents brazenly attempting to force their extremist agenda.

The real world's a heck of a lot more complicated with that, with a great many shades of grey coloring the beliefs and actions of each individual. And the real question is whether you fall into the hyper-partisan trap of assuming that your opponents are all eeevviiilll, heartless enemies deserving only of being crushed on a metaphorical battlefield, or if you see them as fellow human beings -- flawed, yet genuinely decent people striving to improve the lives of their friends and family, possibly misled by leaders they've invested in but earnestly hoping for a better future -- and actually attempt to persuade them that your side is just without resorting to all the pointless divisive name-calling and mud-slinging.

Originally Posted by Wigmund

What controversy? You're just saying that it would be for the best if Obama replaced judges with more moderate ones. Meanwhile everyone else here (myself included) think the President should grow a pair, go bounce them off the heads of the leading Republicans, and nominate more liberal justices so we don't have to worry about stupid shits like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

No, if that's the message you've gotten from my arguments I think you've misunderstood my point.
(Strange, however, that I seem capable of going from being perceived as "mainstream liberal" in one topic and back to "sinister conservative" in another.)

I'm arguing in favor of Obama's best interests. I'm arguing, in a roundabout way, for the progression of his ideals and policies. In the long-term, sometimes the most counterintuitive route is the necessary one to take to ensure that Obama and Democrats stay in power so the majority of their policy goals can be fulfilled. (This argument was coincidentally used against me in the recent environmentalism thread, but I generally draw a bright line between "Issues That Will Destroy Our Planet" and "Procedural Issues Regarding a Branch of Government that Will Not Destroy Our Planet."

I mean, I dunno, it's just bizarre to me that a perspective from someone at worst ambivalent towards (at best mildly favoring) Obama would be met with so much hostility. It's not as if I'm arguing Obama should appoint more moderate justices because I want Obama to fall into a sinister trap and I want the Federalist Society's originalist interpretations to win the day. My own personal "plain meaning" libertarian philosophy of the judiciary favors neither Obama's likely appointees nor the Scalia-Thomas neoconservative approach of enlarged Executive powers. But my own personal preferences have nothing to do with my objective feelings on this subject, as my argument against partisanship cuts against any ideological bent and I'd apply the same philosophy if I myself were President and responsible for appointing judicial nominees.

(But based on your strenuous and rather livid objections, you'd think I just wrote "OBAMA SUKS SOCIALISM MUS DYE TEA PARTEYS 4EVA." I'm not the enemy!)