“Such people “appear more likely than non-originalists to be white, male, older, less educated, Southern and religious,” the study found. “They are less likely to favor abortion rights, affirmative action and marriage rights for same-sex couples, and more likely to favor torture and military detention of terrorism suspects and the death penalty. They are more likely to express morally traditionalist, hierarchical and libertarian cultural values.”

Who wrote this…Andrew Sullivan?

I obviously can’t speak for anybody else, but I don’t “favor torture.” I simply haven’t heard of anything we’ve done as a matter of policy that qualifies as torture.

Everytime I see that term used, I think of Potter Stewart’s famous quip about what defines pornography: “I know it when I see it.” In other words, it’s an entirely subjective term.

My general rule of thumb regarding torture is that anything that somebody of sound mind (or, at least, Chris Hitchens’ scotch-saturated mind) would voluntarily subject themselves to doesn’t qualify as torture.

So, no, I don’t favor “torture”. I favor the use of the most effective techniques to gather intelligence, without crossing the line into torture.

And reasonable people can differ about what does or doesn’t amount to torture.

To point out to the NYT how much the Democrat/Liberal “compassion” has done more to destory minority standing in this country than help it. All affirmative action truly did was call into question any achivement that a black person makes if they don’t tow the rest of the liberal party line.

As much as I disagree with the sentiment, I have to say the writing was breathtakingly clever. The writer never addresses how the Constitution should be interpreted from a theoretical perspective, but merely implies that originalism must be incorrect because it is supported primarily by certain ethnic and social groups. This racist and classist argument is buttressed by reference to certain left-wing policy preferences to demonstrate that originalism can’t possibly be good if it arrives at those conclusions. This is classic eisegesis and shows the bankruptcy of the Left’s ideology.

The NY SLIMES Fish Wrap supports far more sophisticated views of government than the lowly majority of Americans who support the original U.S. Constitution.

No… the SLIMES supports government doctrine from much higher quality folks like Marx and Mao Zedong. The SLIMES knows that these folks have taken much better care of their people than the U.S. Constitution. Those governments also had far better opinion of their fellow man. And….the NY SLIMES learned all about this from very prominent professors who were absolutley non-bias and of the highest quality and integrity. Many of their same professors wer dual-hatted and got HIGH awards for accurate climate research.

The NY SLIMES also feels that they would do much better under MArxist/Maoist types of government doctrines. Hopefully they will pursue their life long ambition to live in places that supports their true type of government. Those places will absolutely welcome them…far more than the lowly American people.

NY SLIMES subscriptions are doing so well, maybe they could begin their move soon?

I have a question for my more ‘sophistcated’ bretheren (literally – my brother is a Mass. liberal and his arrogane on political matters is breathtaking):

If the constitution doesn’t really mean what it was thougth to mean at the time it was signed, how can it be legally binding? At what point do the individual states (or the individual individuals) have the right to say ‘this isn’t what I signed on for’ and seceede?

Here’s the problem with lefties and elitists, they wouldn’t survive three days without the farmers, truckers, machinists, engineers, linemen, police and others that run this nation and allow them the free time to blather like drunken bar flies. I posted such a fantasy, wishing the living dead would visit. The lefties would poo-poo and tisk-tisk and say nothing bad could happen to them because they are special. But in reality, without us, they would not last the week.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/02/20/zombies-and-liberals-democrats-why-i-wish-the-living-dead-would-pay-a-visit/

from the post-

“Bear with me here. My young son is a long time fan of zombies. Zombie movies, folklore, comic books and novels. He loves the living dead. He’s not a fan of fast moving zombies or zombies with a brain (Both I agree violate the first law of zombies- their strength is in their overwhelming persistence. Seriously, they’re dead. How can they reason or sprint. It kills the whole concept of being a zombie. What’s next zombie NASCAR and jet pilots? ). We always get a kick out of watching how the characters react to being confronted by the living dead. Some panic and fold right away. Others refuse to admit to the problem. Still others wait for help to arrive and get eaten long before that happens. The last group just picks up whatever is handy and starts killing zombies….”

…wait till they discover that among the Tea Party Patriots are (gasp) HOME-SCHOOLED ADULTS. Yes, their numbers are growing, and as they reach adulthood they not only graduate at the top of their college classes, they engage in conservative activism! Even start running for public office! Horrors!

The claim that “originalists” either/both ” express morally traditionalist, … and libertarian cultural values.” Is hopelessly ignorant. Do they have no understanding of the tension between conservative traditionalists and libertarians regarding “cultural values”? Or was it merely a desire to tar all opposition to statists with the same brush?

like Plessy v Ferguson?

“[M]ore than party identification, age, race, gender, religion, or even views
on hot-button issues such as gun rights, immigration, same-sex marriage, or affirmative action, we can most readily predict originalist views from an individual’s level of formal education, her degree of moral traditionalism, or her views on Roe.”

Translation: Originalists are hard-workers, they hold a traditional view of family and society, and they are against ending the life of a baby in the womb.

Oh, one other thing: Even though the originalists are more likely to be male, the PC academic boneheads must use the feminine gender to describe them. Whatever, but that move right there does not engender credibility.

You can download the whole thing from this abstract page.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1567702

But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation’s founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected.

What a novel idea.

I would gladly take warterboarding over more of Obama’s rambling, condescending, nattering drivel. Has anyone told him the campaigning is over? It’s time to act like a president!

as they have amply demonstrated over the years. But I guess when you’re a dog you have to find your morality somewhere.
I won’t forget the rage at Bush when of all people the mass sadist Saddam Hussien was hung. Bush they were furious with !

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

The antidote, I learned from RS, is to keep saying what you are saying and say it louder and more often. So there!

who were emasculated, calling Obama the “n” word.

More of the same.