I disagree and well he does speak in a certain way let me tell you the Conservative "agenda" is:

in a "nutshell", is to ensure the greatest freedoms of Every citizen are protected while not at the expense of any other citizen regardless of race, sex, color, creed, religion, height, pregnancy status, etc...everyone should be treated equal and not be given any special treatment for the sake of it. Oh yeah and we actually like what the constitution says and don't think that should be changed by some activist judge, we think it should be only changed by the people.

I'm sure i forgot a bunch of stuff but that's it, "in a nutshell" as it was so eloquently written in the highly regarded and totally accurate Daily Kos lol....

The conservative agenda is governmental control over private behavior, and no governmental control over corporate behavior.

.

Giving proper credit, the "liberal agenda" quote above is by Eric Alterman, in the book "Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America"

.

Actually, the DailyKos blog *IS* quite highly regarded, and is #2 in readership loyalty (behind the <shudder> Drudge Report.)  You should try it sometime. 

Let's see: majority + minority=Everybody.

Do you not recognize the logical fallacy in your statement: " everyone should be treated equal and not be given any special treatment for the sake of it"? If we have opposing positions--let's say, I think something should be illegal, and you think it should be legal, or vice versa--how is that attainable?

And, for your information, the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to review the laws passed by the people and determine if they do or do not conflict with the Constitution.

Their job is not to, oh, I don't know, say, decide a Presidential election....

My error, Random. I thought Kos was paraphrasing Alterman, not a direct quote.

 Since you are not a conservative, RF, you obviously don't go to our monthly conspiracy meetings. So you couldn't possibly know what our agenda is.

I'm surprised that you think I don't go to the monthly meetings.  It's really not hard--my spouse is still on the mailing list from her Republican days.  They even still call her up for donations.

.

Noone, keep in mind that DailyKos is a collaborative effort.  The post you link to is a diary by a member, not Markos himself, and quotes from the book he's citing.

RF~ they still call and write me~for my dead mother ,that's me in the front row at those meetings! lol

Seriously folks~ sooner or later we must understand we are "we".

Besides that, I go out of my way to sign up for alternative mailing lists.  I'm on the list for Focus On Your Own Damn Family (sorry, our private name for Dobson's bunch) and Pax's pet gay-hating group from Sacramento, and several others.  I even attend church once in a (great) while.

Indeed, Random, you are correct. I read it in far too much haste.

 lol witbee but here let me explain to "Noone..." to answer your question about illegal, the one arguing that some one is illegal because they did not follow the laws of immigration and came to this country, get this "illegally", would be right. Period. that's it, and Just because a person has a different opinion doesn't make that person evil. It just makes them wrong. That's it, its simple. It is the law that we use to decide.

Now and this is my favorite thing, something that's going to blow your mind, the judges on the supreme court that are known as strict constitutionalists or conservative, read the constitution as it is written and see if the law violates what it says, regardless of their opinion. That's the job. You see when you add your opinion to it your not deciding if something is constitutional your deciding if the law agrees with your ideology.

If a judge considers they're viewpoint when deciding they are not fit to be a supreme court judge that is supposed to deciding if a law is constitutional not if it agrees with their ideology. 

That's why its very important that a person that is appointed to the S.C. is capable of just reading the law and using its meaning, not their own,  as a deciding factor.

This is fun do you have any other question on what the SC is supposed to do?

 http://www.theabsurdreport....

You know, it's odd that you say judges should not interpret the law. As you're interpreting what makes (dare I say constitutes?) a good judge. And, just for rhetoric's sake, why is the decision known as the Court's opinion, pray tell?

When I hear conservatives say, "We should only appoint judges who follow the law, not interpret it", I immediately recognize that as code for..."rule the way I want them to rule."

You know, here's what the Supreme Court itself says about the role of the Court:

So, you keep "interpreting" the function of the Supreme Court to your own satisfaction, and I'll keep correcting you.

The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it was left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW..These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

To ensure an independent Judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during  "good Behaviour" which has generally meant life terms. To further assure their independence, the Constitution provides that judges' salaries may not be diminished while they are in office.

As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embracedby the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.

The Supreme Court is .distinctly American in concept and function,. as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American experiment in democracy with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a .living Constitution, whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

 I'm proud to be a conservative, and pay no heed to the diligent efforts of liberals to cast us all as a bunch of idiots, hypocrites and haters.  We must learn to get along with one another and stop putting each other down just because of party affiliation.  

The brain has a left side and a right side, but you don't find the left hemisphere attacking the right hemisphere.  Party affiliation is not the enemy.   Extremism is, because it is ruled by impulsivity and reactivity instead of peaceful, respectful dialogue and the application of reason. 

 Freedom.  It allows us to have a dialogue to determine our frredoms and put into law, only to be changed by the people.  One party is no better than the other or cares more about our country than the other.  We all pay or recieve at some point in our lives.  At tax time they do not ask you what party you are.  I have been a registered democrate and registered republican, it matters not, as my income rose, so did my taxes; it mattered not. 

 We need more folks just like you, who refuse to get involved in a game of blame and shame.  You are solution-focused and not problem and blame focused.  Problems lead to real solutions, thanks to people like you, galvandr.   More power to you!

 Noone, thanks for the post and the link. A very thoughtful articulation of an evolving philosophy.  

so.....taking from the haves and giving to the have nots insure the greatest amount of freedom for everyone? 

put the bong down, its time to go to class

"so....taking from the haves and giving to the have nos nsure the greatest amount of freedom for everyone?"

It's not my idea:

Matthew 6: ‘Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust^* consume and where thieves break in and steal; ²⁰but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust^* consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. ²¹For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 19: Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

Matthew 20: For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard. ²After agreeing with the labourers for the usual daily wage,^* he sent them into his vineyard. ³When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the market-place; ⁴and he said to them, “You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. ⁵When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. ⁶And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, “Why are you standing here idle all day?” ⁷They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You also go into the vineyard.” ⁸When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the labourers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.” ⁹When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.^{* 10}Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.^{* 11}And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, ¹²saying, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” ¹³But he replied to one of them, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?^{* 14}Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. ¹⁵Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?”^{* 16}So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’^*
 

The problem is that government has had to step in to take the role of those who say it should be left to private enterprise.