Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 95

Thread: Why Conservatives Win Elections but Lose The War

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default Why Conservatives Win Elections but Lose The War

    I wrote a lengthy analysis on how Liberal Identity Politics hurts the Democratic Party.

    Today I'm going to start a discussion Conservatives biggest problem that hurts their party. The Culture Wars.

    How many times have we seen it? Conservatives win elections by obtaining electoral support on culture issue only over the course of the time they are in power, to become demoralized when they accomplish no progress on the culture wars. In fact they lose ground. Their excuse for that is that if the elected officials they voted for just weren't conservative enough. If they were just conservative enough they'd win the culture wars. Which is delusional as it rarely ever happens that they win these culture battles.

    The Culture Wars, like Identity Politics, is a relatively recent phrase but they have been around since the dawn of our Republic. The Culture Wars in America have two defining characteristics. Conservatives start them and Liberals win them. Oh from time to time Conservatives may win a battle. Guns for example. But they have lost the overwhelming majority of the Culture War battles during the course of our history.

    The reason that this is a problem for conservatives politically is, that though they often rally support to win elections using culture war rhetoric, that they almost always, with very few exceptions, lose the battle. That leaves Liberals in the position that even though they have lost the election they have won the war. They still drive the nations political agenda. That's true even now with Trumps win and Republicans control of all branches of the federal government. Liberals are still driving the political agenda in our nation. Which I'm sure chafe's at conservative partisans.

    So why do conservatives start these culture wars and then proceed to lose them?

    Culture wars/battles almost always begin when a group, in response to change, becomes nostalgic for the way live had been previously and begin a fight to return to what, to them, was a preferable way of living. So why then do they lose? It's primarily because the battle they chose to fight has already been lost.

    There are all sorts of examples of this that can illustrate this. The Civil War being the biggest. The Slave Economy in the South was doomed once American industrial output exceeded agricultural output towards the middle of the 19th Century. Industrialization and slavery were incompatible. Industry required a large source of skilled free labor to prosper. Even before the first shot was fired in the Civil War, slavery was a lost cause.

    Other examples would be the conservative anti-Catholic culture war of the 1830's through 1850's was lost before it even started. Catholics in our nation had already been mainstreamed. There was no way to deny them access to our political process.

    Another example would be the conservative fight against the Civil Rights movement which started in the 1950's. They lost that battle even before they started it. When African Americans had fought to save our nation during the existential crises of WWII their access to the full franchise was assured. Fighting equal rights for African Americans at that point was already a lost cause.

    Same with Womens reproductive rights. The Roe vs. Wade decision has galvanized a cutlure war not just against abortion but against birth control in general. It's a battle conservative cultural warriors have already lost. Women now have access to birth control as a constitutionally protected privacy right and can now determine when and how they will start their families and how large they will be. Conservative cultural warriors win an occassional temporarly battle on abortion but the culture war for Womens reproductive rights they started was lost before it even bagan.

    Another example is the culture war on Gay rights. The culture ware was started by conservatives after there had been wide spread acceptance of Gays by family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Again, the battle had been lost by the conservative culture warriors before it had even began.

    This is also true on the culture war battle conservatives have started on Muslims and Immigrants. They've already lost the battle before it has even started. Muslims are already broadly considered our Abrahamic bretheren in the American religious milieu. Latino immigrants are already mainstreaming and to many are our neighbors, friends and co-workers. Conservatives may have won the last election on those issues but they've already lost that battle, leaving Liberals to drive the nations political agenda.

    This is a great source of the anger and rancor that you see by partisan conservatives. It's a manifestation of their consistently losing the culture wars they start and liberals winning those battles and thus driving the political agenda.

    So as I'm sure conservative partisans like to point out how liberal social justice warriors harm the Democratic party, and they do, I'm reasonably sure that they don't want to hear the truth that conservative culture warriors do vastly more harm to the Republican party as they are the main reason that even when Republicans gain elected office and power they still lose the political battles leaving liberals to drive the agenda even when they are out of office.

    There's an old saying in politics of chose your battles wisely. That would not appear to be the case for conservative culture warriors. They appear to have a preference for starting battles they have already lost.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Cypress (05-14-2018), PoliTalker (05-15-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    it partly has to do with liberal control of media and academia. For instance illegal immigrant (a class of immigrant) just becomes immigrant.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tsuke For This Post:

    anatta (05-14-2018), Truth Detector (05-15-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to evince For This Post:

    Cypress (05-14-2018), TTQ64 (05-14-2018)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    This is also true on the culture war battle conservatives have started on Muslims and Immigrants. They've already lost the battle before it has even started. Muslims are already broadly considered our Abrahamic bretheren in the American religious milieu. Latino immigrants are already mainstreaming and to many are our neighbors, friends and co-workers. Conservatives may have won the last election on those issues but they've already lost that battle, leaving Liberals to drive the nations political agenda.
    Immigration reform /border security are not aimed at "immigrants".
    They are aimed at illegals or a failed system of chain immigration.

    But that was a very good written piece MOTT. well said and true about culture wars

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (05-14-2018), Truth Detector (05-15-2018)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to evince For This Post:

    Oracle Of JPP 714 (05-15-2018)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    https://www.brennancenter.org/



    Current Issues
    Voting Rights & Elections
    Gerrymandering at SCOTUS
    Extreme Vetting & the Muslim Ban
    Protecting our Elections from Foreign Interference
    Census 2020
    Ending Mass Incarceration
    Spending in Judicial Elections



    it will give you all the facts and the documents to back their findings

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to evince For This Post:

    Oracle Of JPP 714 (05-15-2018)

  13. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr.


    William J. Brennan Jr.
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search
    William J. Brennan Jr.


    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
    In office
    October 15, 1956 – July 20, 1990[1]
    Nominated by
    Dwight Eisenhower
    Preceded by
    Sherman Minton
    Succeeded by
    David Souter
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey
    In office
    1951–1956
    Preceded by
    Henry E. Ackerson Jr.[2]
    Succeeded by
    Joseph Weintraub
    Personal details
    Born
    William Joseph Brennan Jr.
    April 25, 1906
    Newark, New Jersey, U.S.
    Died
    July 24, 1997 (aged 91)
    Arlington, Virginia, U.S.
    Political party
    Democratic
    Spouse(s)
    Marjorie Leonard (1927–1982)
    Mary Fowler (1983–1997)
    Children
    3
    Education
    University of Pennsylvania (BS)
    Harvard Law School (JD)
    Military service
    Allegiance
    United States
    Service/branch
    United States Army
    Years of service
    1942–1945
    Rank
    Colonel
    William Joseph Brennan Jr. (April 25, 1906 – July 24, 1997) was an American judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990. As the seventh longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, he was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.[3]
    Born in Newark, New Jersey, Brennan graduated from Harvard Law School in 1931. He entered private practice in New Jersey and served in the United States Army during World War II. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1951. Shortly before the 1956 presidential election, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used a recess appointment to place Brennan on the Supreme Court. Brennan won Senate confirmation the following year. He remained on the Court until his retirement in 1990, and was succeeded by David Souter.
    On the Supreme Court, Brennan was known for his outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights. He authored several landmark case opinions, including Baker v. Carr, establishing the "one person, one vote" principle, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required "actual malice" in libel suits brought by public officials. Due to his ability to shape a wide variety of opinions and "bargain" for votes in many cases, he was considered to be among the Court's most influential members. Justice Antonin Scalia called Brennan "probably the most influential Justice of the [20th] century."[4]

    Contents [hide]
    1
    Early life and education
    2
    Early legal career
    3
    Supreme Court
    3.1
    Supreme Court appointment
    3.2
    Warren Court
    3.3
    Burger and Rehnquist Courts
    3.4
    Judicial philosophy
    4
    Quotes
    5
    Recognition
    6
    See also
    7
    References
    8
    Sources
    9
    External links

    Early life and education[edit]
    Brennan was born in Newark, New Jersey, the second of eight children. His parents, William and Agnes (McDermott) Brennan, were Irish immigrants. They met in the United States, although both were originally from County Roscommon in Ireland. His father had little education; he worked as a metal polisher. However, he rose to a position of leadership, serving as the Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Newark from 1927 to 1930.
    Brennan attended public schools in Newark, and graduated from Barringer High School in 1924. He then attended the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in economics in 1928.[5] While there, he joined Delta Tau Delta Fraternity.[6] Brennan graduated from Harvard Law School near the top of his class in 1931 and was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.[7]
    When he was 21, Brennan married Marjorie Leonard, whom he had met in high school. They eventually had three children: William, Nancy and Hugh.[8]
    Early legal career[edit]
    After graduating from Harvard Law School, Brennan entered private practice in his home state of New Jersey, where he practiced labor law at the firm of Pitney Hardin (which would later become Day Pitney).[9] He entered the Army as a major in March 1942, and left as a colonel in 1945. He did legal work for the ordnance division. In 1949, Brennan was appointed to the Superior Court (a trial court) by Governor of New Jersey Alfred E. Driscoll. In 1951, Driscoll appointed him to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    Supreme Court[edit]
    Supreme Court appointment[edit]
    Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. Presidential advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican.[10]
    Brennan gained the attention of Herbert Brownell, United States Attorney General and Eisenhower's chief legal affairs adviser, when Brennan had to give a speech at a conference (as a substitute for New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Vanderbilt).[11] To Brownell, Brennan's speech seemed to suggest a marked conservatism, especially on criminal matters.[11]
    His nomination faced a small amount of controversy from two angles. The National Liberal League opposed the nomination of a Catholic, thinking he would rely on his religious beliefs rather than the Constitution when ruling,[10] and Senator Joseph McCarthy had read transcripts of Brennan's speech where he decried overzealous anti-Communist investigations as "witch-hunts." After a confirmation hearing in 1957 in which Brennan defended himself against McCarthy's attacks and proclaimed that he would rule solely on the basis of the Constitution and not on Church law,[12] he was confirmed by a near-unanimous vote, with only Senator McCarthy voting against him.[13]
    Other factors playing into Brennan's appointment were his status as a state court judge – no state judge had been appointed to the High Court since Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 – and Eisenhower's desire to appear bipartisan after his appointments of two Republicans: Earl Warren (former Governor of California) and John Marshall Harlan II.[14]
    Brennan filled the seat vacated by Justice Sherman Minton. He held the post until his retirement on July 20, 1990, for health reasons; he was succeeded on the Court by Justice David Souter. Brennan then taught at Georgetown University Law Center until 1994. With 1,360 opinions,[15] he is second only to William O. Douglas in number of opinions written while a Supreme Court justice.[16]
    Warren Court[edit]
    An outspoken liberal throughout his career, he played a leading role in the Warren Court's expansion of individual rights. Brennan played a behind-the-scenes role during the Warren Court, coaxing more conservative colleagues to join the Court's decisions. Brennan's opinions with respect to voting (Baker v. Carr), criminal proceedings (Malloy v. Hogan), the free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment (Roth v. United States), and civil rights (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County) were some of the most important opinions of the Warren Era. Brennan's role in expanding free speech rights under the First Amendment is particularly notable, as he wrote the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which created constitutional restrictions on the law of libel. It was Brennan who coined the phrase "chilling effect", in 1965's Dombrowski v. Pfister. His close friendship with Chief Justice Warren, who frequently assigned Brennan the task of writing the majority opinion, led to the other justices nicknaming him the "deputy Chief".
    Burger and Rehnquist Courts[edit]
    On the more conservative Burger Court, Brennan was a staunch opponent of the death penalty and a supporter of abortion rights, and joined the majority in landmark rulings on both issues (1972's Furman v. Georgia on the death penalty and 1973's Roe v. Wade on abortion). With the ascension of the most conservative member of the court, William Rehnquist, to the position of Chief Justice, and the replacement of Warren Burger and the moderate Lewis Powell with Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, Brennan found himself more frequently isolated. At times his opinions would be joined only by Thurgood Marshall, as by 1975 the two were the last remaining surviving liberals of the Warren Court (Byron White was the third survivor of the Warren Court during Rehnquist's tenure, but often sided with the conservatives, especially on cases involving criminals or abortion). This likemindedness led to both Brennan and Marshall's clerks referring to them as 'Justice Brennan-Marshall' in the face of the court's heavy conservative opposition to the two. Brennan declared in Furman that he believed the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment, and for his remaining years on the bench he and Marshall dissented from every case upholding the imposition of the death penalty. He was able to convince no other justice of this view, though Justice Harry Blackmun would eventually agree in 1994, after Brennan's retirement.
    Brennan authored three Supreme Court opinions holding that a plaintiff has a cause of action for money damages (compensatory and punitive) arising solely out of an alleged violation of the Bill of Rights.[17][18][19][20] In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Brennan so held with respect to the Unreasonable Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.[21] In Davis v. Passman, Brennan extended this rationale to the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, in a suit for gender discrimination in employment against a former Congressman (Congressional staffers were explicitly excluded from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).[22] In Carlson v. Green, Brennan extended this rationale again to the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, in a suit by the estate of a deceased federal prisoner (even though the plaintiff also had a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act).[23]
    During the same period, Brennan began to adopt and promote a coherent and expansive vision of personal jurisdiction. He authored the sole dissent in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, defining minimum contacts very broadly for the purposes of general jurisdiction, and influential dissents and partial concurrences in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson and Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court on the subject of specific jurisdiction, holding to a simple "stream-of-commerce" analysis for product liability cases and emphasizing the role of fairness in the Court's analysis of the holding in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The upshot of Brennan's analysis is an expansion of the jurisdiction of state courts, particularly over corporations; state courts are typically more sympathetic to small, weak plaintiffs than to large, powerful corporate defendants. In this process, he frequently clashed with Justice Scalia over this issue, and uncharacteristically dissented from Justice Marshall's majority opinion on the subject in Shaffer v. Heitner.
    In his penultimate and final terms on the Court, he wrote the controversial rulings for Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, respectively. In both cases, the Court held that the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag.
    Brennan's wife Marjorie died in 1982. A few months later, in 1983 when he was 77 years old, he married Mary Fowler, who had served as his secretary for 26 years. Brennan's colleagues learned of his second marriage via a short office memo stating, "Mary Fowler and I were married yesterday and we have gone to Bermuda."
    Judicial philosophy[edit]
    Brennan strongly believed in the Bill of Rights, arguing early on in his career that it should be applied to the states in addition to the federal government.[24] He often took positions in favor of individual rights against the state, often favoring criminal defendants, minorities, the poor, and other underrepresented groups. Furthermore, he generally shied away from the absolutist positions of Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, being very amenable to compromise. He was willing to compromise to win a majority of Justices.[25] Brennan's conservative detractors charged that he was a purveyor of judicial activism, accusing him of deciding outcomes before coming up with a legal rationale for them.[26] At his retirement, Brennan said the case he thought was most important was Goldberg v. Kelly, which ruled that a local, state or federal government could not terminate welfare payments to a person without a prior individual evidentiary hearing.[27]
    In the 1980s, as the Reagan administration and the Rehnquist Court threatened to "roll back" the decisions of the Warren Court, Brennan became more vocal about his jurisprudential views. In a 1985 speech at Georgetown University, Brennan criticized Attorney General Edwin Meese's call for a "jurisprudence of original intention" as "arrogance cloaked as humility"[28] and advocated reading the U.S. Constitution to protect rights of "human dignity."
    Brennan was also less interested in stare decisis or the avoidance of "absolutist" positions where the death penalty was concerned. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, Brennan's closest ally in the court, concluded in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was, in all circumstances, unconstitutional, and never accepted the legitimacy of Gregg v. Georgia, which ruled that the death penalty was constitutional four years later. Thereafter, Brennan or Marshall took turns, joined by the other, in issuing a dissent in every denial of certiorari in a capital case, and from every decision in a case which the court did take which failed to vacate a sentence of death.[29]
    Brennan also authored a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Glass v. Louisiana. In Glass, the Court chose not to hear a case that challenged the constitutionality of the use of the electric chair as a form of execution. Brennan wrote:[30]
    Th[e] evidence suggests that death by electrical current is extremely violent and inflicts pain and indignities far beyond the "mere extinguishment of life." Witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." "The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands." The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool.
    Brennan concluded by stating that electrocution is "nothing less than the contemporary technological equivalent of burning people at the stake."
    Quotes[edit]

    Wikiquote has quotations related to: William J. Brennan Jr.
    "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as twentieth century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs."[31]
    "The nations of the world, faced with sudden threats to their own security, will look to Israel's experience in handling its continuing security crisis, and may well find in that experience the expertise to reject the security claims that Israel has exposed as baseless and the courage to preserve the civil liberties that Israel has preserved without detriment to its security."[32]
    "Successive generations of Americans have continued to respect these fundamental choices and adopt them as their own guide to evaluating quite different historical practices. Each generation has the choice to overrule or add to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Framers; the Constitution can be amended or it can be ignored."[31]
    "The constitutional vision of human dignity rejects the possibility of political orthodoxy imposed from above; it respects the right of each individual to form and to express political judgments, however far they may deviate from the mainstream and however unsettling they might be to the powerful or the elite." "[31]
    "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (concurring).
    "Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    "[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
    "I cannot accept the notion that lawyers are one of the punishments a person receives merely for being accused of a crime." Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 764 (1983) (dissenting).
    "Those whom we would banish from society or from the human community itself often speak in too faint a voice to be heard above society's demand for punishment. It is the particular role of courts to hear these voices, for the Constitution declares that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life." McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
    "The Court next states that its unwillingness to regard petitioner's evidence as sufficient is based in part on the fear that recognition of McCleskey's claim would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing...Taken on its face, such a statement seems to suggest a fear of too much justice." McCleskey v. Kemp", 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
    "If the Court had struck down legislative prayer today, it would likely have stimulated a furious reaction. But it would also, I am convinced, have invigorated both the 'spirit of religion' and the 'spirit of freedom.'" Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (dissenting).
    "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
    "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by – as one witness here did – according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
    Recognition[edit]
    In 1987, Brennan received the U.S. Senator John Heinz Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[33]
    In 1989, the historic Hudson County Courthouse in Jersey City, New Jersey, which had opened in 1910, was named the William J. Brennan Court House in his honor.[34]
    In that same year he received the Freedom medal.[35]
    On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton presented Brennan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[36]
    In 2010, Brennan was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame.[37][full citation needed]
    Brennan Park across from the historic Essex County Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, was named in Brennan's honor and a statue of him was erected in front of the Essex County Hall of Records by historian Guy Sterling.[38][39]
    See also[edit]

    Wikisource has original works written by or about:
    William J. Brennan
    Brennan Center for Justice
    List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
    List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
    List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Burger Court
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Rehnquist Court
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Warren Court
    William J. Brennan Award
    References[edit]
    Jump up
    ^ "Federal Judicial Center: William J. Brennan". December 12, 2009. Archived from the original on May 13, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ "HENRY ACKERSON OF JERSEY COURT". December 11, 1970. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
    Jump up
    ^ "Souter's Exit Opens Door for a More Influential Justice" https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08court.html . Retrieved October 9, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ Brennan, Patricia (October 6, 1996), "Seven Justices, On Camera", The Washington Post, retrieved April 21, 2010
    Jump up
    ^ Hentoff, Nat (1998). Living the Bill of Rights: How to Be an Authentic American. p. 31. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "Famous Delts". Delta Tau Delta. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "Harvard Legal Aid Bureau". Law.harvard.edu. October 9, 2008. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
    Jump up
    ^ David J. Garrow (October 17, 2010). "Justice William Brennan, a liberal lion who wouldn't hire women". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 27, 2011.
    Jump up
    ^ "William Joseph Brennan Jr". Retrieved July 13, 2016.
    ^
    Jump up to:
    a b James Taranto, Leonard Leo (2004). Presidential Leadership. Wall Street Journal Books. Retrieved October 20, 2008.
    ^
    Jump up to:
    a b Eisler (1993), p. 85.
    Jump up
    ^ "I believe that the Senators are entitled to know how you feel....": Hearings on the Nomination of William J. Brennan Jr. to Be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Princeton University (accessed February 14, 2016).
    Jump up
    ^ Eisler (1993), p. 119.
    Jump up
    ^ Eisler (1993), p. 84.
    Jump up
    ^ Little, Rory K. (1999). "Reading Justice Brennan: Is There a "Right" to Dissent?" (PDF). Hastings Law Journal. 50: 683. Retrieved October 1, 2014.
    Jump up
    ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/in-t...istory-1.98377
    Jump up
    ^ Robotti, Michael P. (2009). "Separation of Powers and the Exercise of Concurrent Constitutional Authority in the Bivens Context". Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal. 8: 171.
    Jump up
    ^ Daniel, Scott R. (2008). "The Spy Who Sued the King: Scaling the Fortress of Executive Immunity for Constitutional Torts in Wilson v. Libby". American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. 16: 503.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to evince For This Post:

    Oracle Of JPP 714 (05-15-2018)

  15. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Homosexual culture? ... Even Cali. libs ... overwhelmingly ... voted against it.

    Hispanics? ... Our immigration laws are NOT racist.

    Muslims? ... even after 9/11, Americans did not run out and start massacring millions of American Muslims.


    Slavery? ... an old European socialist monarchial institution that the USA ended after 79 years because of Abolionist White Christian conservatives.
    Last edited by Bigdog; 05-14-2018 at 01:06 PM.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Bigdog For This Post:

    Truth Detector (05-15-2018)

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    the republican cheating in elections is why the democratic party doesnt win Mott


    quit trashing the Democratic party
    mott is evil isnt he evince?
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    he forgets


    the democratic party would have won many past elections if the republican party did not cheat



    I dont know why MOTT and others forget this fact when they try to examine the Democratic party.


    So they then look at shit as if there is no cheating being done


    that means they come up with FALSE answers to a false question


    it is utterly stupid


    END THE CHEATING is the answer and we will kick republican asses

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to evince For This Post:

    TTQ64 (05-14-2018)

  21. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    I wrote a lengthy analysis on how Liberal Identity Politics hurts the Democratic Party.

    Today I'm going to start a discussion Conservatives biggest problem that hurts their party. The Culture Wars.

    How many times have we seen it? Conservatives win elections by obtaining electoral support on culture issue only over the course of the time they are in power, to become demoralized when they accomplish no progress on the culture wars. In fact they lose ground. Their excuse for that is that if the elected officials they voted for just weren't conservative enough. If they were just conservative enough they'd win the culture wars. Which is delusional as it rarely ever happens that they win these culture battles.

    The Culture Wars, like Identity Politics, is a relatively recent phrase but they have been around since the dawn of our Republic. The Culture Wars in America have two defining characteristics. Conservatives start them and Liberals win them. Oh from time to time Conservatives may win a battle. Guns for example. But they have lost the overwhelming majority of the Culture War battles during the course of our history.

    The reason that this is a problem for conservatives politically is, that though they often rally support to win elections using culture war rhetoric, that they almost always, with very few exceptions, lose the battle. That leaves Liberals in the position that even though they have lost the election they have won the war. They still drive the nations political agenda. That's true even now with Trumps win and Republicans control of all branches of the federal government. Liberals are still driving the political agenda in our nation. Which I'm sure chafe's at conservative partisans.

    So why do conservatives start these culture wars and then proceed to lose them?

    Culture wars/battles almost always begin when a group, in response to change, becomes nostalgic for the way live had been previously and begin a fight to return to what, to them, was a preferable way of living. So why then do they lose? It's primarily because the battle they chose to fight has already been lost.

    There are all sorts of examples of this that can illustrate this. The Civil War being the biggest. The Slave Economy in the South was doomed once American industrial output exceeded agricultural output towards the middle of the 19th Century. Industrialization and slavery were incompatible. Industry required a large source of skilled free labor to prosper. Even before the first shot was fired in the Civil War, slavery was a lost cause.

    Other examples would be the conservative anti-Catholic culture war of the 1830's through 1850's was lost before it even started. Catholics in our nation had already been mainstreamed. There was no way to deny them access to our political process.

    Another example would be the conservative fight against the Civil Rights movement which started in the 1950's. They lost that battle even before they started it. When African Americans had fought to save our nation during the existential crises of WWII their access to the full franchise was assured. Fighting equal rights for African Americans at that point was already a lost cause.

    Same with Womens reproductive rights. The Roe vs. Wade decision has galvanized a cutlure war not just against abortion but against birth control in general. It's a battle conservative cultural warriors have already lost. Women now have access to birth control as a constitutionally protected privacy right and can now determine when and how they will start their families and how large they will be. Conservative cultural warriors win an occassional temporarly battle on abortion but the culture war for Womens reproductive rights they started was lost before it even bagan.

    Another example is the culture war on Gay rights. The culture ware was started by conservatives after there had been wide spread acceptance of Gays by family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Again, the battle had been lost by the conservative culture warriors before it had even began.

    This is also true on the culture war battle conservatives have started on Muslims and Immigrants. They've already lost the battle before it has even started. Muslims are already broadly considered our Abrahamic bretheren in the American religious milieu. Latino immigrants are already mainstreaming and to many are our neighbors, friends and co-workers. Conservatives may have won the last election on those issues but they've already lost that battle, leaving Liberals to drive the nations political agenda.

    This is a great source of the anger and rancor that you see by partisan conservatives. It's a manifestation of their consistently losing the culture wars they start and liberals winning those battles and thus driving the political agenda.

    So as I'm sure conservative partisans like to point out how liberal social justice warriors harm the Democratic party, and they do, I'm reasonably sure that they don't want to hear the truth that conservative culture warriors do vastly more harm to the Republican party as they are the main reason that even when Republicans gain elected office and power they still lose the political battles leaving liberals to drive the agenda even when they are out of office.

    There's an old saying in politics of chose your battles wisely. That would not appear to be the case for conservative culture warriors. They appear to have a preference for starting battles they have already lost.
    I AM GROOT

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,510
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,555 Times in 17,085 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    Immigration reform /border security are not aimed at "immigrants".
    They are aimed at illegals or a failed system of chain immigration.

    But that was a very good written piece MOTT. well said and true about culture wars
    They are aimed at the scary minorities and a tool to use the fear.

  23. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Maybe that's why conservatives are so bitter and resentful, must suck to lose on nearly every issue you supported for the past 50 years.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to FUCK THE POLICE For This Post:

    PoliTalker (05-15-2018)

  25. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr.


    William J. Brennan Jr.
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search
    William J. Brennan Jr.


    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
    In office
    October 15, 1956 – July 20, 1990[1]
    Nominated by
    Dwight Eisenhower
    Preceded by
    Sherman Minton
    Succeeded by
    David Souter
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey
    In office
    1951–1956
    Preceded by
    Henry E. Ackerson Jr.[2]
    Succeeded by
    Joseph Weintraub
    Personal details
    Born
    William Joseph Brennan Jr.
    April 25, 1906
    Newark, New Jersey, U.S.
    Died
    July 24, 1997 (aged 91)
    Arlington, Virginia, U.S.
    Political party
    Democratic
    Spouse(s)
    Marjorie Leonard (1927–1982)
    Mary Fowler (1983–1997)
    Children
    3
    Education
    University of Pennsylvania (BS)
    Harvard Law School (JD)
    Military service
    Allegiance
    United States
    Service/branch
    United States Army
    Years of service
    1942–1945
    Rank
    Colonel
    William Joseph Brennan Jr. (April 25, 1906 – July 24, 1997) was an American judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990. As the seventh longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, he was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.[3]
    Born in Newark, New Jersey, Brennan graduated from Harvard Law School in 1931. He entered private practice in New Jersey and served in the United States Army during World War II. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1951. Shortly before the 1956 presidential election, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used a recess appointment to place Brennan on the Supreme Court. Brennan won Senate confirmation the following year. He remained on the Court until his retirement in 1990, and was succeeded by David Souter.
    On the Supreme Court, Brennan was known for his outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights. He authored several landmark case opinions, including Baker v. Carr, establishing the "one person, one vote" principle, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required "actual malice" in libel suits brought by public officials. Due to his ability to shape a wide variety of opinions and "bargain" for votes in many cases, he was considered to be among the Court's most influential members. Justice Antonin Scalia called Brennan "probably the most influential Justice of the [20th] century."[4]

    Contents [hide]
    1
    Early life and education
    2
    Early legal career
    3
    Supreme Court
    3.1
    Supreme Court appointment
    3.2
    Warren Court
    3.3
    Burger and Rehnquist Courts
    3.4
    Judicial philosophy
    4
    Quotes
    5
    Recognition
    6
    See also
    7
    References
    8
    Sources
    9
    External links

    Early life and education[edit]
    Brennan was born in Newark, New Jersey, the second of eight children. His parents, William and Agnes (McDermott) Brennan, were Irish immigrants. They met in the United States, although both were originally from County Roscommon in Ireland. His father had little education; he worked as a metal polisher. However, he rose to a position of leadership, serving as the Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Newark from 1927 to 1930.
    Brennan attended public schools in Newark, and graduated from Barringer High School in 1924. He then attended the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in economics in 1928.[5] While there, he joined Delta Tau Delta Fraternity.[6] Brennan graduated from Harvard Law School near the top of his class in 1931 and was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.[7]
    When he was 21, Brennan married Marjorie Leonard, whom he had met in high school. They eventually had three children: William, Nancy and Hugh.[8]
    Early legal career[edit]
    After graduating from Harvard Law School, Brennan entered private practice in his home state of New Jersey, where he practiced labor law at the firm of Pitney Hardin (which would later become Day Pitney).[9] He entered the Army as a major in March 1942, and left as a colonel in 1945. He did legal work for the ordnance division. In 1949, Brennan was appointed to the Superior Court (a trial court) by Governor of New Jersey Alfred E. Driscoll. In 1951, Driscoll appointed him to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    Supreme Court[edit]
    Supreme Court appointment[edit]
    Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. Presidential advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican.[10]
    Brennan gained the attention of Herbert Brownell, United States Attorney General and Eisenhower's chief legal affairs adviser, when Brennan had to give a speech at a conference (as a substitute for New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Vanderbilt).[11] To Brownell, Brennan's speech seemed to suggest a marked conservatism, especially on criminal matters.[11]
    His nomination faced a small amount of controversy from two angles. The National Liberal League opposed the nomination of a Catholic, thinking he would rely on his religious beliefs rather than the Constitution when ruling,[10] and Senator Joseph McCarthy had read transcripts of Brennan's speech where he decried overzealous anti-Communist investigations as "witch-hunts." After a confirmation hearing in 1957 in which Brennan defended himself against McCarthy's attacks and proclaimed that he would rule solely on the basis of the Constitution and not on Church law,[12] he was confirmed by a near-unanimous vote, with only Senator McCarthy voting against him.[13]
    Other factors playing into Brennan's appointment were his status as a state court judge – no state judge had been appointed to the High Court since Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 – and Eisenhower's desire to appear bipartisan after his appointments of two Republicans: Earl Warren (former Governor of California) and John Marshall Harlan II.[14]
    Brennan filled the seat vacated by Justice Sherman Minton. He held the post until his retirement on July 20, 1990, for health reasons; he was succeeded on the Court by Justice David Souter. Brennan then taught at Georgetown University Law Center until 1994. With 1,360 opinions,[15] he is second only to William O. Douglas in number of opinions written while a Supreme Court justice.[16]
    Warren Court[edit]
    An outspoken liberal throughout his career, he played a leading role in the Warren Court's expansion of individual rights. Brennan played a behind-the-scenes role during the Warren Court, coaxing more conservative colleagues to join the Court's decisions. Brennan's opinions with respect to voting (Baker v. Carr), criminal proceedings (Malloy v. Hogan), the free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment (Roth v. United States), and civil rights (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County) were some of the most important opinions of the Warren Era. Brennan's role in expanding free speech rights under the First Amendment is particularly notable, as he wrote the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which created constitutional restrictions on the law of libel. It was Brennan who coined the phrase "chilling effect", in 1965's Dombrowski v. Pfister. His close friendship with Chief Justice Warren, who frequently assigned Brennan the task of writing the majority opinion, led to the other justices nicknaming him the "deputy Chief".
    Burger and Rehnquist Courts[edit]
    On the more conservative Burger Court, Brennan was a staunch opponent of the death penalty and a supporter of abortion rights, and joined the majority in landmark rulings on both issues (1972's Furman v. Georgia on the death penalty and 1973's Roe v. Wade on abortion). With the ascension of the most conservative member of the court, William Rehnquist, to the position of Chief Justice, and the replacement of Warren Burger and the moderate Lewis Powell with Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, Brennan found himself more frequently isolated. At times his opinions would be joined only by Thurgood Marshall, as by 1975 the two were the last remaining surviving liberals of the Warren Court (Byron White was the third survivor of the Warren Court during Rehnquist's tenure, but often sided with the conservatives, especially on cases involving criminals or abortion). This likemindedness led to both Brennan and Marshall's clerks referring to them as 'Justice Brennan-Marshall' in the face of the court's heavy conservative opposition to the two. Brennan declared in Furman that he believed the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment, and for his remaining years on the bench he and Marshall dissented from every case upholding the imposition of the death penalty. He was able to convince no other justice of this view, though Justice Harry Blackmun would eventually agree in 1994, after Brennan's retirement.
    Brennan authored three Supreme Court opinions holding that a plaintiff has a cause of action for money damages (compensatory and punitive) arising solely out of an alleged violation of the Bill of Rights.[17][18][19][20] In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Brennan so held with respect to the Unreasonable Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.[21] In Davis v. Passman, Brennan extended this rationale to the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, in a suit for gender discrimination in employment against a former Congressman (Congressional staffers were explicitly excluded from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).[22] In Carlson v. Green, Brennan extended this rationale again to the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, in a suit by the estate of a deceased federal prisoner (even though the plaintiff also had a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act).[23]
    During the same period, Brennan began to adopt and promote a coherent and expansive vision of personal jurisdiction. He authored the sole dissent in Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, defining minimum contacts very broadly for the purposes of general jurisdiction, and influential dissents and partial concurrences in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson and Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court on the subject of specific jurisdiction, holding to a simple "stream-of-commerce" analysis for product liability cases and emphasizing the role of fairness in the Court's analysis of the holding in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The upshot of Brennan's analysis is an expansion of the jurisdiction of state courts, particularly over corporations; state courts are typically more sympathetic to small, weak plaintiffs than to large, powerful corporate defendants. In this process, he frequently clashed with Justice Scalia over this issue, and uncharacteristically dissented from Justice Marshall's majority opinion on the subject in Shaffer v. Heitner.
    In his penultimate and final terms on the Court, he wrote the controversial rulings for Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, respectively. In both cases, the Court held that the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag.
    Brennan's wife Marjorie died in 1982. A few months later, in 1983 when he was 77 years old, he married Mary Fowler, who had served as his secretary for 26 years. Brennan's colleagues learned of his second marriage via a short office memo stating, "Mary Fowler and I were married yesterday and we have gone to Bermuda."
    Judicial philosophy[edit]
    Brennan strongly believed in the Bill of Rights, arguing early on in his career that it should be applied to the states in addition to the federal government.[24] He often took positions in favor of individual rights against the state, often favoring criminal defendants, minorities, the poor, and other underrepresented groups. Furthermore, he generally shied away from the absolutist positions of Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, being very amenable to compromise. He was willing to compromise to win a majority of Justices.[25] Brennan's conservative detractors charged that he was a purveyor of judicial activism, accusing him of deciding outcomes before coming up with a legal rationale for them.[26] At his retirement, Brennan said the case he thought was most important was Goldberg v. Kelly, which ruled that a local, state or federal government could not terminate welfare payments to a person without a prior individual evidentiary hearing.[27]
    In the 1980s, as the Reagan administration and the Rehnquist Court threatened to "roll back" the decisions of the Warren Court, Brennan became more vocal about his jurisprudential views. In a 1985 speech at Georgetown University, Brennan criticized Attorney General Edwin Meese's call for a "jurisprudence of original intention" as "arrogance cloaked as humility"[28] and advocated reading the U.S. Constitution to protect rights of "human dignity."
    Brennan was also less interested in stare decisis or the avoidance of "absolutist" positions where the death penalty was concerned. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, Brennan's closest ally in the court, concluded in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was, in all circumstances, unconstitutional, and never accepted the legitimacy of Gregg v. Georgia, which ruled that the death penalty was constitutional four years later. Thereafter, Brennan or Marshall took turns, joined by the other, in issuing a dissent in every denial of certiorari in a capital case, and from every decision in a case which the court did take which failed to vacate a sentence of death.[29]
    Brennan also authored a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Glass v. Louisiana. In Glass, the Court chose not to hear a case that challenged the constitutionality of the use of the electric chair as a form of execution. Brennan wrote:[30]
    Th[e] evidence suggests that death by electrical current is extremely violent and inflicts pain and indignities far beyond the "mere extinguishment of life." Witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." "The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands." The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool.
    Brennan concluded by stating that electrocution is "nothing less than the contemporary technological equivalent of burning people at the stake."
    Quotes[edit]

    Wikiquote has quotations related to: William J. Brennan Jr.
    "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as twentieth century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs."[31]
    "The nations of the world, faced with sudden threats to their own security, will look to Israel's experience in handling its continuing security crisis, and may well find in that experience the expertise to reject the security claims that Israel has exposed as baseless and the courage to preserve the civil liberties that Israel has preserved without detriment to its security."[32]
    "Successive generations of Americans have continued to respect these fundamental choices and adopt them as their own guide to evaluating quite different historical practices. Each generation has the choice to overrule or add to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Framers; the Constitution can be amended or it can be ignored."[31]
    "The constitutional vision of human dignity rejects the possibility of political orthodoxy imposed from above; it respects the right of each individual to form and to express political judgments, however far they may deviate from the mainstream and however unsettling they might be to the powerful or the elite." "[31]
    "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) (concurring).
    "Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    "[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
    "I cannot accept the notion that lawyers are one of the punishments a person receives merely for being accused of a crime." Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 764 (1983) (dissenting).
    "Those whom we would banish from society or from the human community itself often speak in too faint a voice to be heard above society's demand for punishment. It is the particular role of courts to hear these voices, for the Constitution declares that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life." McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
    "The Court next states that its unwillingness to regard petitioner's evidence as sufficient is based in part on the fear that recognition of McCleskey's claim would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing...Taken on its face, such a statement seems to suggest a fear of too much justice." McCleskey v. Kemp", 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (dissenting).
    "If the Court had struck down legislative prayer today, it would likely have stimulated a furious reaction. But it would also, I am convinced, have invigorated both the 'spirit of religion' and the 'spirit of freedom.'" Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (dissenting).
    "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
    "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by – as one witness here did – according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
    Recognition[edit]
    In 1987, Brennan received the U.S. Senator John Heinz Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[33]
    In 1989, the historic Hudson County Courthouse in Jersey City, New Jersey, which had opened in 1910, was named the William J. Brennan Court House in his honor.[34]
    In that same year he received the Freedom medal.[35]
    On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton presented Brennan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[36]
    In 2010, Brennan was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame.[37][full citation needed]
    Brennan Park across from the historic Essex County Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, was named in Brennan's honor and a statue of him was erected in front of the Essex County Hall of Records by historian Guy Sterling.[38][39]
    See also[edit]

    Wikisource has original works written by or about:
    William J. Brennan
    Brennan Center for Justice
    List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
    List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
    List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Burger Court
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Rehnquist Court
    United States Supreme Court cases during the Warren Court
    William J. Brennan Award
    References[edit]
    Jump up
    ^ "Federal Judicial Center: William J. Brennan". December 12, 2009. Archived from the original on May 13, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ "HENRY ACKERSON OF JERSEY COURT". December 11, 1970. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
    Jump up
    ^ "Souter's Exit Opens Door for a More Influential Justice" https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08court.html . Retrieved October 9, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ Brennan, Patricia (October 6, 1996), "Seven Justices, On Camera", The Washington Post, retrieved April 21, 2010
    Jump up
    ^ Hentoff, Nat (1998). Living the Bill of Rights: How to Be an Authentic American. p. 31. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "Famous Delts". Delta Tau Delta. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "Harvard Legal Aid Bureau". Law.harvard.edu. October 9, 2008. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
    Jump up
    ^ David J. Garrow (October 17, 2010). "Justice William Brennan, a liberal lion who wouldn't hire women". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 27, 2011.
    Jump up
    ^ "William Joseph Brennan Jr". Retrieved July 13, 2016.
    ^
    Jump up to:
    a b James Taranto, Leonard Leo (2004). Presidential Leadership. Wall Street Journal Books. Retrieved October 20, 2008.
    ^
    Jump up to:
    a b Eisler (1993), p. 85.
    Jump up
    ^ "I believe that the Senators are entitled to know how you feel....": Hearings on the Nomination of William J. Brennan Jr. to Be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Princeton University (accessed February 14, 2016).
    Jump up
    ^ Eisler (1993), p. 119.
    Jump up
    ^ Eisler (1993), p. 84.
    Jump up
    ^ Little, Rory K. (1999). "Reading Justice Brennan: Is There a "Right" to Dissent?" (PDF). Hastings Law Journal. 50: 683. Retrieved October 1, 2014.
    Jump up
    ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/in-t...istory-1.98377
    Jump up
    ^ Robotti, Michael P. (2009). "Separation of Powers and the Exercise of Concurrent Constitutional Authority in the Bivens Context". Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal. 8: 171.
    Jump up
    ^ Daniel, Scott R. (2008). "The Spy Who Sued the King: Scaling the Fortress of Executive Immunity for Constitutional Torts in Wilson v. Libby". American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. 16: 503.
    Desh the topic here is not whatever you are tripping out on at the moment. The topic is on how the culture wars are a losing battle for conservative.

    Now I know you don't care but I did quite a bit of reading and put quite a bit of thought and effort into writing this. If you don't respect that please take your wall of whatever and go away. If you have something thoughtful and intelligent or even critical about my post I'd be pleased to hear it but I'm not interested in your irrational "They Cheat" and "They Hate Facts" cliches. If you can't contribute productively, please go away and don't fuck up my thread.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    anatta (05-14-2018), Bigdog (05-14-2018), Darth Omar (05-15-2018), TOP (05-14-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Social Conservatives Lose Again
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 07:50 PM
  2. when democrats lose elections.......
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-11-2013, 12:07 PM
  3. lose everything in anatural disastor and lose your vote
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 09:01 PM
  4. Lose your house and lose your vote
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 09:59 AM
  5. Mississippi miss for conservatives - they lose another round
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 04:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •