Tearing off the Blindfold.

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, given your experiences in going before various judges how accurate is this website which in part states,

Judicial Philosophy is the way in which a judge understands and interprets the law. Laws are universal, but they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. To do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it.

The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.

That’s a really general comment. I did the vast majority of my work in trial court where there is decreased opportunity for political decisions. I think there are other more dominant influences than politics for most cases. For example the court‘s general attitude towards claims of abuse of government authority regarding individuals. Both liberal and conservative jurists would hold government ‘s feet to the fire.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I’m sure all this played really well at the last Comintern.

You really are a piece of work. A relic from those good ol’ Red days. Carry on, Comrade.

Could you imagine watching evening tv with him. Commercials and shit lol

and yet neither of you disputed a thing i said, just didn't like my saying it.

truth seems very unpopular here.

very unpopular.

 

[Univee2]

and yet neither of you disputed a thing i said, just didn't like my saying it.

truth seems very unpopular here.

very unpopular.

You wouldn’t know truth if it came up to you, introduced itself, handed you its card and poked out your eyes just as The Mountain did to Oberyn Martell.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You wouldn’t know truth if it came up to you, introduced itself, handed you its card and poked out your eyes just as The Mountain did to Oberyn Martell.

and yet you still don't dispute a thing i said, but amp up your disdain that i said it.

you must hate truth even more than i originally credited you with.

if you think you can credibly dispute what i originally said, that you are quite obviously unhappy with my saying, give it your best shot.

good luck with that.

 

[Crayfish57]

How about if I stay at a Holiday Inn? Would that help?

Maybe try a Super 8 first?

 

[UncleMark]

Maybe try a Super 8 first?

I wonder if they would upgrade me to a suite.

@mcmurtry66

 

[Univee2]

and yet you still don't dispute a thing i said, but amp up your disdain that i said it.

you must hate truth even more than i originally credited you with.

if you think you can credibly dispute what i originally said, that you are quite obviously unhappy with my saying, give it your best shot.

good luck with that.

You’ve never tried to prove a SINGLE thing you’ve ever written here. It’s all murky generalities from the Marxist playbook. You’re a bigger fraud than Lucy.

 

[UncleMark]

You’ve never tried to prove a SINGLE thing you’ve ever written here. It’s all murky generalities from the Marxist playbook. You’re a bigger fraud than Lucy.

Hey now, let's leave Lucy out of this.

 

[Lucy01]

You’ve never tried to prove a SINGLE thing you’ve ever written here. It’s all murky generalities from the Marxist playbook. You’re a bigger fraud than Lucy.

🥲

 

[Stuffshot]

Of course it does, and that’s why there is such massive distrust in almost all of our governmental institutions. The FBI, CIA, CDC, FDA, the Pentagon, DOJ, DOE, Homeland Security, among others. Hell, about the only one I can think of off-hand at the moment that probably everyone trusts is the Coast Guard.

If it were possible to revamp everything that would be terrific. I don’t think we can find those ten wise, impartial people who could honcho a revamping, even if we could resurrect Jesus, Aristotle and Eisenhower, for a start.

Ahem. Resurrect Eisenhower, you say? What about Kay? Resurrect her too?

Feigned "distrust of institutions"is a false god, like all the others. Humans are imperfect. To claim otherwise is naive.

To claim one lacks trust of institutions is actually just another way of saying one does not accept authority, like saying "you're not the boss of me." It solves nothing. It explains nothing. All authority is somewhat flawed.

 

[hoot1]

Ahem. Resurrect Eisenhower, you say? What about Kay? Resurrect her too?

Feigned "distrust of institutions"is a false god, like all the others. Humans are imperfect. To claim otherwise is naive.

To claim one lacks trust of institutions is actually just another way of saying one does not accept authority, like saying "you're not the boss of me." It solves nothing.. It explains nothing. All authority is somewhat flawed.

Stuffshot, aren't you primarily talking about the institution of government and not the other social institutions which include family, economy, education, and religion?

Granted parents, teachers, bosses. and preachers can be authoritarian and not always perfect. Nevertheless, societies and economies, such as ours, requires co-operation and coordination. Ljke it or not, coordination calls for authority, and authority in my opinion enhances human flourishing. Our economic system of capitalism is made up of many parts which requires effective and efficient cooperation as we are learning with our recent supply chain problems.

As David Brooks once said, "Freedom cannot exist without functioning authority -- to enforce contracts, safeguard common resources, and provide stability and predictability" .

As for me, I would include our form of anti authoritarian government with its federalism along with checks and balances at the federal level as being necessary along with the other institutions in helping us flourish and hopefully protecting our freedom. I fear losing faith in our system of governing and drifting toward a more dictatorial authoritarian government.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You mean like how they overrode a New York gun decision right before they contradicted themselves with Roe?

So they affirmed the second amendment and struck down a ruling that even Ginsburg believed was a poorly supported ruling and returned it to the states per the 10th amendment.

Striking down judicial activism from the left to return items to the original state is not activism. They can make a far stronger case for both of those rulings then the absolute horse shit Roe was decided on (made up out of whole cloth).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Stuffshot, aren't you primarily talking about the institution of government and not the other social institutions which include family, economy, education, and religion?

Granted parents, teachers, bosses. and preachers can be authoritarian and not always perfect. Nevertheless, societies and economies, such as ours, requires co-operation and coordination. Ljke it or not, coordination calls for authority, and authority in my opinion enhances human flourishing. Our economic system of capitalism is made up of many parts which requires effective and efficient cooperation as we are learning with our recent supply chain problems.

As David Brooks once said, "Freedom cannot exist without functioning authority -- to enforce contracts, safeguard common resources, and provide stability and predictability" .

As for me, I would include our form of anti authoritarian government with its federalism along with checks and balances at the federal level as being necessary along with the other institutions in helping us flourish and hopefully protecting our freedom. I fear losing faith in our system of governing and drifting toward a more dictatorial authoritarian government.

Hoot, I know you claim to be a liberal to moderate Democrat. But a better expression of conservative approach to government and social order than this post would hard to find. Burke and Russel Kirk would be proud.

Bravo!

 

[hoot1]

Hoot, I know you claim to be a liberal to moderate Democrat. But a better expression of conservative approach to government and social order than this post would hard to find. Burke and Russel Kirk would be proud.

Bravo!

Thanks CoH, but don't think I belong intellectually in the same paragraph with Burke or Kirk,

Often wish liberals and conservatives would spend more time reflecting on all the values they share, as you and I have done from time to time over the years..Instead they harp on differences along with labeling and name calling.

 

[bawlmer]

So they affirmed the second amendment and struck down a ruling that even Ginsburg believed was a poorly supported ruling and returned it to the states per the 10th amendment.

Striking down judicial activism from the left to return items to the original state is not activism. They can make a far stronger case for both of those rulings then the absolute horse shit Roe was decided on (made up out of whole cloth).

Many state constitutions have restricted conceal carry in the past. Your philosophy on judicial activism appears contradictory with regard to the 2A and Roe decisions.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Many state constitutions have restricted conceal carry in the past. Your philosophy on judicial activism appears contradictory with regard to the 2A and Roe decisions.

Not contradictory at all. I could base my entire argument of why it was not activism based on the first 10 amendments and I would not have to make anything up outside of what is already there to do it.

No "whatabout" applies.

 

[bawlmer]

Not contradictory at all. I could base my entire argument of why it was not activism based on the first 10 amendments and I would not have to make anything up outside of what is already there to do it.

No "whatabout" applies.

I don't doubt you could construct such an argument. Not being a lawyer myself, I will rely on the fact that state constitutions restricted concealed weapons in Kentucky, Missouri, Colorado and North Carolina, among others, to suggest your argument is debatable.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

Well, that's a load of dung. who told you that? faux news?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

“Politically active” is not how I would describe. Conservative courts generally kick decisions back to legislatures, liberal courts generally craft policy out of whole cloth. One side is politically active, the other does their job.

Sorry Ace, but the two are identical in thoought and deed.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sorry Ace, but the two are identical in thoought and deed.

There is a HUGE difference. It’s called separation of powers.

 

[hoot1]

Hoot, I know you claim to be a liberal to moderate Democrat. But a better expression of conservative approach to government and social order than this post would hard to find. Burke and Russel Kirk would be proud.

Bravo!

CoH, putting aside his thoughts concerning the French Revolution would Burke otherwise have been considered liberal by his peers in his day ?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not contradictory at all. I could base my entire argument of why it was not activism based on the first 10 amendments and I would not have to make anything up outside of what is already there to do it.

No "whatabout" applies.

It's not contradictory. It's just meaningless for us to even be having this debate. You can't put "judicial activism" on the political spectrum. Sometimes judges overrule laws. Sometimes they develop new law. Sometimes they allow the legislature to extend the law in new ways, or apply it in new situations. "Judicial activism" is simply a slur we throw around when a court does any of these things in a way we disagree with. In reality, they are all normal aspects of the administration of justice, and sometimes they favor one side, and sometimes the other.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's not contradictory. It's just meaningless for us to even be having this debate. You can't put "judicial activism" on the political spectrum. Sometimes judges overrule laws. Sometimes they develop new law. Sometimes they allow the legislature to extend the law in new ways, or apply it in new situations. "Judicial activism" is simply a slur we throw around when a court does any of these things in a way we disagree with. In reality, they are all normal aspects of the administration of justice, and sometimes they favor one side, and sometimes the other.

I see ”activism” as going beyond the authority limits established be separation of powers principles. SoP is vital. We see executive activism and legislative activism playing out today. That is every bit as destructive as judicial activism which usually takes the form of the courts substituting its judgement for the legislature or executive.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, putting aside his thoughts concerning the French Revolution would Burke otherwise have been considered liberal by his peers in his day ?

That’s a very large question complicated by the fact that definitions of liberal and conservative change. Many conservatives fight comfort with classical liberalism. I sorta agree.

For Burke’s part, I think he saw the social center of gravity in family, religion, property, community and other locally oriented institutions. He saw value in the sovereign but I don’t think he put it in position of a dominant ruler. Changes sprung from community, not from sovereign authority. He criticized the French Revolution because the rebels became an unstructured mob and destroyed institutions of value.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I see ”activism” as going beyond the authority limits established be separation of powers principles. SoP is vital. We see executive activism and legislative activism playing out today. That is every bit as destructive as judicial activism which usually takes the form of the courts substituting its judgement for the legislature or executive.

I would prefer not to use "activism" at all, because, as I said, I think it's become a meaningless slur. If we could find a meaningful definition of it again, I would prefer to center it around situations where the judiciary firmly places itself against the clear desire of the legislature. So that might include cases where courts push social issues faster than legislatures are willing to move them (like Brown or Roe), but it might also include courts setting up logjams against what the legislature is trying to do (like much of the Four Horsemen's jurisprudence).

 

[TMFT]

I would prefer not to use "activism" at all, because, as I said, I think it's become a meaningless slur. If we could find a meaningful definition of it again, I would prefer to center it around situations where the judiciary firmly places itself against the clear desire of the legislature. So that might include cases where courts push social issues faster than legislatures are willing to move them (like Brown or Roe), but it might also include courts setting up logjams against what the legislature is trying to do (like much of the Four Horsemen's jurisprudence).

This.

“judicial activism” is when the other guy does it. When it’s your team, it’s just following the law.

This is just a flamey topic that goes nowhere and gives everyone a chance to complain.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I see ”activism” as going beyond the authority limits established be separation of powers principles. SoP is vital. We see executive activism and legislative activism playing out today. That is every bit as destructive as judicial activism which usually takes the form of the courts substituting its judgement for the legislature or executive.

Which is what happened with Roe. And the court unwound that activism and sent it back to the states and legislature where it always belonged.

 

[TMFT]

Which is what happened with Roe. And the court unwound that activism and sent it back to the states and legislature where it always belonged.

Do you deny the existence of equal protection and/or substantive due process?

If you do not, then it’s not activism to overturn state laws that offend EP/SDP, you just disagree with the application.

As others have pointed out, overturning gun laws, for example, or campaign finance laws are activist rulings taking power from legislative branches or states. Even if they’re rooted in constitutional text, so are EP/SDP if you agree they exist within the constitutional framework.

Nearly every landmark civil rights case can be considered activist rulings that would have been delayed for a LOOOONG time, if ever, if they were left to the states. And those are celebrated rulings. Brown. Miranda. Griswold. Loving.

I still contend that whether something is considered judicial activism boils down to the person’s political preferences

 

[Courtsensetwo]

This.

“judicial activism” is when the other guy does it. When it’s your team, it’s just following the law.

This is just a flamey topic that goes nowhere and gives everyone a chance to complain.

You have figured this place out!

 

[IUCrazy2]

Do you deny the existence of equal protection and/or substantive due process?

If you do not, then it’s not activism to overturn state laws that offend EP/SDP, you just disagree with the application.

As others have pointed out, overturning gun laws, for example, or campaign finance laws are activist rulings taking power from legislative branches or states. Even if they’re rooted in constitutional text, so are EP/SDP if you agree they exist within the constitutional framework.

Nearly every landmark civil rights case can be considered activist rulings that would have been delayed for a LOOOONG time, if ever, if they were left to the states. And those are celebrated rulings. Brown. Miranda. Griswold. Loving.

I still contend that whether something is considered judicial activism boils down to the person’s political preferences

Agree to disagree.

I think abortion is a civil wrong, not a civil right. I can point to tens of millions of lives snuffed out as evidence. And all of that because a few regressives on the Supreme Court made a decision for the entire populace.

We will end it there because I have no compromise on this topic so any back and forth is a waste of both of our time.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I would prefer not to use "activism" at all, because, as I said, I think it's become a meaningless slur. If we could find a meaningful definition of it again, I would prefer to center it around situations where the judiciary firmly places itself against the clear desire of the legislature. So that might include cases where courts push social issues faster than legislatures are willing to move them (like Brown or Roe), but it might also include courts setting up logjams against what the legislature is trying to do (like much of the Four Horsemen's jurisprudence).

You may be tired of the term "activism", but it is a spot on descriptor of what happens. You can call it legislating from the bench, which is also accuarate. Either way, the judiciary has slipped precariously into the role of enforcers for the party that put them in place.

 

[TMFT]

Agree to disagree.

I think abortion is a civil wrong, not a civil right. I can point to tens of millions of lives snuffed out as evidence. And all of that because a few regressives on the Supreme Court made a decision for the entire populace.

We will end it there because I have no compromise on this topic so any back and forth is a waste of both of our time.

I didn’t include Roe in my list of civil rights cases. And it doesn’t really matter unless this is a Roe-only discussion vs about activism.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Do you deny the existence of equal protection and/or substantive due process?

If you do not, then it’s not activism to overturn state laws that offend EP/SDP, you just disagree with the application.

As others have pointed out, overturning gun laws, for example, or campaign finance laws are activist rulings taking power from legislative branches or states. Even if they’re rooted in constitutional text, so are EP/SDP if you agree they exist within the constitutional framework.

Nearly every landmark civil rights case can be considered activist rulings that would have been delayed for a LOOOONG time, if ever, if they were left to the states. And those are celebrated rulings. Brown. Miranda. Griswold. Loving.

I still contend that whether something is considered judicial activism boils down to the person’s political preferences

Combining equal protection jurisprudence with “substantive” due process like they are equally supported by the text of the 14th Amendment is begging the question.

 

[TMFT]

Combining equal protection jurisprudence with “substantive” due process like they are equally supported by the text of the 14th Amendment is begging the question.

So, to clarify, your opinion is that all SDP based rulings are activism because it's an unsound legal theory? I can live with that as a critique, I think it's wrong, but I recognize there's a segment that feels that way.

And I didn't beg the question by asserting that SDP was equal to EP. I used and/or and I was asking it as a question.

Logically, if SDP exists within the constitutional framework, it's not activism (in the sense of legislating from the bench) to apply judicial review (itself a right not referenced in the Constitution but asserted by the SCOTUS in Marbury). If it is not in the Constitution it IS activism but a lot of popular opinions would have to go with it. That's where Clarence Thomas was being ideologically consistent with his concurrence in Dobbs and where Alito was being very disingenuous with his dicta about how it can only be applied to abortion.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

So, to clarify, your opinion is that all SDP based rulings are activism because it's an unsound legal theory? I can live with that as a critique, I think it's wrong, but I recognize there's a segment that feels that way.

And I didn't beg the question by asserting that SDP was equal to EP. I used and/or and I was asking it as a question.

Logically, if SDP exists within the constitutional framework, it's not activism (in the sense of legislating from the bench) to apply judicial review (itself a right not referenced in the Constitution but asserted by the SCOTUS in Marbury). If it is not in the Constitution it IS activism but a lot of popular opinions would have to go with it. That's where Clarence Thomas was being ideologically consistent with his concurrence in Dobbs and where Alito was being very disingenuous with his dicta about how it can only be applied to abortion.

I wasn't putting forth my opinion, just noting that for people like Thomas, EP and SDP shouldn't be grouped together.

For me, on a purely academic level, I agree with the critique of SDP as a textual matter but would do most of the same analysis under the 10th Amendment. I think that's the proper text (and originalist intent) location for analysis of fundamental rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in our tradition and values. But I'm torn because I put a lot of stock in Scalia's criticism of open-ended, vague standards: they leave too much room for 9 unelected people to change the course of America in a way no one in the past ever thought they would or could. That's why I think originalism has something going for it (although I would apply it in a different way, I am sure, if I were a judge than most on the Court now).

But pragmatically, I realize that decisions are made that I don't agree with and when they exist for a long time, people rely on them, society melds around them, and so I am a big believer in stare decisis (note, I was NOT this way when in my 20s and wanted all decisions to be logically consistent and fit my own view of the constitution--hi there Justice Alito) and think the method of getting to where you want to go is just as important as the goal.

So I'm more of a judicial-process conservative, but politically, I want things to end up in a place most liberals (of the 80s-2000s) prefer. The older I get the more I realize that people don't agree with me, and I respect where they are coming from, and so want things done through the legislative process as much as possible.

Regarding the abortion decisions, I think Roe was wrongly decided at the time (because they got the history and basis logical inferences from that history wrong, though, not because of the constitutional reasoning they used) but that Dobbs was also wrong because of stare decisis and the harm it has and will do to the perceived legitimacy (all legitimacy is perceived, by the way) of the Court.

Edit: note when I call a judicial decision "wrong," I'm not saying I think it is an illegitimate decision; I'm just saying I would weigh the countervailing factors more heavily than the majority did or find other reasoning more salient, etc.

 

[Cortez88]

I wasn't putting forth my opinion, just noting that for people like Thomas, EP and SDP shouldn't be grouped together.

For me, on a purely academic level, I agree with the critique of SDP as a textual matter but would do most of the same analysis under the 10th Amendment. I think that's the proper text (and originalist intent) location for analysis of fundamental rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in our tradition and values. But I'm torn because I put a lot of stock in Scalia's criticism of open-ended, vague standards: they leave too much room for 9 unelected people to change the course of America in a way no one in the past ever thought they would or could. That's why I think originalism has something going for it (although I would apply it in a different way, I am sure, if I were a judge than most on the Court now).

But pragmatically, I realize that decisions are made that I don't agree with and when they exist for a long time, people rely on them, society melds around them, and so I am a big believer in stare decisis (note, I was NOT this way when in my 20s and wanted all decisions to be logically consistent and fit my own view of the constitution--hi there Justice Alito) and think the method of getting to where you want to go is just as important as the goal.

So I'm more of a judicial-process conservative, but politically, I want things to end up in a place most liberals (of the 80s-2000s) prefer. The older I get the more I realize that people don't agree with me, and I respect where they are coming from, and so want things done through the legislative process as much as possible.

Regarding the abortion decisions, I think Roe was wrongly decided at the time (because they got the history and basis logical inferences from that history wrong, though, not because of the constitutional reasoning they used) but that Dobbs was also wrong because of stare decisis and the harm it has and will do to the perceived legitimacy (all legitimacy is perceived, by the way) of the Court.

Shorter Brad - I paid attention in Con Law.

 

[hoot1]

That’s a very large question complicated by the fact that definitions of liberal and conservative change. Many conservatives fight comfort with classical liberalism. I sorta agree.

For Burke’s part, I think he saw the social center of gravity in family, religion, property, community and other locally oriented institutions. He saw value in the sovereign but I don’t think he put it in position of a dominant ruler. Changes sprung from community, not from sovereign authority. He criticized the French Revolution because the rebels became an unstructured mob and destroyed institutions of value.

CoH, appreciate your thoughtful response,

Two sentences standout out for me in your response.

(1) That’s a very large question complicated by the fact that definitions of liberal and conservative change.

One definition of conservative and liberal deals with the subject of change with conservatives resisting change and liberals encouraging change.

In my view change is a response often initiated by authorities in our families, churches, businesses. governments, and schools to improve our communities and the lives of individuals. Conservatives and liberals don't always agree on whether change is needed and/or how to make changes, but I don't buy into the idea that conservatives always resist change and only liberals seek change.

(2) Changes sprung from community, not from sovereign authority.a supreme ruler,

Given that we never have had a supreme ruler, especially a monarch, changes always spring from institutional authorities who have earned the support of the people. When a society improves and prospers it does so because through trial and error along with innovations it makes changes which improve the way goals toward improvement are met.

Bottom line, government as an institution along with its authorities (elected and appointed officials) is only one institution which deals with improving our everyday lives with families, businesses, schools, and churches combining to be more important.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

CoH, appreciate your thoughtful response,

Two sentences standout out for me in your response.

(1) That’s a very large question complicated by the fact that definitions of liberal and conservative change.

One definition of conservative and liberal deals with the subject of change with conservatives resisting change and liberals encouraging change.

In my view change is a response often initiated by authorities in our families, churches, businesses. governments, and schools to improve our communities and the lives of individuals. Conservatives and liberals don't always agree on whether change is needed and/or how to make changes, but I don't buy into the idea that conservatives always resist change and only liberals seek change.

(2) Changes sprung from community, not from sovereign authority.a supreme ruler,

Given that we never have had a supreme ruler, especially a monarch, changes always spring from institutional authorities who have earned the support of the people. When a society improves and prospers it does so because through trial and error along with innovations it makes changes which improve the way goals toward improvement are met.

Bottom line, government as an institution along with its authorities (elected and appointed officials) is only one institution which deals with improving our everyday lives with families, businesses, schools, and churches combining to be more important.

Regarding your last line, historically, I think one divide between C and L has been that L's have pushed limiting the role of families and churches in favor of govt and now schools (as long as said schools are teaching L values). I think moderate Ls recognize the roles of those non-govt institutions and don't think they can be replaced and moderate/secular Cs aren't so gung-ho on having a hierarchy of institutions with the church/religion at the top (hard-core social conservatives are).

Regarding the other point, I think you are right and have not really thought about it this way: both sides might want some change, but disagree about which institution it should spring from. Another way to define it might be to assign rough belief systems to people based on their hierarchy of institutions. I'll take a crack and say a pragmatist/moderate equally weights them all.

Corrollary: Does "the individual" count as "an institution?" The "market?" Are those in contrast to the institutions?

 

[hoot1]

Regarding your last line, historically, I think one divide between C and L has been that L's have pushed limiting the role of families and churches in favor of govt and now schools (as long as said schools are teaching L values). I think moderate Ls recognize the roles of those non-govt institutions and don't think they can be replaced and moderate/secular Cs aren't so gung-ho on having a hierarchy of institutions with the church/religion at the top (hard-core social conservatives are).

Regarding the other point, I think you are right and have not really thought about it this way: both sides might want some change, but disagree about which institution it should spring from. Another way to define it might be to assign rough belief systems to people based on their hierarchy of institutions. I'll take a crack and say a pragmatist/moderate equally weights them all.

Corrollary: Does "the individual" count as "an institution?" The "market?" Are those in contrast to the institutions?

Brad, find your comments interesting.

Was particularly interested in your closing question," Does "the individual" count as "an institution?" The "market?"

It has long been my belief that the institution of government over time as the pendulum swings back and forth between Dems and Pubs somehow balances the interests of those who own and manage businesses, and the interests of workers and consumers. This pretty much covers all individuals. Thus individuals aren't an institution but are served by our prime institutions (government, education, family, churches, and the marketplace).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, appreciate your thoughtful response,

Two sentences standout out for me in your response.

(1) That’s a very large question complicated by the fact that definitions of liberal and conservative change.

One definition of conservative and liberal deals with the subject of change with conservatives resisting change and liberals encouraging change.

In my view change is a response often initiated by authorities in our families, churches, businesses. governments, and schools to improve our communities and the lives of individuals. Conservatives and liberals don't always agree on whether change is needed and/or how to make changes, but I don't buy into the idea that conservatives always resist change and only liberals seek change.

(2) Changes sprung from community, not from sovereign authority.a supreme ruler,

Given that we never have had a supreme ruler, especially a monarch, changes always spring from institutional authorities who have earned the support of the people. When a society improves and prospers it does so because through trial and error along with innovations it makes changes which improve the way goals toward improvement are met.

Bottom line, government as an institution along with its authorities (elected and appointed officials) is only one institution which deals with improving our everyday lives with families, businesses, schools, and churches combining to be more important.

I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say conservatives oppose change. You are correct in saying liberals seek change. And I think it’s fair to say conservatives don’t necessarily seek it. Conservatives see change as a natural evolution flowing from the combined influence of all the various institutions affecting society. A liberal, I think, tends to impose change through various kinds of authority. Of course this is a general concept and there are many variations and exceptions made necessary by different factors.

I think liberals tend to rely on sovereign authority much more than conservatives. That’s not to say conservatives are like libertarians who oppose that authority, instead, conservatives tend to keep it with a well-defined role. True, we don’t have a monarchist government. But there are those who push for the functional equivalent by advocating for fundamental changes such as direct election of POTUS, basing the Senate only on population, giving the federal government more authority over state government, and operating the congress in a POTUS rubber stamp mode.