With the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the media and president Obama are hailing it as something to celebrate. But the truth is, they are happy about another very liberal justice, not so much that she is Hispanic. First and foremost she is on the political left; her race matters very little to Obama or the mainstream media.
Her confirmation is being hailed as some kind of ‘historic’ occasion because of her race, but the Democrats had an opportunity to place a Hispanic on the High Court before with Miguel Estrada who was considered a top pick, but they blocked his confirmation to the Federal Appeals Court to stop him along the way.
Supposedly the political left will claim Estrada was not ‘authentic’ enough. Yet, Estrada was born in Honduras while Sotomayor was born in New York. If anyone is supposedly more ‘authentic’, it’s Estrada not Sotomayor. It’s also interesting to note how ‘authentic’ always seems to mean liberal, as they never can point out a conservative minority who is also authentic.
Sotomayor’s race matters only insofar as it allows the Democrats to boast about it and thus gain votes with Hispanics.
What does her confirmation mean for this country? Another liberal activist judge who will side with the government on most everything over the people. It is a tragedy that she is now sitting on the very court that recently overturned her. She is a good example of what Thomas Jefferson warned about when he called the judiciary “the despotic branch.”
Powered by FireStats
” Another liberal activist judge who will side with the government on most everything over the people.”
So what? The last time we had the court full of people like that they ignored public opinion and tossed segregation, ban on inter-racial marriage, ban on abortion, ban on birth control, etc. I can only support that.
“It is a tragedy that she is now sitting on the very court that recently overturned her.”
You do realize that the Supreme Court has overturned itself on numerous occasions? There is nothing wrong with being overturned, especially if they decide to make a new precedent to overturn you.
“She is a good example of what Thomas Jefferson warned about when he called the judiciary “the despotic branch.””
Jefferson also thought we should remain a nation of farmers.
“So what? The last time we had the court full of people like that they ignored public opinion and tossed segregation, ban on inter-racial marriage, ban on abortion, ban on birth control, etc. I can only support that.”
You misunderstand what an activist judge is, and public opinion is not the same thing as the constitution. Tossing out segregation was a correct move because it actually was unconstitutional, as was the ban on interracial marriage. However, states banning abortion or controlling who could get birth control is debatable.
“You do realize that the Supreme Court has overturned itself on numerous occasions? There is nothing wrong with being overturned, especially if they decide to make a new precedent to overturn you.”
No, there is nothing wrong with overturning bad precedent. But an activist judge who believes in making policy from the bench and ignoring or twisting the constitution if it suits some social agenda is wrong.
“Jefferson also thought we should remain a nation of farmers.”
That’s not an argument and changes nothing about his valid point about the judicial branch.
“You misunderstand what an activist judge is,”
It appears to be a synonym for anyone who believes in a safety net.
“Tossing out segregation was a correct move because it actually was unconstitutional, as was the ban on interracial marriage. ”
Except they previously ruled it was constitutional. Precedent is what you are arguing for when you decry activist judges is it not?
Heck, lets not forget the relevant amendment it worked under only exists because half the country was bared from voting, the government rigged the election and we had the opposition tarred with the stigma of treason.
“However, states banning abortion or controlling who could get birth control is debatable.”
Why? The right to privacy is as much of a stretch as declaring psychological damage is a violation of equal protection under the law. Less so since the idea behind warrents is that the government does not have a right to interfere with your persons while psychological harm appears nowhere else.
“But an activist judge who believes in making policy from the bench and ignoring or twisting the constitution if it suits some social agenda is wrong.”
Amazingly if you make a vaguely worded document there will be arguement about what it actually means.
The entire structure of US rules regarding how the 1st amendment works was made up from whole cloth by the supreme court. We didn’t have the right to critize the government under the Sedition Acts or Espionage Acts!
“That’s not an argument and changes nothing about his valid point about the judicial branch.”
I’m saying Jefferson should not be used as a model for how society or government works.
I find it funny that the court is considered despotic… when it has no power. After all the court does not enforce its decisions- that is the power of the executive branch. If it is a despotism, it is the same despotism the Roman Senate had.
The problem with declaring that we should interpret the constitution strictly and without regard to a social agenda is that it is an interpretation of the constituion and for a social agenda. After all, origionally the US did not have a standing army, gave states their own militaries, did not have a national banking system and did not spend money on public works. And yet we have them not because they are constitutional, but because we needed them and the government ignored objections.
“Except they previously ruled it was constitutional. Precedent is what you are arguing for when you decry activist judges is it not?
Heck, lets not forget the relevant amendment it worked under only exists because half the country was bared from voting, the government rigged the election and we had the opposition tarred with the stigma of treason.”
No, precedent is not the only thing to consider, but inventing rights out of thin air (i.e. abortion) or twisting the historical meaning to encompass far more than was ever intended (i.e. interstate commerce, general welfare), or upholding laws restricting rights explicitly stated to not be infringed upon (i.e. second amendment).
Like I said, some precedents are bad, but were understandable (even if unconstitutional) from a historical perspective. Take Plessy v Ferguson for instance. It occurred shortly after the country went through a brutal civil war which tore the nation apart. The country now faced the daunting task of reconstruction and you honestly believe the Supreme Court at that time in history would have forced total integration as well? That would not be a reasonable thing to expect. Yes, it was a bad precedent and eventually overturned.
“Why? The right to privacy is as much of a stretch as declaring psychological damage is a violation of equal protection under the law. Less so since the idea behind warrents is that the government does not have a right to interfere with your persons while psychological harm appears nowhere else.”
Because there are good arguments on both sides of the ‘right to privacy’ debate is all I’m saying. Dissenting justices did have a point in being concerned about constitutional ‘penumbras’ leading to judicial overreaching, and thus a shifting of power to the courts. Roe v wade can be argued in good faith was a bad decision. Using privacy as a justification for infanticide is highly debatable.
“Amazingly if you make a vaguely worded document there will be arguement about what it actually means.
The entire structure of US rules regarding how the 1st amendment works was made up from whole cloth by the supreme court. We didn’t have the right to critize the government under the Sedition Acts or Espionage Acts!”
Sure, vague parts can make it difficult to know exactly how to interpret it in a particular case, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to stay faithful to original intent as much as possible. And the First Amendment really isn’t all that vague. It says quite plainly that Congress shall make no law….but the problem was Congress did make a law abridging their political speech with the Sedition Act. A prime example of why the judicial branch should not be some extension of Congress by allowing all these bad laws.
“I’m saying Jefferson should not be used as a model for how society or government works.”
So the founding fathers should not be referenced for how government should work (then who or what should be)? They are the ones who made the foundation and are far wiser than the current crop of politicians we have today. Jefferson explained that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” If he can make such an insightful observation that is just as relevant today, if not more so, then perhaps it is worth heeding.
“I find it funny that the court is considered despotic… when it has no power. After all the court does not enforce its decisions- that is the power of the executive branch.”
Technically speaking yes, but its decisions are enforced, so it can be despotic.
“The problem with declaring that we should interpret the constitution strictly and without regard to a social agenda is that it is an interpretation of the constituion and for a social agenda. After all, origionally the US did not have a standing army, gave states their own militaries, did not have a national banking system and did not spend money on public works. And yet we have them not because they are constitutional, but because we needed them and the government ignored objections.”
The Constitution was meant as a restriction on the powers of the federal government. And for good reason as the founders understood what may develop from unchecked power. The federal government is a creation of the states, and therefore the states should not be subservient to it. Once you open the door to allow this or that it is difficult if not impossible to reverse. And if a country “needs” something, then it should be done the proper way by amending the constitution, not by congress doing whatever it pleases or by judicial fiat. Judges are supposed to have a sound judicial philosophy while on the bench, not a social philosophy. It’s not their job to make laws. This is what is wrong with make-it-up-as-you-go-along activist judges.
“No, precedent is not the only thing to consider, but inventing rights out of thin air (i.e. abortion)”
It is a stretch to get “right to privacy” from the fact the government can’t search you or your possessions without a warrent?
“twisting the historical meaning to encompass far more than was ever intended (i.e. interstate commerce, general welfare)”
In all due fairness there is no other way to get alot of the necesary features done. The FDA only exists because of said twisting and I’m pretty sure it fills a necesary function. While the expansion is bizarre, it is needed for the country to work.
“upholding laws restricting rights explicitly stated to not be infringed upon (i.e. second amendment).”
All the rights listed in the bill of rights have exceptions for the common good. Why should guns be any different?
“The country now faced the daunting task of reconstruction and you honestly believe the Supreme Court at that time in history would have forced total integration as well? That would not be a reasonable thing to expect.”
Except that the country was doing that. Why do you think we had the south divided up into military zones and stationed federal troops there? For a short time period known as the reconstruction blacks had the right to vote and essentially full legal equality. The KKK tried to stop it, but they were crushed under the might of the federal government who utterly obliterated them. In fact the case was an attempt to ROLL BACK the rights that had been recently won.
It succeeded because the Republicans were willing to sell out the blacks for political expediency. In all due fairness it wasn’t until after Wilson did the Democrats become sane.
“Because there are good arguments on both sides of the ‘right to privacy’ debate is all I’m saying. Dissenting justices did have a point in being concerned about constitutional ‘penumbras’ leading to judicial overreaching, and thus a shifting of power to the courts. Roe v wade can be argued in good faith was a bad decision. Using privacy as a justification for infanticide is highly debatable. ”
- What are good arguements that would overturn the idea behind warrents?
- What is wrong with “judicial over reaching” aside from backlash which is irrelevant to the courts?
- What is wrong with using privacy as a justification for legalizing abortion? The courts declared that it was legal until the third trimester when it was legal in cases of health. I don’t see how this is anymore infanticide than the morning after pill.
Usually the attack against abortion is on the grounds that it kills human life, except that our legal system isn’t concerned about that. It deals with people.
” And the First Amendment really isn’t all that vague. It says quite plainly that Congress shall make no law….but the problem was Congress did make a law abridging their political speech with the Sedition Act. A prime example of why the judicial branch should not be some extension of Congress by allowing all these bad laws.”
The Alien and Sedition Acts never made it to the Supreme Court. They were passed in 1798. You are thinking about the Espionage Act.
Additionally, the government does have the constitutional power to ban people from talking about certain subjects- that is the meaning of the word classified for instance. The idea that it only covers political speech is nowhere mentioned in the document.
“So the founding fathers should not be referenced for how government should work (then who or what should be)? ”
The Founding Fathers were the ones who wrote the Alien and Sedition Act. They didn’t agree than about a large number of the things the country needed to do so they aren’t much help.
“They are the ones who made the foundation and are far wiser than the current crop of politicians we have today.”
The fact of the matter is they ripped of the constitution from as many sources as they could and it was their second try. There is nothing they did that people in this day and age have not done. While the best men do not go into politics now a days, we still have some intelligent and competant people in power.
““a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” If he can make such an insightful observation that is just as relevant today, if not more so, then perhaps it is worth heeding.”
He also believed that the constitution would have to change and grow over time. I don’t see how him applying that to the court system is sinister.
As for the observation that lawyers are two faced bastards who are willing to argue both sides of a situation…
“Technically speaking yes, but its decisions are enforced, so it can be despotic.”
But only if the other branches desire to follow. There are plenty of ways to get around and ignore its decisions.
“The Constitution was meant as a restriction on the powers of the federal government. ”
False. The Bill Of Rights holds that position. The founders actually thought it was irrelevant but added it in due to attacks from the anti-federalists that they were forming a new despotism. The Constitution was intended to form a stronger central government after the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation.
“The federal government is a creation of the states, and therefore the states should not be subservient to it.”
Lincoln disagrees with you, as does the fact the government has a monopoly on military power. They can nationalize guard units- ALL troops are subservient to federal control.
“And if a country “needs” something, then it should be done the proper way by amending the constitution, not by congress doing whatever it pleases or by judicial fiat.”
Why not? If people die in the interium isn’t that mean it was the wrong choice?
“Judges are supposed to have a sound judicial philosophy while on the bench, not a social philosophy.”
I’m pretty there is nothing stopping judges from being members of political parties.
“It’s not their job to make laws. ”
They don’t. Roe v Wade is not a law. They eliminate or revise law.
“It is a stretch to get “right to privacy” from the fact the government can’t search you or your possessions without a warrent?”
No, but to call abortion strictly a ‘privacy’ issue when two lives are involved is a bit strange.
“In all due fairness there is no other way to get alot of the necesary features done. The FDA only exists because of said twisting and I’m pretty sure it fills a necesary function. While the expansion is bizarre, it is needed for the country to work.”
Either we are a nation of laws or not. If you can excuse any government action as something ‘needed’ then why even have a constitution or Bill of Rights? Just have total government control over anything for any reason and have tyranny. Limits were put in place for a reason, and shouldn’t be brushed aside.
“All the rights listed in the bill of rights have exceptions for the common good. Why should guns be any different?”
Because the phrase ‘common good’ is extremely subjective and can be abused. Again, once you keep broadening the definition of ‘common good’ then where does it end? What meaning will the restrictions on government have from then on? Politicians have always tried to take away liberties in the name of saving the “environment”, the “children”, the …. (fill in the blank for any excuse to advance despotism).
“Except that the country was doing that. Why do you think we had the south divided up into military zones and stationed federal troops there? For a short time period known as the reconstruction blacks…”
Yes, for a short while, but the point was bad precedent and why it existed back then.
“- What are good arguements that would overturn the idea behind warrents?
- What is wrong with “judicial over reaching” aside from backlash which is irrelevant to the courts?
- What is wrong with using privacy as a justification for legalizing abortion? The courts declared that it was legal until the third trimester when it was legal in cases of health. I don’t see how this is anymore infanticide than the morning after pill.
Usually the attack against abortion is on the grounds that it kills human life, except that our legal system isn’t concerned about that. It deals with people.”
I have no problem with warrents against unreasonable searches. Judicial overreaching is wrong because it is the opposite of judicial restraint, which is what judges are supposed to exercise. Courts have a defined role that they are supposed to stick to. Also, the definition of abortion for ‘health’ reasons has been defined so broadly, that in practice it can be done for any reason right up through the third trimester.
To say human life and people are different things is to play with words. Aren’t you intentionally trying to make a distinction, where one would not ordinarily exist, for the purposes of dehumanizing the unborn?
“The Founding Fathers were the ones who wrote the Alien and Sedition Act. They didn’t agree than about a large number of the things the country needed to do so they aren’t much help.”
But you cannot dismiss the things they got right because of events that can be explained historically. Yes, the Federalists went too far, and the public was outraged (they obviously new something about what the government should or should not be doing), and they voted Jefferson in and Adams out. They agreed on enough to put together a Constitution with a Bill of Rights and get it ratified. That Act is another example of why restraints on government are necessary.
“While the best men do not go into politics now a days, we still have some intelligent and competant people in power.”
Some may be intelligent, but moral and wise, no. And what I meant was the leaders of the past understood human nature, believed in natural rights, and restricting the corrupting influence of power. They weren’t socialists who believed in the unbridled power of the state to solve all ‘problems’, which more often than not are made worse.
“He also believed that the constitution would have to change and grow over time. I don’t see how him applying that to the court system is sinister.”
Because courts have unelected people sitting on the bench for life - all the more reason for them to show restraint in their rulings. Yes, he believed it would have to change over time via the amendment process.
“False. The Bill Of Rights holds that position. The founders actually thought it was irrelevant but added it in due to attacks from the anti-federalists that they were forming a new despotism. The Constitution was intended to form a stronger central government after the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation.”
Not entirely, but I should have clarified. Yes it was to create a federal government, but one that was (supposed to be) severely limited. The the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution.
“Lincoln disagrees with you, as does the fact the government has a monopoly on military power. They can nationalize guard units- ALL troops are subservient to federal control.”
The Civil War was an unusual exception and should not be used to justify federal dominance over the states for ever after. The federal government could have just as easily supported slavery and the situation reversed. Would you be supporting it then? It may be that the government has control over the military, but it does not follow that the states must be submissive to it, unless you support the government using the military against its own people (I already made an exception for slavery).
“Why not? If people die in the interium isn’t that mean it was the wrong choice?”
People die for a lot of reasons, many directly related to government actions. But if ostensibly saving lives is a valid excuse to disregard the system put in place to protect us from government excesses, then what’s the point of even having a constitution or BOR?
“I’m pretty there is nothing stopping judges from being members of political parties.”
Not the issue. It’s altering the law in order to address some perceived societal need, which the courts are not empowered to do.
Activist judges routinely violate their oath of office, which reads:
“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
A judge who utilizes personal, and very selective, ‘empathy’ in place of sound judicial reasoning is violating that oath. This is not to say that empathy is something bad. Having empathy for the party that is most deserving of it in a rule of law context is fine. If that means a poor person wins, great. If it means a rich person wins, that’s also great. Justice before the law can not and should not mean only certain races or classes should win. That, by definition, would not be justice.
“They don’t. Roe v Wade is not a law. They eliminate or revise law.”
Splitting hairs. The net effect is the same.
“No, but to call abortion strictly a ‘privacy’ issue when two lives are involved is a bit strange.”
Welcome to the wonderful world of American law. Or do you want to hit morality?
“Either we are a nation of laws or not.”
We are a nation of people. If we were a nation of laws we could replace the court with computers.
” If you can excuse any government action as something ‘needed’ then why even have a constitution or Bill of Rights? Just have total government control over anything for any reason and have tyranny. Limits were put in place for a reason, and shouldn’t be brushed aside. ”
And what if the government has a good reason? Like say, getting the Louisiana Territory. Or crushing the Confederacy. Or mobilizing the country. Or…
“Because the phrase ‘common good’ is extremely subjective and can be abused. Again, once you keep broadening the definition of ‘common good’ then where does it end? What meaning will the restrictions on government have from then on? Politicians have always tried to take away liberties in the name of saving the “environment”, the “children”, the ”
The nature of power is that it can be abused. That doesn’t mean we never try. To wait until we can have perfection is to abdicate all responsibility.
“Yes, for a short while, but the point was bad precedent and why it existed back then.”
Because the court was staffed with bigots does not inspire confidence is “traditional” judgeship.
“I have no problem with warrents against unreasonable searches.”
Which is a meaningless statement with a definition of the word reasonable. Which is the standards that judges have to decide.
“Judicial overreaching is wrong because it is the opposite of judicial restraint, which is what judges are supposed to exercise. ”
Why? The best judges in our countries history greatly over reached.
” Courts have a defined role that they are supposed to stick to.”
You do realize that the Supreme Court got its power by ignoring this, right? No where is its current purpose defined in the constitution.
“To say human life and people are different things is to play with words. Aren’t you intentionally trying to make a distinction, where one would not ordinarily exist, for the purposes of dehumanizing the unborn?”
The problem with declaring that only humanity counts for moral worth is simple- what happens when you have individuals who aren’t fully human? A person who is sterile, a person who is missing their limbs, a person who is infested with cancer- all of those could conceivably fall outside the category of human. And yet they still have worth.
It is not by an individuals genes that we judge them, but by their mind. Humans are valuable because they have better minds than anything else we have seen, nothing more, nothing less.
“That Act is another example of why restraints on government are necessary”
Except the restraints were there!
“Some may be intelligent, but moral and wise, no. And what I meant was the leaders of the past understood human nature, believed in natural rights, and restricting the corrupting influence of power. They weren’t socialists who believed in the unbridled power of the state to solve all ‘problems’, which more often than not are made worse.”
Yeah, a bunch of slave owners was more moral than our current crop of politicians. We are talking about people who commited treason against England because of taxes- taxes to pay for a war fought to defend them!
As for understanding human nature, the country underwent a bloody civil war in 70 years.
It is worth noting that the state may not solve all problems… but leaving it to the free market will make some of them alot worse.
“Because courts have unelected people sitting on the bench for life - all the more reason for them to show restraint in their rulings.”
That does not follow. Why should there be a correlation between the two?
“The Civil War was an unusual exception and should not be used to justify federal dominance over the states for ever after.”
How is it an exception? Due to lack of standardization amoung states and a large amount of power in their hands they had the capacity to rebel. Any return to that situation risks civil war all over again. While it is unlikely in the US it has happened in relatively well off countries (Yugoslavia).
“People die for a lot of reasons, many directly related to government actions.”
We get it- you like perfect systems. Sadly they don’t exist so we go with what works best.
“But if ostensibly saving lives is a valid excuse to disregard the system put in place to protect us from government excesses, then what’s the point of even having a constitution or BOR?”
Procedural rules.
“and do equal right to the poor and to the rich”
The same law that bars the poor from sleeping on the sidewalks bars the millionare. Of course this is hardly justice, but if you want equal rights only it is perfectly fine.
“Justice before the law can not and should not mean only certain races or classes should win. That, by definition, would not be justice.”
Justice, rights and equality are not the same. It is the right of the slave owner to have slaves, but it is not just. It is just for the slaves to be given land, but it is not equal. It is equal for the same law to bar the poor from sleeping on the sidewalks as well as the millionare but it is not right.
Yes, I know the last one is using the word right to mean a different context.
“Splitting hairs. The net effect is the same.”
Not really. They either resolve disputes in which case they are giving the government power it is claiming it has or they eliminate laws the government has. It is an odd tyranny that forces people to enjoy more rights.
“Welcome to the wonderful world of American law. Or do you want to hit morality?”
Granted, but morality is – for some laws anyway – part of the equation.
“We are a nation of people. If we were a nation of laws we could replace the court with computers.”
That’s silly. We are still a nation of laws precisely because we have people.
“And what if the government has a good reason? Like say, getting the Louisiana Territory. Or crushing the Confederacy. Or mobilizing the country. Or… “
Then it should be done within the framework of defined powers and responsibilities. “Good” reason isn’t enough. I’m sure Hitler thought he had “good” reasons too.
“The nature of power is that it can be abused. That doesn’t mean we never try. To wait until we can have perfection is to abdicate all responsibility.”
Nobody said wait for perfection, even the founders understood that while government was a necessary evil, it must be kept in check. Barriers must be in place to try, as best we can, to limit the possibility of abuses. If the government wants to do something, it should be difficult with many roadblocks, for the safety of liberty.
“Because the court was staffed with bigots does not inspire confidence is “traditional” judgeship.”
Using past examples of wrongdoing to justify a modern day racist judge using “empathy” does not inspire confidence in non-traditional judgeship either.
“Why? The best judges in our countries history greatly over reached.”
The same could be said for the setting of bad precedents as well. We have an amendment giving women the right to vote – no overreaching needed.
“You do realize that the Supreme Court got its power by ignoring this, right? No where is its current purpose defined in the constitution.”
I meant it’s role as understood historically - the court has to carefully consider the words of the Constitution or statute, to understand the intent of the Framers and the spirit of American jurisprudence. “Equal Justice Under Law” are the words written above the entrance to the Supreme Court building, and are more than just decoration.
“The problem with declaring that only humanity counts for moral worth is simple- what happens when you have individuals who aren’t fully human? A person who is sterile, a person who is missing their limbs, a person who is infested with cancer- all of those could conceivably fall outside the category of human. And yet they still have worth.”
You are defining “fully human” as not missing a limb or not being sterile. Nazi eugenics followed a similar reasoning by killing those with Down’s syndrome or other disabilities.
“It is not by an individuals genes that we judge them, but by their mind. Humans are valuable because they have better minds than anything else we have seen, nothing more, nothing less.”
You are right in that we don’t judge people by genes, but they are still human. And of those who have mental retardations then, by your definition, do not have minds with worth, so they can be killed off because they don’t fit your definition of human? You can argue that a 1 year old doesn’t have those things yet, so is it okay to extra-late term abort them? 2 years? 3…? Since we cannot objectively determine when a mind develops to the point of being “valuable”, we should err on the side of life.
“Except the restraints were there!”
Restraints will not work if someone is determined to break them. Just means you replace those people with others who will respect rules/guidelines.
“Yeah, a bunch of slave owners was more moral than our current crop of politicians…..It is worth noting that the state may not solve all problems… but leaving it to the free market will make some of them alot worse.”
You bring up 200 year old examples to justify current government excesses and abuses. Almost every place on earth at some point in history had slaves. You are trying to discredit them by judging the past with the values of the present – not exactly a fair evaluation.
And far as leaving problems either to the state or the markets, at least the markets leave your liberty largely intact. A government that is large enough to give you everything you want can also take it all away.
“That does not follow. Why should there be a correlation between the two?”
Because we cannot get rid of them for abusing their power like we can vote other politicians out of office. So all it takes is 5 people out of 300 millions to completely negate a right or radically change some aspect of our society. Yes, we should be very concerned about people with that kind of power, and they should be chosen carefully.
“How is it an exception? Due to lack of standardization amoung states and a large amount of power in their hands they had the capacity to rebel. Any return to that situation risks civil war all over again. While it is unlikely in the US it has happened in relatively well off countries (Yugoslavia).”
I highly doubt there is any situation that can exist today that would justify the government waging war against a state(s). I’m confident reducing federal power does not run the risk of slavery coming back.
“We get it- you like perfect systems. Sadly they don’t exist so we go with what works best.”
I never said anything of the kind (and you are one to talk where health care is concerned). Your definition of what “works best” seems to mean the wielding of arbitrary power focusing on “need” and the “common good”, and there should be no guaranteed rights, especially if they get in the way of the aforementioned. That’s already been tried, it’s called Communism.
“Procedural rules.”
The old Soviet Union had a lot of procedural rules. Procedural rules do very little, if anything, to protect rights. In fact, of the procedural rules that do exist, such as amending the constitution to address some ‘need’ instead of using the courts, you are against it!
“Not really. They either resolve disputes in which case they are giving the government power it is claiming it has or they eliminate laws the government has. It is an odd tyranny that forces people to enjoy more rights.”
I’m sure it makes little difference to the person who loses their home over an eminent domain abuse where a judge decides in favor of the government, versus an explicit law made to the same effect.
“That’s silly. We are still a nation of laws precisely because we have people.”
The point was if they can only be interpreted one way we wouldn’t need people to do it.
“Then it should be done within the framework of defined powers and responsibilities. “Good” reason isn’t enough. I’m sure Hitler thought he had “good” reasons too. ”
Er Hitler managed to get the Enabling Act passed because he had the parliment torched. However in the actual event of a communist uprising it would have been the right course of action- they actually had a similar case 15 years previously and the communists were the second largest political party in the country.
Sadly the fascists proved to be even more ruthless and batshit insane (although it should have been obvious to everyone), but there is nothing inherently wrong in what he did- in fact unlike the cases I mentioned his actions were perfectly legal. There was extralegal methods to help secure them, but all the paperwork was signed and in order, unlike the cases in the civil war, the purchase or others.
“Barriers must be in place to try, as best we can, to limit the possibility of abuses. If the government wants to do something, it should be difficult with many roadblocks, for the safety of liberty. ”
Except the government isn’t the only force that can threaten liberty. To shackle it is to invite others to take its place.
“Using past examples of wrongdoing to justify a modern day racist judge using “empathy” does not inspire confidence in non-traditional judgeship either.”
Can you show any indication that she is at all like that?
“The same could be said for the setting of bad precedents as well. We have an amendment giving women the right to vote – no overreaching needed. ”
Remember the equal rights amendment? Your faith in democracy is touching, but misplaced. If you give people power… just look at the current news from Aghanistan.
“I meant it’s role as understood historically - the court has to carefully consider the words of the Constitution or statute, to understand the intent of the Framers and the spirit of American jurisprudence. “Equal Justice Under Law” are the words written above the entrance to the Supreme Court building, and are more than just decoration. ”
Except it has not always done that historically.
“You are defining “fully human” as not missing a limb or not being sterile. Nazi eugenics followed a similar reasoning by killing those with Down’s syndrome or other disabilities. ”
?
Missed by a mile. First off, the Nazis did not kill people for being sterile. Secondly I am going off the definition of human. To be human is to have the genetic code in common with the rest of the species/be able to have viable offspring and to be complete is to have all the parts in the blueprint.
Needless to say I don’t judge moral worth based on humaness, but I’m curious how you avoid following these conclusions based on your professed beliefs.
“And of those who have mental retardations then, by your definition, do not have minds with worth, so they can be killed off because they don’t fit your definition of human?”
How retarded are we talking? Because down syndrome people are still fairly intelligent. If a person is a vegetable than yeah.
“can argue that a 1 year old doesn’t have those things yet, so is it okay to extra-late term abort them? 2 years? 3…? Since we cannot objectively determine when a mind develops to the point of being “valuable”, we should err on the side of life.”
Actually a one year old does.
“Restraints will not work if someone is determined to break them. Just means you replace those people with others who will respect rules/guidelines.”
So restraints don’t work the sole time they are needed… are you sure that is what you are arguing?
“You bring up 200 year old examples to justify current government excesses and abuses. Almost every place on earth at some point in history had slaves. You are trying to discredit them by judging the past with the values of the present – not exactly a fair evaluation. ”
Are you seriously arguing that morality evolves over time and what is right currently will not alwyas be right?
As for judging, I am pointing out they are not perfect and unswaveringly following them is a poor plan.
“at least the markets leave your liberty largely intact.”
Banana Republics ring a bell?
” A government that is large enough to give you everything you want can also take it all away.”
So can 5 guys and a moving van.
“Because we cannot get rid of them for abusing their power like we can vote other politicians out of office.”
Grant managed to find the loophole to deal with this and if they go nuts, it can be done by the current president. After all, the bench origionally only had 5 justices.
“I highly doubt there is any situation that can exist today that would justify the government waging war against a state(s).”
That is because people don’t have ties to states. However, people do still have ideological ties and they are dangerous enough to be a threat.
” I’m confident reducing federal power does not run the risk of slavery coming back.”
Nitpick- legal slavery. Illegal slavery is alive an well in the world and cheaper than ever.
“and you are one to talk where health care is concerned”
Given that a perfect health care system is one that prevents people from dying EVER I don’t actually hold that view. I merely aim for a better system.
“Your definition of what “works best” seems to mean the wielding of arbitrary power focusing on “need” and the “common good”, and there should be no guaranteed rights, especially if they get in the way of the aforementioned.”
Are you seriously trying to say that the ends justifies the means is invalid?
“That’s already been tried, it’s called Communism. ”
No, the proper name is utilitarianism.
” Procedural rules do very little, if anything, to protect rights. In fact, of the procedural rules that do exist, such as amending the constitution to address some ‘need’ instead of using the courts, you are against it!”
I wasn’t saying that they are useful for protecting rights- I was saying what the constituions purpose was if it didn’t do that. Rights on the constitution are just that- on the constitution. As our last president showed they aren’t even worth the paper they are printed on.
“I’m sure it makes little difference to the person who loses their home over an eminent domain abuse where a judge decides in favor of the government, versus an explicit law made to the same effect.”
But it is following the will of the founders! Surely you would approve? After all, all the amendment says is
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
“Er Hitler managed to get the Enabling Act passed because he had the parliment torched…”
The point is the dangers of unlimited power for alleged “good” reasons.
“Except the government isn’t the only force that can threaten liberty. To shackle it is to invite others to take its place.”
No force will have the same strength as government. Microsoft is huge, but can’t infringe my 1st amendment rights; it can’t tax me; it can’t confiscate my private property, etc.
“Can you show any indication that she is at all like that?”
She was picked by Obama, partly, because of her ‘empathy’. Besides her racialist comment about a ‘wise Latina’, she denied the earned promotions of firefighters because not enough blacks scored high enough on the race-neutral exam. In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The plaintiff in the case, Frank Ricci, is a learning disabled firefighter who put considerably more time into preparing for the lieutenant’s exam given his disability. Because of his dyslexia, Ricci had a friend record his exam textbooks into a tape recorder and spent every spare hour studying. After taking such great strides to overcome his disadvantage, he ranked sixth in the competition for eight lieutenant spots but was nonetheless denied the promotion on account of race. What is Sotomayor’s empathy standard then if Ricci did not deserve it?
“Remember the equal rights amendment?“
Ehe ERA is unnecessary because it provides no new protections that don’t already exist. Women have more than equal rights today. Try showing up in family court and see who gets custody of the kids and has to pay all kinds of support.
“First off, the Nazis did not kill people for being sterile. Secondly I am going off the definition of human”
I was going by the definition you offered. Men with Down’s are often sterile BTW, but Nazis eliminated both sexes if suspected of having this and other genetic abnormalities.
“So restraints don’t work the sole time they are needed… are you sure that is what you are arguing?”
That’s not what I am saying. But what you seem to be arguing is that no system put in place to protect liberty is worthwhile; therefore (oddly), allow any and all power to be exercised.
“As for judging, I am pointing out they are not perfect and unswaveringly following them is a poor plan.”
No one said they were perfect - I was explaining the importance of a system put in place to separate powers and protect liberty. You bring up the moral shortcomings of those who put that system into place in order to discredit the system. But those are separate issues. One should not necessarily negate the other.
“Banana Republics ring a bell?”
Those are mostly dictatorial or ruled by organized crime and do not represent a competitive market.
“Grant managed to find the loophole to deal with this and if they go nuts, it can be done by the current president. After all, the bench origionally only had 5 justices.”
It doesn’t necessarily take one giant act by the court, but death by a thousand cuts. A small infringement here, a little overreach there, is all it takes over time to erode liberty.
“That is because people don’t have ties to states. However, people do still have ideological ties and they are dangerous enough to be a threat.”
Only because they want states to retain the power they are supposed to, you know, the whole tenth amendment thing. So the threat is the other direction.
“Nitpick- legal slavery. Illegal slavery is alive an well in the world and cheaper than ever.”
We were talking about federal power over the states here. Other countries have worse problems, I know.
“Are you seriously trying to say that the ends justifies the means is invalid?”
Depends on the means and what ends are you talking about.
“No, the proper name is utilitarianism.”
Call it what you will. Defenders of totalitarian regimes have used all kinds of clever words to disguise their evil. Yes, we know, you need to break eggs to make an omelet. Never mind the 100 million dead, it was for a glorious workers’ paradise, an egalitarian society of total equality, etc. etc.
“I wasn’t saying that they are useful for protecting rights- I was saying what the constituions purpose was if it didn’t do that. Rights on the constitution are just that- on the constitution. As our last president showed they aren’t even worth the paper they are printed on.”
Hey, I’m no fan of Bush. All presidents, Congress, and the courts should respect their duty to uphold and protect the constitution – including the rights therein.
“But it is following the will of the founders! Surely you would approve? After all, all the amendment says is
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation””
Another example of twisting and expanding the words ‘public use’ to mean something the founders never intended. Taking private land for building a public road or courthouse is one thing, but to take private property and give it to another private party is wrong and unconstitutional. So no, I don’t agree with a family being kicked out of their home so a private golf course can be built.
“The point is the dangers of unlimited power for alleged “good” reasons. ”
You do realize the allied governments did something similar under war powers?
“No force will have the same strength as government. Microsoft is huge, but can’t infringe my 1st amendment rights; it can’t tax me; it can’t confiscate my private property, etc. ”
The SA off the bat was stronger than the Republic, if you are in debt, companies can take your property and force you to pay them part of your salary, United Fruit ran the governments of severla nations during the late 19th century, East India Company had its own army, territory, etc.
“She was picked by Obama, partly, because of her ‘empathy’. Besides her racialist comment about a ‘wise Latina’, she denied the earned promotions of firefighters because not enough blacks scored high enough on the race-neutral exam. In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The plaintiff in the case, Frank Ricci, is a learning disabled firefighter who put considerably more time into preparing for the lieutenant’s exam given his disability. Because of his dyslexia, Ricci had a friend record his exam textbooks into a tape recorder and spent every spare hour studying. After taking such great strides to overcome his disadvantage, he ranked sixth in the competition for eight lieutenant spots but was nonetheless denied the promotion on account of race. What is Sotomayor’s empathy standard then if Ricci did not deserve it?”
You do realize the rest of the justices voted the same way? Are you saying a majority of that court was rascist?
“Ehe ERA is unnecessary because it provides no new protections that don’t already exist. Women have more than equal rights today. Try showing up in family court and see who gets custody of the kids and has to pay all kinds of support.”
http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl+news/USA+How+Our+Health+System+Screws+Over+Women.htm
“Many women couldn’t afford whatever care they find, since companies often charge women more, in one case as much as 140 percent more, for the same health coverage, according to a 2008 study by the National Women’s Law Center.”
That isn’t a typo- not 40% more but 140%. But everything is nice an equal and we don’t need any measures to fix it!
Just because part of the law favors women (a la old regime Europe) does not imply equality.
“I was going by the definition you offered. Men with Down’s are often sterile BTW, but Nazis eliminated both sexes if suspected of having this and other genetic abnormalities. ”
People with Down’s syndrome are mentally retarded. That is the reason the Nazi’s killed them- burden on the state and all that.
” But what you seem to be arguing is that no system put in place to protect liberty is worthwhile; therefore (oddly), allow any and all power to be exercised. ”
No system that is not detailed. A vague promise of rights is useless- what people need are actual rules. The government is not allowed to do this, this and this.
“You bring up the moral shortcomings of those who put that system into place in order to discredit the system. But those are separate issues. One should not necessarily negate the other. ”
Better. The fallacy is known as an ad hominum.
However, it does bear repeating that they were not what we would consider moral today and there is no reason to assume we can’t do any better. Or that no one else can do any better. In fact the constitution has been so stretched it bears no resemblance to their ideal.
“Those are mostly dictatorial or ruled by organized crime and do not represent a competitive market.”
So? That is the end game for a country when corporations are completely unregulated. It requires active government intervention to keep companies in line and prevent them from abusing their power.
“A small infringement here, a little overreach there, is all it takes over time to erode liberty. ”
Like how the courts have been systematically expanding civil liberties until the war on drugs?
“Only because they want states to retain the power they are supposed to, you know, the whole tenth amendment thing. So the threat is the other direction.”
Oppression by the Federal government doing what?
“Depends on the means and what ends are you talking about. ”
The ends ALWAYS justify the means. The end includes the means.
“Defenders of totalitarian regimes have used all kinds of clever words to disguise their evil. Yes, we know, you need to break eggs to make an omelet. Never mind the 100 million dead, it was for a glorious workers’ paradise, an egalitarian society of total equality, etc. etc. ”
You do realize utilitarianism is supposed to account for every who dies as well? And I’m not a communist- Marx’s contemporaries were smart enough to point out the logical flaws in his theory so it isn’t like it needs to be tested. If you want here is a… fun critique:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html
But apparently your defense against utilitarianism is that some people used false premises to justify their actions. Which discredits the idea… how exactly? If someone screws up the calculations for dam building and it breaks do we blame the idea of using concrete for building?
“All presidents, Congress, and the courts should respect their duty to uphold and protect the constitution – including the rights therein. ”
Except Bush showed when they are needed most they are easiest to ignore. That is not a good framework. We cannot rely upon the honor system.
“but to take private property and give it to another private party is wrong and unconstitutional. So no, I don’t agree with a family being kicked out of their home so a private golf course can be built.”
What makes you think they would be opposed to something like that?
“You do realize the allied governments did something similar under war powers?”
War powers are a different situation since national defense is part of the government’s job, and yes, can be contentious. As for other allied governments, they can do whatever, but we have a constitution that empowers the government to do only certain things. All else is reserved to the states or people.
“if you are in debt, companies can take your property and force you to pay them part of your salary, United Fruit ran the governments of severla nations during the late 19th century, East India Company had its own army, territory, etc.”
But being in debt is not the same thing – you owe someone money. You borrowed what was not yours to begin with so of course they can seek redress. Companies in America can never exercise the same degree of abuse that the government can.
“You do realize the rest of the justices voted the same way? Are you saying a majority of that court was rascist?”
Majority? It was just a three-judge panel of people who had no trouble with reverse discrimination since it’s the politically correct kind. She (and by extension the rest) was overturned by the Supreme Court (at least there are a few sane justices left on that court). Sadly, she now disgraces that very court with her presence. Her “wise Latina” comments coupled with the fact the firefighters were denied promotions based on their race, makes it racist.
“That isn’t a typo- not 40% more but 140%. But everything is nice an equal and we don’t need any measures to fix it!”
That study is totally irrelevant (and probably flawed as well) since medical care is not a right. And laws should not favor any group, as that is not the purpose of law.
Also, it said “one insurer in Missouri charges 40-year-old women a whopping 140% more than men while another charges women 15% more than men.” This is hilarious. So those women should drop the 140% and go with the cheaper insurer! The more expensive insurer will lose a lot of business until it lowers rates. This is why competition works to everyone’s benefit.
“No system that is not detailed. A vague promise of rights is useless- what people need are actual rules. The government is not allowed to do this, this and this.”
Rights cannot come from government. At best all it can do is protect it. We already have what you are asking for. If it’s not in Article 1, section 8, the government is not allowed to do it (or should not anyway).
“However, it does bear repeating that they were not what we would consider moral today and there is no reason to assume we can’t do any better. Or that no one else can do any better.”
Ah, but everything you are advocating has already been tried and failed miserably. The history of the last century alone is written in the blood of countless millions who suffered at the hands of governments chasing the phantom of egalitarianism or utopianism. A separation of powers, limited government, and maximum personal liberty with property rights is the only recipe for a society that works best – not perfect, but best. And the constitution being stretched beyond recognition is a big part of the reason why we have so many more problems today.
“So? That is the end game for a country when corporations are completely unregulated. It requires active government intervention to keep companies in line and prevent them from abusing their power.”
So it’s not free markets and a level playing field. Of course some government has to be present to keep the playing field fair, but as a referee not a participant. And who keeps the government from abusing its power? Can’t be the people, because under your system the government would have so much power that the people could be crushed and shot at by their own military (ala Iran ). Do the people of North Korea keep its government in check?
“Like how the courts have been systematically expanding civil liberties until the war on drugs?”
The courts wouldn’t have been involved to begin with had the government not stepped in and started controlling substances.
“Oppression by the Federal government doing what?”
BATF and IRS come to mind. “Redistributing wealth” – stealing from the productive class and give to the unproductive, Rounding up Japanese Americans during WW2. Mass murder in Waco, TX comes to mind as well. Not to mention the steady erosion of states’ rights. The list goes on and on.
“The ends ALWAYS justify the means. The end includes the means.”
I’m sure Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, et al. would agree with you. Tyrannical means do not justify utopian ends. Some acts are wrong irrespective of their consequences. It is simply wrong to kill innocent children, even if doing so creates more pleasure than it does pain – a utilitarian dilemma.
“You do realize utilitarianism is supposed to account for every who dies as well?”
Is utilitarianism collectivist in any way that requires government coercion? Does utilitarianism force one human being to serve the needs of another? If the answer is yes, then it is an immoral system/philosophy.
Even if it hasn’t been put in practice, it is still doomed to failure due to its goals, and methodology it must employ to try to get there. Defenders of communism also claim it wasn’t been put into practice ‘correctly’. Humans cannot live like bees in a hive or ants in a colony. We are individualistic creatures, and are only most productive and happy when working for ourselves, not others or for the state. That doesn’t mean we don’t work together, but it must be a free association, not forced.
“And I’m not a communist”
But the similarities to Marxism are too close to ignore. I’m sure utilitarianism differs from communism in its theoretical framework, but in practice I bet there would be little noticeable difference. Not the least of which is its tendency to push economics in the direction of command and control, and abolishing separation of powers, no guaranteed individual rights, etc. And utilitarianism is not without its problems as well, such as being impractical, ignoring distributive justice, etc. Everyone maximizing their hedonistic desires would inevitably lead to societal collapse as such a system would be unsustainable. A good critique of utilitarianism can be found here: http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1602
”http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html”
Pretty funny, but I don’t want to get into Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. LOL
“But apparently your defense against utilitarianism is that some people used false premises to justify their actions. Which discredits the idea… how exactly? If someone screws up the calculations for dam building and it breaks do we blame the idea of using concrete for building?”
Someone making a mistake and causing harm is different from someone using a known falsehood to justify actions which end in harm. An idea can be discredited by its history (failure), or even common sense. A mathematical calculation isn’t the issue for finding a successful societal arrangement, whether it be some form of collectivism or whatever. If you say all humans can share their belongings communally and maximize total happiness, it would be ludicrous, because humans do not naturally act that way. Human nature is not subject to math like the building of a dam.
“Except Bush showed when they are needed most they are easiest to ignore. That is not a good framework. We cannot rely upon the honor system.”
Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. There is no better framework. And your system of absolute power in the hands of a few social engineers is the ultimate honor system!
“What makes you think they would be opposed to something like that?”
(you mean in favor of) Because it has happened (and still is). The court has ruled that private property can be taken and given to another private party if some alleged gain (taxes) can be squeezed out of it. That’s not just immoral, but downright evil.
As much as I’d like to continue this ad infinitum I think it’s time to wrap this up since neither one of us is going to convince the other. Not only that, but things are getting repetitive or way off topic at this point. If someone else wants to chime in and continue with you, that’s fine. Thanks for the debate!
I just thought of something- it is okay to point out the ethical failing in individuals when you are attacking a system… if part of the system is interpretation of what they would have done.
So I should no longer be in favor of liberty or free markets because someone in the past who advocated it was a racist (of course, they all were back then)? So humans do not naturally desire to be free? We should give up a system that produced the greatest country in the world, with the most freedom and prosperity of any on earth, of which millions emigrated to, and give that all up for … some collectivist fantasy that promises even greater prosperity and happiness for its people? But there’s a catch. They have give up liberties, have no guaranteed rights, concentrate power in government, and have a centrally planned economy. Everyone loses liberty and becomes slaves to the state, and they will then be happier?
So you are advocating the very thing you used to attack the founders. Your form of modern slavery is a kinder, gentler form to be sure. There may be no whips or chains, but you still advocate using one human being for the benefit of another, at the point of a government gun if necessary. Collectivist systems have never produced a utopia, or even a higher standard of living compared to the U.S. Utilitarianism is another pipedream of feel-good fantasies that are absurd in theory, and would be totalitarian in practice. As such, it would be incapable of producing “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” but would more likely produce the greatest unhappiness for the greatest number.
“So I should no longer be in favor of liberty or free markets because someone in the past who advocated it was a racist (of course, they all were back then)?”
Except that isn’t what the consitution is. It is the origional intent that people are supposed to interpret! If the individuals who made it were slavers, that ties into the origional intent (hint- parts of it indirectly comment on slavery and its regulation.).
“But there’s a catch. They have give up liberties, have no guaranteed rights, concentrate power in government, and have a centrally planned economy. Everyone loses liberty and becomes slaves to the state, and they will then be happier? ”
I’m not a communist. I don’t intend to have people give up civil liberties- I want them spelled out and not some arbitrary standard that can mean anything. I don’t want a planned economy- I want a regulated one where the government provides the infrastructure and prevents the outcomes from becoming so unequal so the individuals at the bottom still have a stake in the system.
” but you still advocate using one human being for the benefit of another, at the point of a government gun if necessary. ”
We already have that. It is called conscription. The US doesn’t use it anymore due to the fact we are a superpower and none of our enemies can project their power to our shores. Society is built upon getting people to do things they don’t want to do.
“Collectivist systems have never produced a utopia, or even a higher standard of living compared to the U.S. ”
I’m not aiming for utopia. As for standard of living, they tend to be in socialist states lower due to a lower growth rate. Which is why government run corporations tend to be a bad idea. Not surprisingly I haven’t advocated rampant nationalization of companies. I want the government to run health care… because countries that have government run health care have higher life expectancies.
“Utilitarianism is another pipedream of feel-good fantasies that are absurd in theory, and would be totalitarian in practice.”
It also happens to be the only defensible ethical system. Please- tell me what you use. After all, you aren’t defending capitalism because you like the architecture of banks- you are defending it because you think it is better at achieving certain goals.
“As such, it would be incapable of producing “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” but would more likely produce the greatest unhappiness for the greatest number.”
And the reason for that is? After all, if you get a bad result, you are doing it wrong. Utilitarianism isn’t a system like communism or capitalism- it is a goal and doesn’t have any inherent system attached to it. Whatever system works best for it will be used with it.
Odd formating. Anyway I’ll end with this unless you want a final rebuttal. Two things jumped out though:
” since medical care is not a right.”
Do you believe that poor people should be left to die because they can’t afford treatment? Do you believe that rights include the right to let other people die because you do not wish to be forced to help them?
“I’m sure Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, et al. would agree with you. Tyrannical means do not justify utopian ends. Some acts are wrong irrespective of their consequences. It is simply wrong to kill innocent children, even if doing so creates more pleasure than it does pain – a utilitarian dilemma.
You don’t understand utilitarianism. Do you think all the kids that bomber command killed in WW2 were evil? The decisions were justified on explicatly utilitarian principles- it will end the war quicker and reduce overall suffering.