Bronx's tags:
Apparently, over time, it happens to even the best of conservatives. I know of a very good and prominent example. No, not our own ALIENated.......

I mean the venerable John Paul Stevens, Justice of the US Supreme court! How he got to become a Liberal over the space of three decades:

[....Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.” Stevens said that his views haven’t changed since 1975, when as a moderate Republican he was appointed by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court. Stevens’s judicial hero is Potter Stewart, the Republican centrist, whom Stevens has said he admires more than all of the other justices with whom he has served. He considers himself a “judicial conservative,” he said, and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. “Including myself,” he said, “every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell” — nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 — “has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That’s bound to have an effect on the court.”

As a result, Stevens is now in the unexpected position of shaping the court’s liberal jurisprudence. With the retirement of Justice Harry A. Blackmun in 1994, Stevens became the senior associate justice, a position second in authority only to the chief justice. When the chief justice is in the majority and Stevens is in the minority, Stevens decides who will write the principal dissent; when the roles are reversed, Stevens assigns the majority opinion. On the current court, in close cases, Stevens has wielded this power strategically, assiduously courting Kennedy to maximize the chances of winning five votes. In some instances, Stevens has assigned majority opinions to Kennedy to secure his vote; in others he has chosen to write majority opinions himself in ways that will persuade Kennedy to stay in the liberal camp......]


Do you know of any more examples?

   

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • aeschylus said on Sep 24, 2007....
    .....
    It was an interesting twist, huh? But notice that with Alito coming in the "harmony" ended and the court is now considered more "far right" than a long time in history. I'm currently compiling links for a post about "The Far Right Court" (reflecting pro-corporate/big government; anti-citizen) that started with something The Washington Post or New York Times (???) published not long ago.
     
    I was surprised to see John Roberts leading such a conservative court (I've learned to hate him).
     
    You may be interested in this ABC News post frrom Jan Crawford Greenburg's blog Legalities (The Sky's Still Up There), citing stuff from the liberal Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford.
     
    Interesting read, and cause to worry for U.S. citizens who believe in the core principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
     
    They is GONE!.
     
    Bronx, great post. The more this information is posted and spread, the more facts get distributed to more people.
     
    aeschylus
     
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 24, 2007....
    thank you bloc. i wasn't aware of that, although given the breadth and scope of federal power, this doesn't really surprise me, i'll confess.

    ed
  • aeschylus said on Sep 24, 2007....
    .....
    silverwhisper...

    We need to stop that "breadth and scope" of federal power. That's how Hitler's Nazi Germany happened.

    I'll be posting about this elsewhere soon, but here's a link(s) to an article about why the German citizens supported Hitler, even through the war.

    Actually, it's two links as it is in Part One and Part Two. For anyone who prefers to get it in .pdf format, I'll add those links as well.

    Interesting reading, and helps one understand why average Americans are not alarmed enough regarding the current administration, and why many scholars, journalists, historians, etc. are more and more alarmed every day.

    It also explains why even the Canadians have recently referred to Bush as a "Nazi" and a Canadian magazine parodied him in a cartoon as one. Now that surprised me, that Canada would join the growing other countries that are viewing the U.S. as a very unhealthy and dangerous "regime." We've got problems here.

    Why Germans Supported Hitler, Part 1
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.pdf (pdf)

    Why Germans Supported Hitler, Part 2
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0704a.asp
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0704a.pdf (pdf)
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp

    aeschylus

  • D6fer said on Sep 24, 2007....
    interesting.....I've never heard of such a thing....a conservative becoming a liberal....I guess I shouldn't be surprised .....since liberalism is a mental disorder....it could attack the best of us....especially in our old age...as in this case.;p
  • beyondtheveil said on Sep 24, 2007....
    How about naming me?

    Only I don't know if I'm becoming liberal or if its because of despising the conservatives in power and the ones squawking on the tube and radio.
  • bloc said on Sep 25, 2007....
    I think this happens to a lot of people, not because they change, but because the Republican party has changed. The definition of American Conservatism is very different than it was 15 years ago. 
  • D6fer said on Sep 25, 2007....
    I think I could agree with that to point
  • kelly said on Sep 25, 2007....
    I guess I could include myself here. As a young man I was totally enthralled by Ayn Rand and in my first-ever election I caucused for the Republicans.

    Today, however, is a completely different story.  :-)
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 26, 2007....
    aeschylus quoth:
    we need to stop that "breadth and scope" of federal power. that's how hitler's nazi germany happened.

    [deep breath]

    please don't godwin, aeschylus.

    but perhaps as importantly, your comment makes absolutely no sense to me. federal power is part & parcel of the rule of law in any nation. federal power is power and the abuse of power is what needs to be stopped. i think you're put not only the cart but perhaps a few wagons in front of the horse here.

    ed
  • aeschylus said on Sep 26, 2007....
    ed...

    I beg to disagree a bit here. The U.S. has gone beyond federalism, which is why the remaining nations are starting to stand in opposition to many U.S. stances. For well over a year the current administration has been likened to Mussolini's form of fascism. The question among some radicals is whether it will go to the extent of Germany's fascist state. As the essays state, Hitler used the same tactics (fighting an "enemy" to gain sole control of Germany's policies).

    The "federal power" is not supposed to be existent even in federalism according to the principles of the Constitution. That's why they made the individual states so autonomous, free to determine policies within the state unless those policies were not in compliance with the basic federal (Constitutional) principles.

    Roosevelt promoted federalism after WWII to bring the country out of the results of the Depression and the war. Nixon and Reagan had their own things, but Reagan handed off a lot of the "federalism" to private corporations (read Gerry Spence's book, Pimps, Power, Prostitutes ... or something like that, published in the last couple of years).

    We evolved to a nation not even governed by a "government" but by corporate entities promoting and acting on their own personal agendas.

    A far cry from the "citizenship" of the original founding fathers.

    The "breadth and scope of power" used by the current administration is, indeed, how Hitler's Nazi Germany happened, and that is why Canada (actually, a Canadian news magazine) recently joined the nations with that perception by labeling Bush a "Nazi" and publishing a photo typical of Saddam with Bush's face.

    This surprised me because Canada has generally stayed out of U.S. politics to that extreme (publicly at least). It was a strong message to the rest of the world that a bordering nation of the U.S. would use such a strong message against the current administration and its policies.

    There's a lot more happening out there than the NY Times and Washington Post "gossip" and I wonder why people aren't reading it ... Truthdig (operated by Robert Scheer, respected journalist); Crooks and Liars, the Legal Professor and professional blogs, etc.

    I have to say these aren't my "original" perceptions so to speak (my "agree with ya" perceptions they are), but the perceptions of those like Glenn Greenwald, and so many others who are talking extensively online about what is happening and where it is taking us.

    IMHO MoveOn.org was wrong to attack Petraeus as they did, but they expressed the dissident in this country that is little discussed ... that of the journalists, educators, and others who are not a part of the administration (because they removed themselves from it) and discussing it as it happens.

    The United States is not supposed to have the "federal power" I referenced in the comment. A president is not supposed to be able to act as Bush has done, and federal governmental agencies are not supposed to be pursuing private agendas such as those taken with the recent (and ongoing) Justice Dept scandal. That is beyond federalism, that is fascism.

    aeschylus

  • silverwhisper said on Sep 26, 2007....
    in that case, you're being a bit fast and loose w/ your terminology. it isn't federal power that you fear per se: it's the erosion of civil liberties, and on that, i absolutely agree with you.

    there are many ways in which we agree, but invoking godwin's law is not IMV a productive means of progressing the discussion.

    you certainly can describe the transformation of american law through the ridiculous actions of the bush administration as taking us away from democracy towards autocracy w/out referencing hitler, and i think you're definitely a smart enough person to know that.

    ed
  • aeschylus said on Sep 26, 2007....
    ahhh ... but

    "bush administration as taking us away from democracy towards autocracy"

    The lead away from "democracy" started long before the Bush administration. Can't blame them for all of it. They simply took advantage of what was available to them, and no one stopped them because no one could actually believe it would go so far.

    The rest I'll leave and agree to disagree.

    aeschylus

  • Bronx said on Sep 26, 2007....
    aeschylus: thank you - Ill check out the links.


    sw: welcome.



    D6fer: hello....yes, age does seem to soften people up a bit sometimes.



    beyond: yeah....I know...that chicken and egg puzzle.


  • Bronx said on Sep 26, 2007....
    bloc, D6fer, kelly: hi.....that point just emphasizes the periodic mutation of the English Language - some words acquire a new meaning while others become obsolete.

    'A gay lad' used to mean something totally different about 100 years ago, I'll wager!
  • bloc said on Sep 26, 2007....
    @bronx
    yeah, but it changed rather abruptly. When I was young (in the 80's and early 90's) conservatism was about individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. I was actually a member of the young republicans back then. Now arguing for individual liberty gets one labeled a "far left extremist".

    It's truly amazing. If someone reads some of The Reagan Admin's speeches about The Soviets, and compares them to my posts about civil liberties, they'll see the same ideas from both of us. It's weird that those ideas make me a crazy liberal america hater today.

Comment on "Do you know a Conservative who became Liberal?"

politics conservative Liberal life law perspective (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?...