What does "conservative" mean to "conservatives"?

[livendive 8]

I hear people in here throw around the words "liberal" and "conservative" all the time, and they VERY rarely coincide with what I think those words mean. I've just read about the supreme court's upholding of Oregon's assisted suicide legislation and noticed that the dissenting votes were Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. I'm thinking it's a safe bet that most in here would consider those three the most "conservative" justices in the court, and I'm struggling with how to define conservative in such a way that it includes federal intervention, overturning state legislation regarding personal freedoms.

So my question is primarily for those of you who consider yourselves "conservative" What does the word mean to you? While you're at it, care to provide a rational (not smart-assed) personal definition for the word "liberal"?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Here comes the usual parties cutting and pasting definitions from merriam webster and dictionary.com......

I don't have any definitions to offer right now. Mine are, currently, way too cynical and leveraged off of my twisted vision of Republicans and Democrats right now and I wouldn't do justice to the positive meanings attached to both conservative and liberal.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Here comes the usual parties cutting and pasting definitions from merriam webster and dictionary.com......

I don't have any definitions to offer right now. Mine are, currently, way too cynical and leveraged off of my twisted vision of Republicans and Democrats right now and I wouldn't do justice to the positive meanings attached to both conservative and liberal.

The mere fact he wants Conservatives to define both themselves and Liberals pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?

[Channman 2]

This tread is well on its way to the crapper, thats were I can do my best thinking.

[masterrig 1]

I don't think, the 'liberals' or 'conservatives' have figured that one out.


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

This tread is well on its way to the crapper, thats were I can do my best thinking.

No shit?

[narcimund 0]

Conservative: Whatever that team over there thinks will consolidate their hegemony over the world's population.

Liberal: Whatever the other team over THERE thinks will consolidate THEIR hegemony over the world's population.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[livendive 8]

Quote

The mere fact he wants Conservatives to define both themselves and Liberals pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?

You're right. I just threw in liberal at the end for shits & giggles. In any case, I distinctly remember a thread in which liberals defined themselves. I don't remember one in which conservatives have done the same.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>What does the word mean to you?

Gotta define the context. Socially? Politically? In terms of outlook on life in general? Financially?

[lawrocket 3]

It's a pretty amazing opinion. While politically speaking, I agree with the outcome of that opinion, legally speaking I find the reasoning used as pretty thin. Senators and others attacked Samuel Alito's reasoning process as "top to bottom." They attacked Alito for his stating willingness to overturn precedents.

ironically, that's what the SCOTUS majority did. Kennedy, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer utilized backwards logic to reach this conclusion. God, I HATE that.

And Scalia, while I am in agreement politically with the outcome, used perfect logic in his dissent. He used prior case law to support his positions without making an expansion and carving exceptions.

Thomas was even more extraodinary in his dissent. He dissented from the majority apparently ONLY so he could call them out. Why? Here's a quote:

"While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence. See, e.g., Raich, supra; Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001).

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. [cites removed(noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies)]. But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' "[cite removed]. The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."

You gotta hand it to Thomas. He agreed wholeheartedly with the outcome of this, but he dissented as a matter of principle.

---

So, what makes a conservative v. a liberal? This opinion definitely muddies those waters a bit, doesn't it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.