Was the decision for the supreme court case Gideon v. Wainwright liberal, or conservative?
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
915833
Liberal - More government intervention in economics, less in social issues\n\nConservative - Less government intervention in economics, contemporary Christian Right conservatives will say more in social issues, many will say less
1075016
Conservative.  Conservative people follow like sheep.  Liberal people are more interested in character.  Initially he would have more success with the sheep.
1014674
I agree with your basic premise, but I want to limit your opinion a little bit.  Not all conservative people want to impose those bans in the US.  Many, many conservative people just want the government to leave them alone- they want less regulation.  These people are what are thought of as classical conservatives.  \n\nThe new conservatives (the religious right) are the ones that want to regulate morality in this way.  I disagree with it entirely.  People should be able to do as they please.  Women should be able to control their own bodies and gay people should be able to have the same rights in marriage as anyone else.
74448
Is your question why?  Is that a photo of Richard backwards and inverted or whatever, the guy with the pipe?\n\nI think you mean liberal in the common useage, meaning someone whose ideology is prochoice.\n\nFirst, I am not stupid.  The premise that I am stupid because of my political ideology, well, bodes poorly on you and not on mainstream conservatives.  Of course you can't spell the word why so you probably aren't that intelligent yourself, but I digress.\n\nWhy am I pro-choice? Specifically pro choice is someone who wants to see abortion remain legal in America because of many reasons.  My reason is what if the life of the mother is at risk or in danger, and in a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision two weeks ago, the New Hampshire one, they decided that the state can not restrict an abortion for a woman in the middle of a medical emergency.  Are you saying Antonin Scalia is stupid?  Are you saying Justice Clarence Thomas is stupid?  They are, in this case,  "pro-choice" or "liberal" in that they weren't absolute "pro-life" a position that would have required them to say the state may restrict the abortion, stricly speaking prolife would be a position wanting all abortion in America illegal.\n\nMainstream America isn't for this at all, we want restrictions yes, but not illegal for all cases.\n\nAs to the position of partial birth abortion I opppose it because it puts the mothers life in danger, and if she wanted one, she should have gotten one earlier in the pregnancy.\n\nAs to the issue of death penalty. I oppose it for two reasons,  one the risk of killing someone who did not commit the crime.  We are all for the death penalty in a perfect system. We don't have a perfect system.  The second reason is it clogs up the courts and its years of appeals and money spent by the state to argue for this revenge.  If you put a man in jail for life,  is it not as good to society that the evil criminal is off the streets?  Why do you feel you need revenge so badly.\n\nSo the the next point of gay marriage.  I in fact oppose gay marriage, but am for civil union.  I contend that I as a man married to my wife, a woman, should just as easily have the right to get civil union with my brother, and thus entitle my brother to the health care benefits of my employer if I chose to.  I would like to ask why does religion have to be the standard. Some religions entitle multiple wifes.  Recently in Utah a man had 3 wives.  That is 2006 in Utah a man had three wives its in the news he did so his religion, a Christian denomination, married him.  So then there are Christian denominations on the east coast of America that have married same gender couples.\n\nThe state therefor, government, must not have marriage liscenses any more, and in fact, allow people, same gender or otherwise - to have civil union.\n\n\n\nThe other point of liberal is "high taxes."  While I am not a "fiscal liberal" I consider myself a "fiscal conservative" I question my government's current policies of lowering taxes, but not lowering spending.  So I would argue that the current spending is good, we need more spending. The cutting of medicare and student loans will harm society. So I am against making the Bush tax cuts permanent.  This means I am for "higher taxes", but the crisis of the debt spiraling out of control, is a grave risk, one that Chairman Greenspand said last August was going to be a problem. He said something to that effect before Congress, encouraging them to stop the "deficiet spending" or at least bring it down a lot.  Are you saying that Chairman Greenspan is liberal, and that he is stupid?\n\nSo according to you, and you can't spell the word why, so you aren't striking me as super intelligent,  that Scalia, and Thomas, and Greenspan, and Christian demoninations, are all liberal and stupid.\n\nI contend that the idea of "liberal" was
1056520
Liberals don't respect the law of unintended consequences.  they are slow to see a dicator coming.  They adore creating classes of citizenship.  They flunk.\n\nConservatives, now, are a party that insists on using government to achieve RELIGIOUS goals.  They are the religious party.  They flunk.\n\nSo I'm a hard-currency, limited-government federalist and anti-utopian.  When Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were alive, this was called "conservatism."  In the 19th century, it was called "liberalism" and some people still call it "classical liberalism."  Nowadays, some are calling it being a "militant moderate."  At the root, it is "Lockean empiricism."
797973
Without the spin, "observers" say that Chief Justice Earl Warren was a liberal. In his years as an elected official in California, he often ran not only on the Republican Party ticket, but he was also nominated by the Democrats and the Progressive Party, too. (California allowed for "cross-filing:" being the nominee of more than one party.)\n\n"As  judge, Warren does not rank with the leading legal craftsmen, nor will he be noted for his mastery of the common law. But he never pretended to be a judicial technician. Instead, he was a 'result-oriented' judge, who used his power to secure the outcome he deemed right in the cases before his Court. Using his authority to the utmost, he never hesitated to do whatever he thought necessary to translate his own conceptions of fairness and justice into the law of the land.\n"For Chief Justice Warren, the technical issues traditionally fought over in constitutional cases always seemed to merge into larger questions of fairness. His great concern was expressed in the question he so often asked when the cases were argued before the Court: 'But was it fair?' His conception of fairness was the key to most of the Warren criminal law decisions. When government lawyers tried to justify decisions by traditional legal arguments, Warren would interject, 'Why did you treat him this way?' When the chief justice concluded that an individual had been treated in an unfair manner, he would not let legal rules stand in the way in his effort to remedy the situation.\n"In reaching what he considered the fair result, Warren was not restrained by the demands of precedent, for he considered principle more important. The major decisions of the Warren Court overruled decisions of earlier courts. ..."
1144687
The left are considered liberals. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected.\n\nThe right are considered conservative. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society.
53909
I classify myself as a "moderate", but am far more Conservative then I am Liberal.\n\nI believe in law and order.  I believe in a strong defense.  I strongly oppose racism, and any other form of discrimination.\n\nWhen it comes to politics, I refuse to follow either party in lockstep.  I make up my own mind, based on personal belief and conscience.  I do not let attachments to a "political party" determine my opinion on the topics of the day.\n\nI think the largest reason that "Liberals" attack "Conservatives" is guilt.  They also tend to have a very simplistic point of view of the world.  To them, everything is black or white.  And since they are "right", everybody who does not agree with them is "wrong".\n\nAnd to take that a step further, everything Conservatives believe in must be wrong, and opposed.  This is not a logical point of view, and most of their reactions show that.  This is why they can fully support every military action that Bill Clinton took, and oppose every action that George Bush took.\n\nAnd that they can say at one time that being in the military is not a requirement for being President, then turn right around and call Bush a "Draft Dodger", even though he served in the National Guard.  It is illogical and does not make sense, but that does not matter.
306132
jesus was a liberal.\nliberals fight and die in wars...they are patriots you won't corrupt.
697976
No, there are some Conservatives, like me.  Habeas Corpus is one of the most important parts of our legal system, it leads to innocent until proven guilty.  It was one of the reasons I voted for a moderate democrat.  I agree with part of the legislation that enemy combatants should not be tried publicly, but this suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of individual rights.\n\nHow about this scenario?  If you are associated with someone that the government merely suspects of terrorist activities, they can use the law to imprison you, until you produce evidence that indicates your associates of the activities.  It can be used as a new form of McCarthyism.  Until you produce they evidence we want, right or wrong, you can be held.  Guilty until you prove yourself innocent or prove someone else guilty.  Basically, unconstitutional.\n\nAnd some people say, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but that is not a good comparison.  The Civil War would have ended, sometime, but the "War on Terror" is indefinite.  They have suspended one of our rights, indefinitely.  And the reason I am against it is I am a conservative, who believes in the Constitution, unlike some Republicans.
832696
by definition\na liberal is "on the left" and wants a bigger government and more government spending and programs.  A welfare state and care by the government is encouraged\na conservative "on the right" wants a smaller government and less government spending and programs.  Independence from government is encouraged\nBoth have problems and both have contradictions (republican conservative congress had record spending)\n\n**in response to above, Hitler was right-wing.  this doesn't reflect on any American politics today.  Not all liberals support pro-choice.  Supporting pro-choice is not supporting abortion, it is supporting an option for women who make mistakes.
175933
I have read both articles before.  censorship is traditionally a conservative idea.  liberalism usually takes a strong pro-individual stance on most social issues, including censorship.  One of the central tenets of liberalism is the rights of the individual against social traditions.  conservativism has typically taken a group centered (community, nation, etc.) stance on social issues, arguing that the rights of the individual are subservient to the desires of the group.  I'm not trying to argue for either approach, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.  But, censorship is traditionally a conservative position.  \n\nThis being said, there are instances of liberal censorship.  In some cases, as in the one you cite, the censorship is consistent with liberal principles (separation of church and state, the right of individuals to be free of religious coercion).  Liberals may wish to censor speech (or expression) which is seen as unduly infringing on the rights of individuals (as in this case or in the case of hate speech.)  \n\nI would say that censorship exists to some degree in both philosophies, but it has traditionally been used more often by conservativism, due to conservativism's preferrence of the group over the individual.
529582
I am a red blooded conservative.\nLong live the Constitution!!!
762324
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and James Madison were Liberals. John Adams was a Conservative.
793342
Liberal, in a sense means free, therefore; liberals are those in government who believe more in states rights and less in a  central government. The lines today are skewed and there is no longer an extreme difference between a liberal and a republican. There are liberal republicans and conservative republicans, and just as well there are liberal democrats and conservative democrats. The difference you should be looking for is between liberals and conservatives not liberals and republicans. Some may argue though, and those who argue are truly conservative republicans. In essence the conservative issues are pro life as opposed to pro choice, centralized government as opposed to states rights, opposition to gay marriage and basically any view to an issue that adheres to the way things have been done in the past, or in other words, views that are opposed to change. Lliberal views are just the opposite, those that welcome change and leave more choice in the direction of the country to the people.
315709
Marx wasnt a conservative, communism is extreme liberalism\n\n\nand yes it is