Massachusetts

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
lol i cant believe this will end up being an issue in the next election. Hilarious. bush is just pandering to the hard core right wing voters. most americans could care less about this issue. If it dosnt affect me why should i care if two girls get married. they are not asking me to marry them.

That's complete fallacy.  In MA, a notoriously liberal state, the latest zogby poll showed 69% of the voting population wants an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Of that 69%, it's split about 50/50 for and against.   While I can't speak to what "most Americans" care about, the poll indicates that "most MA voters" do in fact care.

[Frogm4n]

Its an issue that shouldnt become an admendment. It is these people constitutional right to proclaim they are married according to that court. I would rather see what other courts have to say about it, and see if they support their arguement.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
I don't see where you have any "prepoderance of the evidence" to support your claim, though.   You suggest liberal activist judges tend to rule more on civil liberty issues, then you provide information in an attempt to support that claim.  I've yet to see the "preponderance of the evidence" to ground the same argument with conservatives.

I'm not going to run a data analysis on this data for you; I certainly don't have time for that.  You asked for the data, and I provided you with links to datasets and to scholars who would provide data that you can refute or agree with as much as you'd like.  When I find the actual complete dataset from Segal and Spaeth, if it's publically available, I'll link you to that as well.  Run some analyses on it and come to your own conclusions.  Analyses by Segal, Spaeth, Epstein, and others conclude that conservative activists and liberal activists tend to gravitate (though not exclusively) toward different issue domains.  They nonetheless remain activist.

Paging through _The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model_, I came across a table on page 309 that fits along with this reasoning.  In cases classified as "state, anti-union" from 1981 to 1989, conservative justices overwhelming voted in a conservative manner (Rehnquist voted ideologically conservative on 100% of those cases; Scalia 100%; O'Connor 80%; Brennan and Marshall 0%).  Make of it what you will.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[LePaul]

You mean the same kooky judges that are trying to strip God from the Pledge of Allegiance are going to loose their uber powers...and have to uphold laws and not redefine the world into their own vision?  WOW...  

[Martlet]

Sorry to ruffle your feathers.  You made the claim "proponderance of the evidence", so I assumed you actually had some "evidence".

Silly me.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Its an issue that shouldnt become an admendment. It is these people constitutional right to proclaim they are married according to that court. I would rather see what other courts have to say about it, and see if they support their arguement.

So, citizens shouldn't have the right to amend the constitution?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry to ruffle your feathers.  You made the claim "proponderance of the evidence", so I assumed you actually had some "evidence".

Reading is not your strong suit obviously.

I have provided the name of a book and the names of numerous scholars who have written on this matter.  I could link you to journal articles as well if you'd like, though they may not be publically available without subscriptions to the journals in question.  I have described datasets and findings and linked you to what I have been able to find available on the various websites, and I have offered to link you to further datasets.  I have summarized the findings of court researchers in this area as well.

If you're expecting a literature review at this point, you're not going to get one.  I've provided plenty of information to draw your own conclusions.  You, however, have contributed... well, as usual, nothing.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Frogm4n]

They should have the right, but i just think this issue is silly. Just a personal opinion. The question is will there be enough votes to admend it. I cant remember the numbers exactly but it takes a good majority of the people to be able to do it.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Reading is not your strong suit obviously.

I've provided substantiation for every claim I've made.  I'm still waiting for yours.  I guess when you have none, it's easier to hurl insults and stamp your feet.

[Dead Man Flying]

This looks like it could be useful.

Harold Spaeth provides a wealth of data on his website.  These are all in SPSS portable format.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
I've provided substantiation for every claim I've made.  I'm still waiting for yours.  I guess when you have none, it's easier to hurl insults and stamp your feet.

Substantiated what claims?  You haven't claimed anything other than to attempt to poke and prod at a massive amount of evidence I've provided for you to browse through.

Sorry, I don't stamp my feet over a bulletin board.  Again, the data is all there for you.  By all means use it or simply claim victory and ignore it.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Substantiated what claims?  You haven't claimed anything other than to attempt to poke and prod at a massive amount of evidence I've provided for you to browse through.

Sorry, I don't stamp my feet over a bulletin board.  Again, the data is all there for you.  By all means use it or simply claim victory and ignore it.

-- Todd/Leviathn

You've provided a wealth of evidence.  Unfortunately, none of it substantiates your claim of conservative judge activists.  Is that your new tactic?  Bury someone in information that proves nothing, in hopes they'll lose interest digging?  If you have such a "propoderance of evidence", how about just point out a few specific instances?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
You've provided a wealth of evidence.  Unfortunately, none of it substantiates your claim of conservative judge activists.  Is that your new tactic?  Bury someone in information that proves nothing, in hopes they'll lose interest digging?  If you have such a "propoderance of evidence", how about just point out a few specific instances?

My "new" tactic?  I'm providing you with all of the information you need to draw your own conclusions.  It's unfortunate that you don't feel the need to look at it yourself before drawing the conclusion that it "proves nothing;" even more unfortunate that you would lose interest in doing so.

I even pointed you to a specific table in the Segal and Spaeth book that substantiates a cleavage between conservative and liberal members of the court on states rights issues.  If a majority of court members hold conservative ideologies, you're going to encounter overwhelmingly conservative outcomes.  If you argue that somehow conservative justices provide a more accurate constitutional interpretation than liberal justices, you're going to need to substantiate that with proof of your own.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Frogm4n]

You see martlet has is beliefs and wont stray from them. Its called military brain washing.
No critical thinking  here sir!

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
You see martlet has is beliefs and wont stray from them. Its called military brain washing.
No critical thinking  here sir!

Yeah, that's what it is.  Just like your "most American's" spiel.

My point is, Conservative judges and Conservative rulings does not a judicial activist make.   We aren't speaking about ruling slant, we're speaking of activism.  You said there was a "proponderance of the evidence".  I haven't seen it.  I didn't see a single instance of it in the information you provided.  If it's there, point it out.