Author Topic: Massachusetts (Read 2523 times)

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:53:22 AM »

In addition, I think I linked to this page before. If not, my apologies. Scroll down and you'll see data pertaining to Supreme Court justices from 1937 to 1994 broken down by issue area. Here's a direct link to some of the data in question.

Clearly liberalism in both civil liberties and ecnomics depend on ideology. However, conservative members of the Court, particulary in the last 20 years, remain somewhat conservative to strongly conservative on economic issues and very strongly conservative on civil liberties issues. Give them a majority and what do you get?

-- Todd/Leviathn

Frogm4n · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:55:42 AM »

Your not understanding martlet. Conservititve judges tend to be 'activists' when it comes to economic ruleings, while liberal judges will be activists when it comes to social issues( which in turn get more publicity).

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #32 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:57:00 AM »

It seems Marlet and I disagree about the definition of judicial activism. Fair enough. I would consider activism to be any judicial activity that substantially alters the status quo. Activism need not run contrary to popular opinion, and indeed it often coincides with it. Marlet, do you deny that the Warren or Burger Courts substantially altered the judicial landscape? Do you deny that the Rehnquist Court did the same in retrospect?

-- Todd/Leviathn

Martlet · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:01:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It seems Marlet and I disagree about the definition of judicial activism. Fair enough. I would consider activism to be any judicial activity that substantially alters the status quo. Activism need not run contrary to popular opinion, and indeed it often coincides with it. Marlet, do you deny that the Warren or Burger Courts substantially altered the judicial landscape? Do you deny that the Rehnquist Court did the same in retrospect?

-- Todd/Leviathn

Not in precedent. I think you are correct in stating we disagree on how judicial activism is defined.

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:03:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your not understanding martlet. Conservititve judges tend to be 'activists' when it comes to economic ruleings, while liberal judges will be activists when it comes to social issues( which in turn get more publicity).

I believe granting writs of certiorari also varies by court. A conservative, activist court tends to review more economic cases than civil liberties cases. I believe Spaeth has a dataset along those lines, but I admit to not being very familiar with it.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #35 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:12:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Not in precedent.

The funny thing about precedent is that justices, both liberal and conservative, tend to choose different cases that support their particular lines of reasoning. In both cases, they offer precedents supporting their positions. I'm sure the justices in Massachusetts referred to many equal protection cases when coming to their decision. The law is really so nebulous and broad that any ideology or position draws support from some form of precedent or historical fact.

That's kind of a frightening thought, but it bears out in just about every Supreme Court case you read. Both those in the majority and those in the minority offer arguments supported by substantial amounts of case evidence.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Martlet · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:17:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The funny thing about precedent is that justices, both liberal and conservative, tend to choose different cases that support their particular lines of reasoning. In both cases, they offer precedents supporting their positions. I'm sure the justices in Massachussetts referred to many equal protection cases when coming to their decision. The law is really so nebulous and broad that any ideology or position draws support from some form of precedent or historical fact.

That's kind of a frightening thought, but it bears out in just about every Supreme Court case you read. Both those in the majority and those in the minority offer arguments supported by substantial amounts of case evidence.

-- Todd/Leviathn

I agree. Again, I think the meat of our disagreement is our interpretation of judicial activism.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:57:23 AM »

well at least Lord Dulf Vador can go to Mass. and have his star wars theme wedding were they both dress as storm troopers.

OOPS did that sound too gay?

just a joke not personal attack

Sikboy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:08:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I'm not going to run a data analysis on this data for you;

Data analysis isn't even real, it's just something you liberal eggheads cooked up to make the rest of us feel stupid.

-Sik

Frogm4n · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:04:00 PM »

for some reason i was listening to rush on the way to school today. he was talking about this issue, and damn he has absolutely no idea how our legal system works in america.

mietla · « **Reply #40 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:05:46 PM »

what did he say?

Frogm4n · « **Reply #41 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:25:56 PM »

That the voters of mass never voted for a bill allowing gay marriage. And that if a law is passed denying a gay marrige the judges will order the arrest of the people who passed the law.

Now im not going to explain how extremely stupid that statement is. I am going to assume you know enough about your own country to figure it out.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2004, 03:41:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
That the voters of mass never voted for a bill allowing gay marriage. And that if a law is passed denying a gay marrige the judges will order the arrest of the people who passed the law.

Now im not going to explain how extremely stupid that statement is. I am going to assume you know enough about your own country to figure it out.

yup this is stupid. yet another example of judges creating laws that they are not constitionally allowed to create

Frogm4n · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2004, 03:53:59 PM »

okay gunslinger you just admited your ignorance of american law.
thankyou!

Kieran · « **Reply #44 on:** February 05, 2004, 04:57:46 PM »

Frogman, apparently you don't understand what's happened. The SCoM has declared the assembly will construct law within 6 months providing for gay marriage, or the SCoM will do so itself. Does that sound right according to our Constitution?

Whew, for a second I thought it was judicial activists legislating from the bench. Or at least, that's what is sounds like when judges tell lawmakers to make a law, tells them exactly how to do it, and threatens to do so itself if the assembly doesn't comply.