Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crowMAW on May 28, 2005, 08:51:38 AM
-
How do we get these idiots off the freaking bench?! I don't understand how they can just ignore the Constitution like this. Someone get a rope, cuz this guy deserves the DeLay treatment.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
-
"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones,
yea that's pretty messed up. The judge in question has no business determining what religion these people should or should not practice. Unless it was proven in court that said religion was a danger to the child (cultism, human sacrifice, ect ect.) this guy shouldnt be sticking the states nose in it.
-
Ya cant get them off the bench, but ya CAN make sure more of them dont arrive, which is, to vote for CONSERVATIVE senators (take note I didnt say Republicans)
-
A public school teacher can lose his or her job for teaching religion to kids, but a judge, thoroughly trained in law, can force it upon a family and get away with it
eskimo
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ya cant get them off the bench, but ya CAN make sure more of them dont arrive, which is, to vote for CONSERVATIVE senators (take note I didnt say Republicans)
Got a link as to the judges politics? I heard he was a rightwing radical :)
Please explain to me how you figure that conservative judges dont make bad rulings?
There are activists on both sides.
If you want America back then vote moderate.
-
Thread Subtopic:
Is it better to have judges "re-elected" IE voted for after a term?
OR
Is it better to have them appointed by elected officials until they retire?
Both have their pro/cons I'm curious what you guys think.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ya cant get them off the bench, but ya CAN make sure more of them dont arrive, which is, to vote for CONSERVATIVE senators (take note I didnt say Republicans)
What would that accomplish? The judge is reported to be a right wing christian convservative Republican. Sounds to me, your idea would just put a bunch of these like minded idiots on the bench.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
What would that accomplish? The judge is reported to be a right wing christian convservative Republican. Sounds to me, your idea would just put a bunch of these like minded idiots on the bench.
ack-ack
no there is a difference. Were as I am conservative, I beleive in the constitution above all else......ok that doesnt make sense either but not all conservatives are like this guy. Most beleive in the US constitution.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
How do we get these idiots off the freaking bench?!
Ya know how? Ya stop appointing them.
The Republicans have held the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, and their appointees dominate most all of the circuit courts.
As if it needs repeating; they control the White House, the Senate, The Congress, and the Judiciary.
This cry of "liberal judicial activism" is nothing more than another myth, unsubstantiated by any evidence, and propagated to further the goal of the complete capitulation of any dissent. They have been getting virtually all of their judges appointed, and are set to reload the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia running the show.
So what exactly is your problem?
Oh woe is me. Repeat ad nauseam. Again - five of the last seven administrations? Republican. Your constant victimization whine is wearing thin and doesn't stand up to even the laziest bit of scrutiny.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ya know how? Ya stop appointing them.
The Republicans have held the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, and their appointees dominate most all of the circuit courts.
As if it needs repeating; they control the White House, the Senate, The Congress, and the Judiciary.
This cry of "liberal judicial activism" is nothing more than another myth, unsubstantiated by any evidence, and propagated to further the goal of the complete capitulation of any dissent. They have been getting virtually all of their judges appointed, and are set to reload the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia running the show.
So what exactly is your problem?
Oh woe is me. Repeat ad nauseam. Again - five of the last seven administrations? Republican. Your constant victimization whine is wearing thin and doesn't stand up to even the laziest bit of scrutiny.
wow point out ONE republican activist judge and all the liberal ones just disappear???????
I can't see even the MOST conservative people on this board agreeing with his decision.....THATS the difference right there.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Got a link as to the judges politics?
He is Republican...can't say how conservative he is other than opinion based on this ruling, which is pretty damn conservative.
Search for his name...he's on the election roles:
http://www.i69tour.org/stateraces.html
-
HA HE'S A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.i69tour.org/stateraces.html
Democratic
Cale Bradford Residential:
Day Phone:
1527 Brewster Road Indianapolis, IN 46260 Email: Mailing:
( 317) 327-4534
1527 Brewster Road Indianapolis, IN 46260
Date Filed: 1/ 30/ 02
ok This is a farse....I made it up he's not really a Democrat he's a republican and I am not proud of him
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow point out ONE republican activist judge and all the liberal ones just disappear???????
I can't see even the MOST conservative people on this board agreeing with his decision.....THATS the difference right there.
"Activist judge," as a term, is a construct of the right wing. It did not evolve from the left. It was created by the right in order to attack those in the judiciary that don't see things their way. It's that simple.
The problem is that most in the judiciary are conservative appointees. Even the Schiavo case - over which this recent spat over the judiciary arose - was handled by a majority of conservative judges.
There is a segment of the population that are less concerned by case by case examples of what they would consider to be activism, than they are about installing a judiciary that will do its absolute bidding, without exception. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
HA HE'S A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.i69tour.org/stateraces.html
ok This is a farse....I made it up he's not really a Democrat he's a republican and I am not proud of him
Ha !! Hes a democrat. That doesnt mean he is a liberal.
Just like being a republican doesnt mean you are a christian fanatic.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ha !! Hes a democrat. That doesnt mean he is a liberal.
Just like being a republican doesnt mean you are a christian fanatic.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
In GENERAL, ACTivist is given to describe a judge who manages to put his/her personal preferences into the ruling, perhaps more so than the law would allow--conservatives tend to make rulings based on the constitution--and how the Founders intended it to be..NOT the premise that that constitution is a living, breathing, document--if it had always been interpreted as such, this country would have poofed some time ago
-
Originally posted by bj229r
In GENERAL, ACTivist is given to describe a judge who manages to put his/her personal preferences into the ruling, perhaps more so than the law would allow--conservatives tend to make rulings based on the constitution--and how the Founders intended it to be..NOT the premise that that constitution is a living, breathing, document--if it had always been interpreted as such, this country would have poofed some time ago
In general, "activist" is used to describe a judge whose rulings they do not agree with. In general, the idea that conservatives are strict constructionists that do not interpret the constitution as if it were a living, breathing document is a myth. In general, there is a jihad being waged on the courts by conservatives. In general, the courts are conservative.
-
Originally posted by Nash
In general, "activist" is used to describe a judge whose rulings they do not agree with. In general, the idea that conservatives are strict constructionists that do not interpret the constitution as if it were a living, breathing document is a myth. In general, there is a jihad being waged on the courts by conservatives. In general, the courts are conservative.
The biggest changes to the laws of our society in recent years have come from the COURTS, NOT our elected Senators/House members--abortion..gay marriage, to name a couple---the left doesnt generally get what it wants through the election process, so they get it through the courts..how many ballot initiatives have been passed in CA or AZ which have have tossed out by the liberal 9th Circuit court of Appeals? ACLU goes judge shopping, voters are rendered moot-- This was from a commencement speech by a Mass. supreme court justice-- who authored the opinion declaring same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.: (Newsmax.com) reported that Justice Margaret Marshall said, "Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension." Marshall equated criticism of "judicial activism" to a challenge to judicial independence and an effort "to skew public debate or to intimidate judges."
Where in the Constitution federal or state of Massachusetts did this lady divine the notion that appellate courts are to take it upon themselves to set policy?
-
From http://atlanta.craigslist.org/pol/70638781.html: (http://atlanta.craigslist.org/pol/70638781.html)
"Conservative politicians insist that courts should defer to the democratically elected branches, but conservative judges do not seem to be listening. The Supreme Court's conservative majority regularly overturns laws passed by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The court has even established a bizarre series of hoops Congress must jump through to pass a law protecting Americans' 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. Congress must prove in many cases that the law it passed is "congruent" and "proportional" to the harm being addressed. Even John Noonan Jr., an appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan, has said these new rules - which Justice Scalia eagerly embraces - reduce Congress to the level of an "administrative agency."
So I would invite you to answer your own question regarding the above.
"The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism. "
Like I said, those (and by those I mean, lets not kid ourselves, conservatives) that attack the courts for activism would have it both ways, while trying to appear like they strictly interpret the constitution. It's hogwash.
Why this recent fight? Why now?
The American Taliban got a cold slap in the face when it was realized that their will in the Schiavo case could not triumph, despite emergency intervention by the Republican controlled United States Congress (care to point out the Constitutionality in that, by the way?). Who was at fault? Who had the audacity to interrupt God's will? Why, the courts, of course.
So here we are. And despite the courts being dominated by Republican judges, it was the courts who had the ability to thwart God's will and it is the courts who must be made to acquiesce. Nothing short of complete capitulation to their theocratic agenda is or ever will be acceptable.
So, modelled on the attacks on the liberally biased media (yeah, right), there is a new front in the war and its name is law. A bogeyman is constructed, namely activism, and it's applied without any sense of hypocrisy to just those people whose brand of activism they don't agree with.
I call BS.
-
nash... what courts are you talking about? Certainly not the ones in California wher the radical liberal courts such as the 9th consistently thwart the will of the voters.
The judges in California make the aclu look like die hard conservatives.
and.. the constitution may be a living breathing document but it is no more "prgressive" and open to interpretationm than the 10 commandments... I don't think "our" constitution should be a fad like disco or nose rings.
lazs
-
Vote libertarian!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The judges in California make the aclu look like die hard conservatives. - lazs
And the Judges in, say, Texas make Fox news look like PBS. Or something. What's your point?
That you don't think that the "constitution should be a fad like disco or nose rings?" Well nobody is arguing that it should be, and it is perhaps a bit (very) misdirected in that liberals are no more guilty of the interpretation than are the conservatives. It's only when one side doesn't like the ruling that they screech "liberal activism!"
The conservatives, browbeaten by the American Taliban, are attempting to "reform" the federal judiciary. DeLay threatens to use the power of impeachment to reign-in the judges. Cornyn tries to explain away the violence against judges by saying it's the frustration with judicial activism. They point out that the courts may be defunded if they don't fall in line. Others propose that the courts can be disenfranchised, simply by congress saying that it no longer recognizes them.
To look at this recent spat as a rational, reasonable attempt to reform any deficiencies the judiciary may have would be akin to wearing blinders. This isn't a rational debate. It's a scorched earth policy.
It is being fueled by the religious right, made into a Jihad by the politicians whose political careers live or die by their willingness and ability to appease them. There is no middle ground, and no stopping point to be found short of the total triumph of their ideology.
Again, the courts are no more liberally activist than they are conservatively activist. "Liberal activism" is just a cute way of saying "My way or the highway."
-
Sniper Practice.
...just something to think about.
-
American Taliban? Religious right? Jihad? Your own words?
That doesn't sound like you at all, if you don't mind my saying Nash.
Les
-
Sure it's a stretch to equate the fundamentalist right-wing Christians with the Taliban. But you don't have to look very hard to find the simularities either. It's an exageration, and nobody seems to mind them when the words sound like "left-wing-dope-smoking-tree-hugging-anti-american-socialist-traitors" whose respect for the constitution goes no deeper than that of a fad like nose rings or disco, do they?
When has anyone said "excuse me, but I don't smoke dope." Or "excuse me, but I don't hug trees"? It's become an accepted trait of the discourse and frankly, it would seem that playing nice is about as useful as a fart in a spacecraft, considering the absolute unwillingness of that contigent to accept nothing short of everything and the means through which they are trying to achieve it.
And... it has a certain ring to it, I think. :)
-
really? seems that it is the left who are unwilling to draw the line at any abuse of power. Like I say.. we vote a proposistion in and they tell us it was not legal. If a lefty one like free swimfins for Mexicans comes up they uphold it. Seems that they should stay out of the will of the voter except before an amendment is passed.
Perhaps it is well that "we" (Americans) have states.. my example of California and yours of Texas seem to bear this out. I really would like to leave California and live in Texas for instance. I am sure that there are a few in Texas like RPM say. who would fit right in in California.
lazs
-
A judge may make a decision according to what mood he's in that day. At least with the legislature some consensus must take place. It is patently unfair for one judge to decide irrevocably what happens to affect the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits what our Congress can do. The constitution grants legislative bodies of the States authority over what is not specifically mentioned as powers of the Federal govt.
There was a civil war fought over this. Though there has been a balance achieved in this country concerning civil rights, it was achieved through savvy politicians and not omnipotent judges. I think judges have too much power when they interpret the constitution according to changing standards in morality. This is why the Ten Commandments are important symbols of wise judgement, as they were given by God and are unchanging through time. I add that back in biblical times, judgement was much more liberally interpreted by religious judges than by those appointed by kings.
Les
-
can't we all just get along?
forgot what this post is about but I am drunk and really chill.
peace out1./11
-
Speaking of interpreting the constitution--reminds me of yet more judicial activisim--there IS NOTHING in constitution about 'separation of church and state'---it merely states that there shall no no 'state-established religion'--a perfectly reasonable idea, as that was why they left England to begin with. Now, a government building cant have a fediddlein X-mas tree on its property or the ACLU will get them--WHERE did it say that a MENTION of religion constituted MANDATING religion?
-
I wouldn't brag about coming over on the Mayflower. The way I heard it, the Puritans were kicked out of England as neer-do-wells. They didn't come over here to escape tyranny, but were exiled here.
Les
-
Originally posted by Nash
"The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism. "
I call BS.
This better explains the FLA debacle:
Phyllis Schlafly (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
January 3, 2001
Separating spin from reality in Bush vs. Gore
Al Gore's supporters and their allies in the media continue to falsify the facts about Florida in order to try to delegitimize George W. Bush's election. To make sure that spin does not replace reality, let's examine some of these myths. Myth: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore proves that, contrary to their oft-proclaimed opposition to judicial activism, conservatives really favor it when it suits their partisan causes.
In fact, someone (thank you, U.S. Supreme Court) had to stop the runaway Florida Supreme Court that gave us two textbook cases on the evils of judicial activism. That Florida court tried to rewrite Florida election law to assist Gore by overruling lower Florida courts, changing statutory deadlines and creating new recount procedures.
Myth: Because of their customary support of states' rights, Justice Antonin Scalia and the other Supreme Court conservatives were inconsistent and partisan in overturning the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law.
Scalia is a legal textualist who consistently prefers to rely on the actual statutory text rather than judicial interpretations, political intent or penumbrae. The various Gore recount schemes were clearly far outside what the Constitution and the statute provide, and it was absolutely consistent for Scalia and the other majority justices to reverse such an unprecedented judicial rewrite of the law.
Myth: John Paul Stevens attacked the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court as being partisan.
Contrary to the spin added by most commentators, Stevens' much-quoted criticism was about the Florida judges, not the U.S. Supreme Court justices. What Stevens actually said was that the loser in this election is "the nation's confidence in the (state) judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Stevens is absolutely right; we don't have confidence in judges deciding an election. The nation, indeed, was shocked that the high Florida court could act in such a blatantly partisan manner in trying to throw the election to Gore.
Myth: The U.S. Supreme Court was sharply divided 5-4 over whether the Florida Supreme Court did the right thing.
In fact, all nine Justices reversed the first Florida Supreme Court decision. In the second U.S. Supreme Court decision, none of the justices expressed much support for what the Florida Supreme Court did.
Although the majority reversing the second Florida Supreme Court decision was 5 to 4, the dissenters all expressed concern about the varying counting standards. The most positive comment about the Florida Supreme Court was Stevens saying, "It did what courts do."
Myth: The Supreme Court held that the Florida statutory standard for manual examination of ballots violates equal protection rights.
Even the Florida Supreme Court repeated this myth. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court made no ruling against the statutory counting methods, but only ruled that the judicially ordered 11th-hour partial manual recount violated constitutional equal protection rights.
Myth: Gore offered to have a manual recount of the entire state of Florida.
In fact, neither Gore nor his lawyers ever asked for a statewide manual recount of any kind. Gore did once suggest that he meet with Bush and make some sort of private deal for a recount, but Gore's lawyers never asked the election officials or the courts for a statewide recount.
Myth: Bush was hypocritical to oppose counting dimpled chads in Florida after he had pushed through a law in Texas to count them.
Three counties in Texas use punch cards and the law does say that dimpled chads can be counted in some circumstances. But, the law was passed in 1993, before Bush was governor and, according to a Washington Post investigation, no other state counts dimpled chads.
Myth: The Florida standard for a legal vote is based on the intent of the voter.
In fact, a legal vote in Florida is one that is counted by the statutory counting methods in effect. The statute mentions intent of the voter only in cases where a damaged ballot is not machine readable or if a machine malfunctions.
Myth: Not all legal votes were counted.
In fact, the so-called undervote ballots were machine-read twice and all lawful votes were recorded. No actual machine error was demonstrated; the machines functioned as intended.
Myth: Gore never got the manual recounts that he was entitled to under Florida law.
Florida law does not require manual recounts. It only says that a manual recount is one of three alternatives in the protest phase in case the counting machines malfunction.
Myth: Gore was entitled to contest the election if a more accurate counting method could be found.
Gore was entitled to sue in the Florida circuit court to "correct an alleged wrong," but Gore never alleged any wrongdoing. He only had a theory that another counting methodology might have been better for him in some cases, but that is no argument for a judge to change the methodology; at best, it might be an argument for the Legislature to revise the law before the next election.
Myth: Bush delayed the proceedings until time ran out for a recount.
The biggest delay was the 12-day certification delay that was imposed by the Florida Supreme Court at Gore's request. That delay, as well as the fact that Gore had no real case, prevented Gore from completing his protest of the election.
©2000 Copley News Service
-
Originally posted by lazs2
really? seems that it is the left who are unwilling to draw the line at any abuse of power. Like I say.. we vote a proposistion in and they tell us it was not legal. lazs
Their job is to decide whether laws are legal. But of course you knew that.
If the courts decide a law is illegal then the legislature can make a new law. It is part of the checks and balance of our system. In general our system if fine. The few fanatics are making it look bad.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I wouldn't brag about coming over on the Mayflower. The way I heard it, the Puritans were kicked out of England as neer-do-wells. They didn't come over here to escape tyranny, but were exiled here.
Les
Man those are strange history books you got a hold of. They were seperatists not puritans. lol and they werent kicked out or exiled, they left to holland and then came back to england on their way through to America.
While this doughty trader and hundreds like her etched their wakes in the sea lanes of northern Europe, the still young Church of England had seen the development of various schismatic groups who considered Anglicanism more Popish than Protestant. Puritans believed Anglicanism could be reformed from within, while Separatists believed in neither the authority of the Church of England nor, in spiritual matters, the monarch as head of the Church. In 1607, several groups of Separatists managed to move their "unlawful religious gatherings" to the Netherlands, but ten years later they were eager to settle in the New World, under English Crown, if not religious, authority.
Direct appeals to the Company for Virginia, which had established the Jamestown colony in 1609, came to nothing. Mayflower's charter was eventually arranged through the Merchant Adventurers, which included representatives of the Virginia Company, the London Company, and the Plymouth Company, all of which could make land grants in the Americas. The dissenters worked most closely with Thomas Weston and John Pierce, who had secured a patent from the Virginia Company to settle within its domains, in "the neighborhood of Hudsons River in the northern part of Virginia."
The Separatists sailed from Leyden in Speedwell for a rendezvous with Mayflower at Southampton towards the end of July 1620, and the ships sailed in company on August 5, with ninety Pilgrims aboard Mayflower and thirty more in Speedwell. The latter was in no condition to make a transatlantic passage, and after her leaks forced the two ships into first Dartmouth and then Plymouth, the crews realized they could use only Captain Jones's larger ship. Overcrowding was alleviated somewhat when about eighteen or twenty of the company decided to stay in England, and Mayflower finally sailed from Plymouth on September 6 with 50 men, 20 women, and 34 children, about half of them Separatists and the others members of the Church of England. (William Bradford was the first person to refer to the Separatists as Pilgrims, in 1630, by which he meant only that they had traveled in and to foreign lands. The first child born to a woman in the group after landing at Cape Cod was named Peregrine, or "pilgrim.")
-
Originally posted by Leslie
A judge may make a decision according to what mood he's in that day. At least with the legislature some consensus must take place. It is patently unfair for one judge to decide irrevocably what happens to affect the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits what our Congress can do. The constitution grants legislative bodies of the States authority over what is not specifically mentioned as powers of the Federal govt.
There was a civil war fought over this. Though there has been a balance achieved in this country concerning civil rights, it was achieved through savvy politicians and not omnipotent judges. I think judges have too much power when they interpret the constitution according to changing standards in morality. This is why the Ten Commandments are important symbols of wise judgement, as they were given by God and are unchanging through time. I add that back in biblical times, judgement was much more liberally interpreted by religious judges than by those appointed by kings.
Les
1)Congress has the right to Amend the Constitution.
2)not gonna even get into the whole 10 commandments issue as it would side-track this thread.
3)Got any more info on the "judgement was more liberally interpreted by religious judges than by those appointed by kings" ??? Kinda curious what you are basing that on.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What a *******, if ya don't mind me saying so.
I couldn't get past the 3rd post without responding. The absence of any examples, among the many, of liberal activism practiced by judges in your rant against conservative judges renders your argument DOA. You have no leg to stand on, no moose to hold, no Kennedy to support you. Your own bias is so glaringly obvious that it eliminates any chance of debate or conversation on the matter.
But, you are 'Nash'. It seems to be expected.
-
Oh cry me a river.
-
More examples (like they're not everywhere):
The decision in Dred Scot v Sanford striking down the Missouri Compromise and holding that blacks could never be citizens, the gutting of the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughterhouse Cases less than five years after the Amendment was ratified; striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was passed by the very same Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the Civil Rights Cases; the creation of the police power jurisprudence of the Lochner Era which selectively struck down labor laws that conservatives didn't like; striking down the federal income tax in the Pollock case; reading the words "other states" in the Eleventh Amendment to mean "other states or same state" in Hans v. Louisiana; the creation of the exception to Hans in Ex Parte Young when Hans turned out to prevent conservative judges from enjoining laws that were inconsistent with their laissez-faire values; the manufacture of federalism doctrines out of whole cloth in National League of Cities v. Usery; and, after National League of Cities was overruled, the creation of new federalism doctrines out of whole cloth to the same effect in Seminole Tribe and Alden v. Maine; the manufacture of the "congruent and proportional" test and its use to limit civil rights legislation in Kimel and Garrett; the continued development of commercial speech doctrine to limit government power to regulate advertising; and last but not least, the application of strict scrutiny to race conscious affirmative action in the face of evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended or written to enforce a colorblind Constitution.
Now what, Lazerus?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh cry me a river.
Thats right up there with.. "I know you are, but what am I?"
I'm not gonna flatly state that no examples of judicial activism on conservative side exist, but ya just dont HEAR of strict constuctionists on liberal side---it's been a conservative trait
Robert Bork didnt SAY Abortion was wrong, (though it's likely that is his personal belief)... but he DID say that Roe vs. Wade was TECHNICALLY bad law--(which isnt activism)-- if the country wanted it, congress ought have passed the law-- --(and thats how it should exit, if it ever does) the same can be said for countless other changes in our lives which the courts have hoisted upon us---busing, Title IX, quotas..
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Thats right up there with.. "I know you are, but what am I?"
I'm not gonna flatly state that no examples of judicial activism on conservative side exist, but ya just dont HEAR of strict constuctionists on liberal side---it's been a conservative trait.
No - it hasn't been a conservative trait. I realize how much some would like to think that it has. But just saying it doesn't make it so. Repeating it over and over as if it were self evident doesn't make it so.
As far as your "I know you are but what am I" comment, please re-read Lazerus' post and kindly tell me exactly how it is you think I could have responded differently.
-
silat.. yes I knew that about the judges but... I feel if a majority of the people all vote on a state amendment say... one to make english the state language... and it takes a year for the thing to work it's way up to a vote and then.... after 60 some odd percent of the people vote for it....
ONE (or circuit which amounts to one judge) man says no.... I don't realy like the aura of this one..
I just feel that in those types of cases the supreme court should step in or... at least it should go to a state supreme court.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1)Congress has the right to Amend the Constitution.
2)not gonna even get into the whole 10 commandments issue as it would side-track this thread.
3)Got any more info on the "judgement was more liberally interpreted by religious judges than by those appointed by kings" ??? Kinda curious what you are basing that on.
Well it is a confusing statement, and somewhat ignorant on my part and not the best choice of words. I am not a judge or lawyer. I'm more like Nash, though he is probably more successful as an artist than I am, and a heck of a lot more fun to be around on this board.
By "liberally interpreted" I meant that judges had room to consider the circumstances of each case brought before them on a one-to-one basis. In other words there was room for leniency. The law was based on the Ten Commandments, which was the first part of about 600 other laws, each of which was equal in importance to the first ten. All modern western law has the 10 as its roots.
The topic of kings is somewhat complex. Some were good and some had undesirable traits. Probably the main difference was that the Hebrew kings were more accesable to the people, many going about business on the street along with everyone else. Gentile kings were remote from the people in comparison.
Why is this relevant? I believe it is because kings that held the law according to the commandments, and were in tune with people had a good sense of justice. So yes, my statement was confusing and I apologize on that point. Was painting kings with a wide brush.
The idea of mercy is not exclusive to the ten commandments, and is also present in pagan religions. Human conscious inherently possesses a sense of merciful judgement because it is endowed in us by the creator. There are good laws from pagan religions. However conscious, right from wrong, without a focus can be misleading, thus the ten commandments serve as the focus.
This is not meant to sidetrack but by way of offering an explanation of my post. I certainly don't want the sorts of "religious" judges that presided over the witch trials or the inquisition. And I think concern for such is entirely justified. I believe those people had another agenda than justice,
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I'm more like Nash, though he is probably more successful as an artist than I am, and a heck of a lot more fun to be around on this board. Les
Heck of a lot more fun to be around? Oh, I and a lot of folks here would definitely beg to differ. :)
And I think you're a fantastic artist. "Success" at art speaks less about the actual work than it does about every insignificant thing surrounding it.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Human conscious inherently possesses a sense of merciful judgement because it is endowed in us by the creator. There are good laws from pagan religions. However conscious, right from wrong, without a focus can be misleading, thus the ten commandments serve as the focus.
Les [/B]
Whenever I hear this argument I feel like you are saying that Pre-10 commandments people had no morals. All religion did was write down what people already did. Merciful judgement from the almighty? Are you kidding? You go to hell for eternity if you have a doubt as to him or jesus. In the bible it says to stone your kids for lying. There are many more of these "merciful judgements" you mention. All I can say is cough cough inquisition and you will see zero compassion or mercy. How about noah's flood, again wiped out everything with zero mercy. Religion is not about mercy its about submission.