Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Question "Activist Judges"

    So, I keep reading the same old shtick from Imperials about this gay marriage issue. I wonder to myself, "do these people even know how our government works?"

    Examples:

    "We're in the process right now of judges and vigilantes -- people taking justice into their own hands and deciding to change the law without either the courts or the legislature acting," said Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
    "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage." - Bush
    Last time I checked, judges work in courts. The job of the Justice system is to interpret the laws and decide their "legality", so to speak (legislative creates laws while executive enforces laws). Yes? So a group of judges deeming one law unfair and unconstitutional is "activist" how?

    Are these Imperials that clueless as to how the system works or do they just not care? Perhaps someone can explain this rationale to me, por favor. (I won't bother about the hypocrisy in these arguments at the moment.)
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814
    I see it the very same way. It must be emotional and defies logic or law.

    Perhaps someone can explain it to me, too.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    Are these Imperials that clueless as to how the system works or do they just not care?
    No thats why they are trying to ammend the constitution. If you are clueless then read the constitution. President Bush calls them "Activist judges" because they try to force their views through an interperitation of the law that they think is correct.
    amd 2500+@2200ish mhz
    ati 9800 pro
    msi kt6 delta lsr
    1024 mb of PC3200 ram
    2X80 gb wd800jb non raid
    Audigy platinum ex
    at least a six pack o beer
    a64 coming soon

  4. #4
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-24-2004 at 11:43 PM
    No thats why they are trying to ammend the constitution. If you are clueless then read the constitution. President Bush calls them "Activist judges" because they try to force their views through an interperitation of the law that they think is correct.
    If you read the decision by the judges in Massachusetts you'd see all they did was (do their job) use the Constitution to form an opinion.

    Bush is the activist for he wants to change the constitution. And you are wrong in your fears that a gay marriage in my state will have to be recognized in yours. So much for state's rights.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Another example is abortion and the right to privacy, not addressed in the Constitution so to make a ruling the judges had to invent a law. How can they be interpreting a law that is not there?

  6. #6
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814
    Originally posted by bk94si on 02-24-2004 at 11:52 PM
    Another example is abortion and the right to privacy, not addressed in the Constitution so to make a ruling the judges had to invent a law. How can they be interpreting a law that is not there?
    I assume you mean roe v wade about abortion. That was a decision brought on by state criminal abortion laws. Again, the law came first.
    http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/roeins.htm

    I'm not sure what you mean by issues of right to privacy...

  7. #7
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    No thats why they are trying to ammend the constitution.
    No what?

    If you are clueless then read the constitution. President Bush calls them "Activist judges" because they try to force their views through an interperitation of the law that they think is correct.
    So, wait a minute here. Judges are supposed to decide laws based on what the public or some politicians say? Judges make decisions, they do it based on their own interpretations of laws. That's what it's all about.

    Once again, how can you be an "activist judge" when you simply decide something's constitutionality?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    So a group of judges deeming one law unfair and unconstitutional is "activist" how?
    Because the law must be changed through congress. A judge cannot just decide that something should be legal/illegal.

    And you are wrong in your fears that a gay marriage in my state will have to be recognized in yours. So much for state's rights.
    How's that? It is in the constitution.


    Once again, how can you be an "activist judge" when you simply decide something's constitutionality?
    Because a state judge may not decide whether something is constitutional or not. That is what the Supreme Court does.
    amd 2500+@2200ish mhz
    ati 9800 pro
    msi kt6 delta lsr
    1024 mb of PC3200 ram
    2X80 gb wd800jb non raid
    Audigy platinum ex
    at least a six pack o beer
    a64 coming soon

  9. #9
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    Because the law must be changed through congress. A judge cannot just decide that something should be legal/illegal.
    Who said anything about changing the law? The Justice system decides if the law is legal, period.

    Because a state judge may not decide whether something is constitutional or not. That is what the Supreme Court does.
    Actually, state judges can do just that. It can be appealed by parties up to the level of the Supreme Court, which can have the final say.

    http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_13_Notes.htm
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    "Actually, state judges can do just that. It can be appealed by parties up to the level of the Supreme Court, which can have the final say."
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. That is what I meant so we are on the same page there.

    This issue is going to turn into a states rights issue. The reason we consider the judge an activist is as follows:

    1. A judge in Massachusetts decides that gay marriage should be legal in his state.

    2. This judges knows that according to the constitution(Article IV)
    any marriage in Massachusetts must be recognised in any other state in the Union.(This does not mean that gays can marry in any state they want)

    3. The Judge makes it legal in his state regardless of how the 49 other states in the Union feel about his decision.

    What the Judge Should have done:

    1. Lobbied the state house to put the issue on the ballot in the next state election.

    2. Ask the Supreme court for an opinion.

    I don't like judges, no matter what party, taking it upon themselves to decide what is moral or immoral. I think this issue may divide the country as much as or more than abortion. The judge could have gone to the people of his state or gone to a higher authority, but he had rather bask in the glory of his "landmark decision".
    amd 2500+@2200ish mhz
    ati 9800 pro
    msi kt6 delta lsr
    1024 mb of PC3200 ram
    2X80 gb wd800jb non raid
    Audigy platinum ex
    at least a six pack o beer
    a64 coming soon

  11. #11
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. That is what I meant so we are on the same page there.

    This issue is going to turn into a states rights issue. The reason we consider the judge an activist is as follows:

    1. A judge in Massachusetts decides that gay marriage should be legal in his state.

    2. This judges knows that according to the constitution(Article IV)
    any marriage in Massachusetts must be recognised in any other state in the Union.(This does not mean that gays can marry in any state they want)

    3. The Judge makes it legal in his state regardless of how the 49 other states in the Union feel about his decision.

    What the Judge Should have done:

    1. Lobbied the state house to put the issue on the ballot in the next state election.

    2. Ask the Supreme court for an opinion.

    I don't like judges, no matter what party, taking it upon themselves to decide what is moral or immoral. I think this issue may divide the country as much as or more than abortion. The judge could have gone to the people of his state or gone to a higher authority, but he had rather bask in the glory of his "landmark decision".
    What you're saying is that instead of actually doing his/her job, the judges in Mass. should have become politicians bowing to public will and stalling so that they wouldn't have to deal with the issue(s) at hand. That is, they should be slaves of public opinion and political motive rather than judges. Yes?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,358
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 08:07 AM

    What the Judge Should have done:

    1. Lobbied the state house to put the issue on the ballot in the next state election.
    This is exactly the opposite a judge should do: the judge is not there to make laws, which you suggest he should do. He interprets the laws that are there and judges their constitutionality.


    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 08:07 AM


    2. Ask the Supreme court for an opinion.
    Again, that's not the the judge's job, it is rather the Supreme Court's job to decide whether the lower court's interpretation was correct and this will happen in case of an appeal (ultimately).


    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 08:07 AM

    I don't like judges, no matter what party, taking it upon themselves to decide what is moral or immoral. I think this issue may divide the country as much as or more than abortion. The judge could have gone to the people of his state or gone to a higher authority, but he had rather bask in the glory of his "landmark decision".
    Again, the judges are there to decide whether the laws are constitutional (no matter what the present opinion of the residing house/senate seems to be at that moment, which is why representatives in both of those places are temporary, whereas judges are appointed for life).

    I quote to you (Justice Holmes):

    [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

  13. #13
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    What you're saying is that instead of actually doing his/her job, the judges in Mass. should have become politicians bowing to public will and stalling so that they wouldn't have to deal with the issue(s) at hand. That is, they should be slaves of public opinion and political motive rather than judges. Yes?
    Doing what is in the best interest of the public is their job, so yes I am saying that. That doesn't make them politicians. That makes them judges!

    Goodnight. I have enjoyed this discussion, and hope to keep the debate going tommorrow but, I have to be at work in 7 hours and i need some sleep.
    Last edited by NoMoreGF; 02-25-2004 at 01:30 AM.
    amd 2500+@2200ish mhz
    ati 9800 pro
    msi kt6 delta lsr
    1024 mb of PC3200 ram
    2X80 gb wd800jb non raid
    Audigy platinum ex
    at least a six pack o beer
    a64 coming soon

  14. #14
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,358
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 08:27 AM
    Doing what is in the best interest of the public is their job, so yes I am saying that. That doesn't make them politicians. That makes them judges!

    Who is it that decides what's in the best interest of the public????

  15. #15
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    MS,LA,GA,& AR
    Posts
    4,439

    Re: "Activist Judges"

    Originally posted by Orangutan on 02-24-2004 at 11:28 PM
    So, I keep reading the same old shtick from Imperials about this gay marriage issue. I wonder to myself, "do these people even know how our government works?"

    Examples:





    Last time I checked, judges work in courts. The job of the Justice system is to interpret the laws and decide their "legality", so to speak (legislative creates laws while executive enforces laws). Yes? So a group of judges deeming one law unfair and unconstitutional is "activist" how?

    Are these Imperials that clueless as to how the system works or do they just not care? Perhaps someone can explain this rationale to me, por favor. (I won't bother about the hypocrisy in these arguments at the moment.)
    "Activist" in this sense means ignoring the moral underpinnings of law.....on which our country depends for its "law and order" .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •