Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51
  1. #16
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    8,739
    horse of a different color? pryor, brown, pickering, etc.

    ud

  2. #17
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: Re: "Activist Judges"

    Originally posted by TMack409 on 02-25-2004 at 07:09 AM
    "Activist" in this sense means ignoring the moral underpinnings of law.....on which our country depends for its "law and order" .
    If you mean the Mass SJC, then if you read their decision, the moral underpinnings were discussed. It was not unanimous. In the end, it was a vote.

    So what are you saying?

    a)If we don't agree we should change the law by constitutional amendments? We can, but it will need 2/3 majority to happen.

    b)We should only have judges that agree with our position? There's a movement going on there with Bush only considering judges with a proven slant.

    c)We should let this play out? For heavens sake, there's no state to state problem here, in spite of what people may chose to believe. The problem is when we chose to address it from a federal level: and who is doing that?

    edit:spelling
    Last edited by otoc; 02-25-2004 at 09:25 AM.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    Originally posted by uddarts on 02-25-2004 at 08:59 AM
    horse of a different color? pryor, brown, pickering, etc.

    ud
    Yeah it goes both ways. It would be nice if they could make a call based on the constitution and not on their political leaning. Just one of the many flaws of our democracy, but I'll take our system over anybody elses.

    b)We should only have judges that agree with our position? There's a movement going on there with Bush only considering judges with a proven slant.
    Don't blame President Bush for this Clinton did it too. It's one of the spoils when you are President.
    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. #19
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,605
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-24-2004 at 10:07 PM
    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".
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court

    Wrong! The “ultimate power” lies in the hands of the “People”, no exceptions.

    “Of The People By The People And For The People”.

    All people yes but last I checked this is a country where everything is based on the will of a majority of the people. Not some special interest group’s whims and beliefs or activist judges who think they are smarter than the people.

    Let’s put this up to a vote of the people on a Constitutional Amendment and lets see what a majority of the people decides. While we’re at it lets add “roe v wade” to the ballot.

    Liberals, Activists and Special Interest Groups are terrified by the thought of a “vote” and what the majority might decide.

    All the politicians, judges and activists seem to think they are some how more intelligent than a majority of the people. They believe that they should decide how the people live and go about their daily lives... What a crock of shyte ...

  5. #20
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 09:25 AM
    Yeah it goes both ways. It would be nice if they could make a call based on the constitution and not on their political leaning. Just one of the many flaws of our democracy, but I'll take our system over anybody elses.

    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    b)We should only have judges that agree with our position? There's a movement going on there with Bush only considering judges with a proven slant.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Don't blame President Bush for this Clinton did it too. It's one of the spoils when you are President.
    If you look again, it was not b) that puts blame, it wasc). b) was just an observation which you seem to feel the same way about. No debate there from me.

    But let's remember the Clinton days with the republican controlled congress.
    http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...ate.judges.ap/

    In eight years, Clinton got 377 of his nominees approved by the Senate. In comparison, President Reagan got 382 during his two terms and President Bush got 193 during his one term.

    But Democrats bitterly complained that some of their nominees never even made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, including former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who wanted a position on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Roger Gregory of Virginia, who wanted to become the first black member on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The Judiciary Committee "is effectively standing in the door of the courthouse blocking the nomination," said Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va.

    They noted the speed with which the last four judges made it to the Senate floor, with three of the new judges being from Arizona, which has two Republican senators, a majority Republican House delegation and a Republican governor.


    Um, wait. We have a Republican controlled congress right now, don't we?

    edit: word delete
    Last edited by otoc; 02-25-2004 at 09:55 AM.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813
    Originally posted by tucker on 02-25-2004 at 09:38 AM
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court

    Wrong! The “ultimate power” lies in the hands of the “People”, no exceptions.

    “Of The People By The People And For The People”.

    All people yes but last I checked this is a country where everything is based on the will of a majority of the people. Not some special interest group’s whims and beliefs or activist judges who think they are smarter than the people.

    Let’s put this up to a vote of the people on a Constitutional Amendment and lets see what a majority of the people decides. While we’re at it lets add “roe v wade” to the ballot.

    Liberals, Activists and Special Interest Groups are terrified by the thought of a “vote” and what the majority might decide.

    All the politicians, judges and activists seem to think they are some how more intelligent than a majority of the people. They believe that they should decide how the people live and go about their daily lives... What a crock of shyte ...
    Good point. And as a moderate I think the 2/3s needed to get a change either to same sex or roe v wade will not happen.

    And in the process, those on the right are going to see changes that occur that were not planned for. Things like same sex marriage being recognized on the federal level and churches losing their tax-free status. Things like women continuing to have a certain amount of control over what they choose to do based on their sense of morality.

    And in the end, the country will be split and each side on the extreme will be reduced to calling each other names. Well, that one is already true...

  7. #22
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    47
    Posts
    467
    Why not take these issues to the ballot box in national elections, the way California 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

  8. #23
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 12:42 PM
    Why not take these issues to the ballot box in national elections, the way California does.
    Because constitutional changes need to be done with a conservative eye. It's meant to take time and thought.

    Personally, I think California worries too much about the popular flavor of the day...

  9. #24
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,726
    When a judge interperts a law it's not supposed to be their interpertation. They are supposed to interpert how the writer of the law meant. So when a judge interperts the law on their own personal beliefs that makes them an "activist". A judge is supposed to make their decision without any bias or personal reflection. They are simply to make an interperation of what the law is to mean.
    "Stealing music is like taking candy from a...large, fat rich person."

    Turnwall.net :: some coherent ramblings

    Digitaria Interactive

  10. #25
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,074
    Originally posted by NoMoreGF on 02-25-2004 at 12:42 PM
    Why not take these issues to the ballot box in national elections, the way California does.
    For one, because that was a monumental mistake in California. The constitution is designed to protect the interests of the minority, not blindly uphold the whim of the majority. Popular speech does not need to be protected, UNPOPULAR speech does.

    Passing off legislative and executive decisions to referendums has to be the biggest cop out in the history of politics. The US constitution was set up quite well to allow equal representation of all states and populations. Those two bodies are more than capable of debating and considering the merits of any piece of legislation and need not defer to the mob rule of a referendum.

    Not to mention the fact that what you are talking about is enacting federal legislation. Which, of course, would STILL be subject to passing constitutional muster - which it would not. That then leaves a constititional ammendment that outside of passing all legislative decisions off to referendums, STILL would require 2/3 congressional approval before it was then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

    Man the blithering ignorance of the constitution is STAGGERING in this forum.

  11. #26
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,074
    Originally posted by MirAGe01 on 02-25-2004 at 01:21 PM
    When a judge interperts a law it's not supposed to be their interpertation. They are supposed to interpert how the writer of the law meant. So when a judge interperts the law on their own personal beliefs that makes them an "activist". A judge is supposed to make their decision without any bias or personal reflection. They are simply to make an interperation of what the law is to mean.
    No, actually, it's supposed to be based on the writers of the constitution not the law.

    The only thing that is open to interpretation here is the "right to privacy" that is the crux of Roe v. Wade. The correction assertion is made that no such constitutional right exists, at least in writing. The problem is, without the polarizing context of an abortion debate, I think you would find few - if any - that would deny that there is, or should be, an implied "right to privacy" upheld in the US constitution.

    The real issue, though is that there ARE some implied rights to privacy, such as due process. Once you establish SOME right to privacy, then you open pandora's box and there is no stuffing it all back in later.

  12. #27
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813
    Originally posted by deadrody on 02-25-2004 at 02:48 PM

    Man the blithering ignorance of the constitution is STAGGERING in this forum.

    I thought you were in a forgiving mood. I was all set to sit back and watch you set things straight. Screw it. Those not understanding will find out how much of a goose chase this will be and what they'll lose in the process. And I don't mean gay people...

  13. #28
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,074
    Originally posted by otoc on 02-25-2004 at 03:00 PM

    I thought you were in a forgiving mood. I was all set to sit back and watch you set things straight. Screw it. Those not understanding will find out how much of a goose chase this will be and what they'll lose in the process. And I don't mean gay people...
    The funniest thing about the idea of holding national referendums is that it's really not even constitutional to begin with. Certainly the Congress could all get together and form a gentleman's agreement that they would all vote according to the result of a national referendum on any particular bill. From there the process would be the same as it is today.

    Imagine, though, how those referendums would go for, say, pork barrel spending all over the country. Hell yeah I'd like to see an individual national vote for all the stupid crap our government spends our money on. Hell, I'd love to see a referendum on the medicare prescription drug benefit, or ANY tax cut or increase. Because I know most people are going to act in their best interest, and 9 times out of 10 that benefits me, at least on the surface.

    But as inefficient and bloated as it may be, the system in place now may spread a bunch of stupid money around to this pet cause and that program, it is the best one for protecting individual rights, and the structure and balance of our government overall. To me THAT is most important.

  14. #29
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Long Beach CA
    Age
    60
    Posts
    4,773
    Originally posted by tucker on 02-25-2004 at 02:38 PM
    The ultimate power lies in the hands of the Supreme Court

    Wrong! The “ultimate power” lies in the hands of the “People”, no exceptions.

    “Of The People By The People And For The People”.

    All people yes but last I checked this is a country where everything is based on the will of a majority of the people. Not some special interest group’s whims and beliefs or activist judges who think they are smarter than the people.

    Let’s put this up to a vote of the people on a Constitutional Amendment and lets see what a majority of the people decides. While we’re at it lets add “roe v wade” to the ballot.

    Liberals, Activists and Special Interest Groups are terrified by the thought of a “vote” and what the majority might decide.

    All the politicians, judges and activists seem to think they are some how more intelligent than a majority of the people. They believe that they should decide how the people live and go about their daily lives... What a crock of shyte ...
    Wow so by this logic we should still allow segregation in specific states where the majority of white Americans wanted it?
    Game - BIOSTAR TA785 A2+ / Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz 125W / Patroit 8GB DDR2 800 CAS 4 Timing: 4-4-4-12 / Sapphire HD 6870 1GB / Antec Three Hundred Case / PC Power & Cooling S61EPS 610W / X-Fi XtremeGamer / Western Digital 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s /Windows Vista home premium 64 SP1

    Back up - Biostar 6100-939 / A64 3800 Venice(Stock 2.4) / 1.5 GB Corsair XMS 3200 / HD3870

  15. #30
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    5,177
    Originally posted by Pehu on 02-25-2004 at 12:46 AM
    Who is it that decides what's in the best interest of the public????
    Um, maybe the Judges as elected by their peers?

Posting Permissions

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