| October 6th, 2005 03:50 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
[quote]the good wrote:
There are certainly exceptions, and I am not suggesting any causal relationship, but have have to be kidding that there is no correlation between political beliefs and acts of judicial activism. That actually would be a great study to conduct. I guess the real problem would be coming up with an agreed upon definition of judicial "activism".
Do you mean like when 55% of California voters approved Proposition 209 to end racial preferences and one activist judge blocked the whole shebang? That kind of stuff, Mr. Good? Damn those stupid voters! |
| October 6th, 2005 04:02 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
SmallerBang wrote:
The issue here is political activism by the Rolling Stones being forced upon paying customers, lest you forget.
This issue is that Jagger spoke freely in a country that includes freedom of speech in it's bill of rights. As a paying customer you were free to be offended, request a refund and leave. No one forced you to stay!  |
| October 6th, 2005 04:06 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
Damn those stupid voters!
Can you say Arnold!
LOL!!! |
| October 6th, 2005 04:12 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
[quote]the good wrote:
There are certainly exceptions, and I am not suggesting any causal relationship, but have have to be kidding that there is no correlation between political beliefs and acts of judicial activism. That actually would be a great study to conduct. I guess the real problem would be coming up with an agreed upon definition of judicial "activism".
Do you mean like when 55% of California voters approved Proposition 209 to end racial preferences and one activist judge blocked the whole shebang? That kind of stuff, Mr. Good? Damn those stupid voters!
Yeah, that one counts  |
| October 6th, 2005 04:20 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
SmallerBang wrote:
The issue here is political activism by the Rolling Stones being forced upon paying customers, lest you forget.
Mick's comments don't really bother me at all. He can say what he wants. He is a free thinking member of the English Speaking People. |
| October 6th, 2005 07:25 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
But the big question is:
Why DO YOU care if faggots or dykes marry?
Is it to protect the sanctity of marriage?
The same sanctity MICK JAGGER, who's band you like, had defamed many, many times by sleeping with every one except my Mum?
So, what kind of conservative are you? Moral or monetary? Or, just so long as you guys make yourselves feel better by invading tin-pot countries (that still offer surprises to you), building bigger pick up trucks and winning the "World Series" in Baseball (did China play? Did Russia? Bekass Faso? Brazil?) and chugging down pissy Bud, re-making crappy tv shows into movies. That make you feel better?
Seems a bit of double standard. Cant have ya cake and eat it too. But, really, for people to walk out because of what Jagger said, i mean, who ya kidding?
I assume your rage was just as strong when Highwire came out!
[Edited by corgi37]
Uhhh,corgi I have already stated that I don't care about gay marriage per se. What I DO care about is a liberal court system that overrules the will of the people,and can not be voted out of office like a senator or rep. This is clearly why the democrats are so hot to get control over the courts. They know that if they cannot win at the ballot box their only option is to stack the courts. This is not about gay marrige. I simply used that as an example of a court defying the will of the people. Here in the USA,corgi, the republicans have won the last four voting cycles. There are more registered republicans here than there are democrats. That has not happened for decades. The democratic party is dying a slow agonizing death right before our eyes. Their only recourse is the courts. Hence the contrversy of Bush's pick. He should have stuck it right in their faces and nominated a staunch conservative,and get this fight over with once and for all.
I am certainly not offended by anything that Jagger would say concerning politics. For the most part Mick has remained for the most part aloof as to his political leanings.
Riffy |
| October 6th, 2005 08:17 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
SmallerBang wrote:
The issue here is political activism by the Rolling Stones being forced upon paying customers, lest you forget.
No..the issue is you having a sense of humour by-pass. |
| October 6th, 2005 09:00 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The will of the people was ignored because the court decided that the law was unconstitutional. That is legislating from the bench!
Riffy
Exactly! Look at what's going on in Oregon at the moment. This is a voter approved assisted suicide law that the SC will most likely strike down. Roberts let his views be known during during his questioning. So much for States rights!
MM |
| October 6th, 2005 09:31 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Not really true monkey man. The case is being determined on the basis of the constitutionality of doctors prescribing drugs to take a life. The Oregon law would have ramifications across the country and now it has been taken to the SC. I personally think the law that the people of Oregon voted on is fine. I watched my mother die a slow painfull death from cancer in the '80's. If her suffering could have been lessened that would have been a good thing.
The fact is that the republican party has a mmandate from the voters of the country. Never has there been more governors,mayors,council seats,state senators,state reps,federal senators and reps that are republican. The nation has spoken rather loudly on this subject. I think it's very obvious why the democrats are loosing,and loosing big. It's called liberalism. It has absolutly killed the party. Back in the day the south used to be almost entirely democrat. Now it's solidly in republican hands. Why? Liberalism. Liberals are pushing a secular anti-God,anything goes agenda while at the same time reminding everyone that WE (the USA) are the problem with the world. You spew that shit to the good people of the South and you're toast. Just ask that moran Kerry! He said that he could win without the South. Wrong.
I would love to see the democrats become a strong party again. It's not very good to only have one strong party. Absolute power leads to absolute corruption,but the dems have to remove themselves from the fringe elements that are dictating the direction of their party. Howard Fucking Dean?!?!?! Are you kidding me! Embracing idiots like Cindy Sheehan has not helped their cause either.
And then there's this-http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051006/D8D2JOFO8.html
Riffy |
| October 6th, 2005 09:33 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Riffy, 58 million to 53 million is not twhat I would call a mandate...but you know I love ya anyway!!! See ya in 06!!! |
| October 6th, 2005 09:50 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
jb wrote:
Riffy, 58 million to 53 million is not twhat I would call a mandate...but you know I love ya anyway!!! See ya in 06!!!
Josh I'm refering to the overall direction that the two party system has been headed ever since 1994. In that time the republicans have been picking the democrats off left and right(pardon the pun). I live in Jersey which is about as liberal as you're likely to get. However,ther govornor race is neck and neck. A dozen years ago that would have never been the case. Also in 2004 Monmouth and Ocean Counties in New Jersey voted for Bush by a margin of 3-1! The state still went to Kerry,but it was much closer than the democrats had anticipated. That is unheard of in New Jersey,but it's happening.
Look at what this state has suffered under democrat leadership. The outing of the govornor two years ago because his little daliences were about to hit the fan. Shit McGreevy gave his boyfriend the job of director of homeland security for NJ!!!The guy had zilch experience. He had been a tour diector in Isreal prior to banging our then govonor! Then you've got the indictment and ouster of democrat senator Torecelli. He was replaced by over the hill Lautenburg in a very corrupt political move. Now we have this bastard Corzine that loaned a former girlfriend $470,000.00 then told her to forget about paying him back. Turns out that she was the head of the largest labor union in the state of NJ. You guessed it! Corzine got their endorsment to run for senate! Shit New Jersey is almost as corrupt as New Orleans when it comes to politics. The voters are starting to wake up though.
Riffy |
| October 6th, 2005 09:53 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Uhhh,corgi I have already stated that I don't care about gay marriage per se. What I DO care about is a liberal court system that overrules the will of the people,and can not be voted out of office like a senator or rep. This is clearly why the democrats are so hot to get control over the courts. They know that if they cannot win at the ballot box their only option is to stack the courts. This is not about gay marrige. I simply used that as an example of a court defying the will of the people. Here in the USA,corgi, the republicans have won the last four voting cycles. There are more registered republicans here than there are democrats. That has not happened for decades. The democratic party is dying a slow agonizing death right before our eyes. Their only recourse is the courts. Hence the contrversy of Bush's pick. He should have stuck it right in their faces and nominated a staunch conservative,and get this fight over with once and for all.
I am certainly not offended by anything that Jagger would say concerning politics. For the most part Mick has remained for the most part aloof as to his political leanings.
Riffy
You like never listen to anything do you, except stuff you like to hear? |
| October 6th, 2005 10:00 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
You like never listen to anything do you, except stuff you like to hear?
That's not true moonie. I listen to NPR. I read the New York Times. I watch all the news stations CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,C-Span,and yes,even Fox. The more I do read it all the more I'm convinced that I'm right,and the other side is wrong. I'm no ditto head if that's what you mean.
Riffy |
| October 6th, 2005 11:20 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
jb wrote:
Riffy, 58 million to 53 million is not twhat I would call a mandate...but you know I love ya anyway!!! See ya in 06!!!
What else do you call a five million vote margin? |
| October 7th, 2005 12:14 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
That's not true moonie. I listen to NPR. I read the New York Times. I watch all the news stations CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,C-Span,and yes,even Fox. The more I do read it all the more I'm convinced that I'm right,and the other side is wrong. I'm no ditto head if that's what you mean.
Riffy
Right about what? I'll bet you have never read the California gun control case you posted an article about, the Oregon assisted suicide case that you erroneously characterized, or even read any of the homo marriage cases. I'm right, right? Right. So howe know right, if not read what am righted? |
| October 7th, 2005 01:28 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
The right is certainly in ascendency. In the land of of weak beer, and also here, the land of good beer. Our Labour party is stuffed. I will never vote for anyone but Labour, but Christ, they are terrible right now. THey used to be the workers party, you know, the party for the average person, but its all changed. They've moved more to the right. No one in the party has ever had a real job. They are all either teachers, lawyers, union activists, or back room hacks, recruited straight from University. One of our greatest Past Prime Ministers was a train driver. That will neve happen again. It will only be professional politicians. The Right also uses the terror threat well. It helps that a bombing occurs every now and then as well, to help prove their point.
It wont last forever. Swings and roundabouts. Our conservative government has been in power 11 years now. I cant believe it! THey are starting to self-combust a bit, and with new Industrial Relations laws coming in, they could very well be turfed out big time! But, really, it means nothing. They are all the same.
I love U.S. politics. It's so much more hilarious than ours. The strength and organisation of the religious right is fascinating. On a much smaller scale, their influence is growing here too. Though, we are much more a athiest country here. Some people try to put religion into politics, but they are shot down pretty quickly.
In fact, i think the fastest growing religion is "Jedi". It's true! It's like a joke people do every time we have a census (roughly every 5 years). I used to put down "Satanist", "Corgi-ist" or "United Church of Ann-Marie Cooksley (she was a Price is Right model), but now i am 100% Jedi. |
| October 7th, 2005 02:33 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Right about what? I'll bet you have never read the California gun control case you posted an article about, the Oregon assisted suicide case that you erroneously characterized, or even read any of the homo marriage cases. I'm right, right? Right. So howe know right, if not read what am righted?
I'm always blown away by your intelligence, but more so with your use of the english language. It's nothing short of genius... Your posts are genius and in person you're a thug, no wonder you're a great lawyer! If you had Throbby's looks you'd be very, very dangerous!!!
|
| October 7th, 2005 06:11 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
but there is no doubt that they were very "liberal" in their reading of the constitution,and constitutional law.
Read the link and weep http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/06/state1755EDT7903.DTL
That's just one case of many that I could have posted.
Riffy
well Riffy I didn't get to read all of the judgment (well not yet any way) but i did come across this citation
>Finally, we note that, after his retirement, Chief Justice
Warren Burger uttered one of the most widely publicized
comments about the Second Amendment ever made by a Justice
inside or outside the context of a judicial opinion. In an
interview, former Chief Justice Burger stated that the traditional
individual rights view was:
"one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word
‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest
groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real
purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure
that state armies — the militia — would be maintained
for the defense of the state. The very language
of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that
it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered
right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
in essence your terms are all back to front - a reading of the Amendment restricting the right to bear arms is actually the stricter, more black letter law, more conservative interpretation - it's a liberal interpretation that allows it to mean the right to private ownership of arms is to be unrestricted - that predictive clause regarding the Militia must, from a legalistically conservative perspective, be given as much weight as the declaration of the right then provided, as it serves to define it
i don't know what Burger's politics were (are) but that's a legally conservative point of view he's expresssing there - is it the authors of the constitution's intention being expressed there or or is it judicial activism?? you be the judge
the liberal reading of the Amendment (which seems to discount the the preambulatory phrase) is a result of the political reality that arms generally and arms manufacture in particular is a fundamenatl key to economic and political stability of the US
funny how it all comes back to lawyers guns and money
and, by the way, statutory interpretation is not "legislating" from the bench it is defining the law as it is written in terms of the factual (political) situation in front of it
anyway, i could go on - as well as the rolling stones i find constitutional law and jurisprudence a fascinating topic (beats train spotting!!)
thanks for the link
|
| October 7th, 2005 09:13 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
well Riffy I didn't get to read all of the judgment (well not yet any way) but i did come across this citation
>Finally, we note that, after his retirement, Chief Justice
Warren Burger uttered one of the most widely publicized
comments about the Second Amendment ever made by a Justice
inside or outside the context of a judicial opinion. In an
interview, former Chief Justice Burger stated that the traditional
individual rights view was:
"one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word
‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest
groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real
purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure
that state armies — the militia — would be maintained
for the defense of the state. The very language
of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that
it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered
right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
in essence your terms are all back to front - a reading of the Amendment restricting the right to bear arms is actually the stricter, more black letter law, more conservative interpretation - it's a liberal interpretation that allows it to mean the right to private ownership of arms is to be unrestricted - that predictive clause regarding the Militia must, from a legalistically conservative perspective, be given as much weight as the declaration of the right then provided, as it serves to define it
i don't know what Burger's politics were (are) but that's a legally conservative point of view he's expresssing there - is it the authors of the constitution's intention being expressed there or or is it judicial activism?? you be the judge
the liberal reading of the Amendment (which seems to discount the the preambulatory phrase) is a result of the political reality that arms generally and arms manufacture in particular is a fundamenatl key to economic and political stability of the US
funny how it all comes back to lawyers guns and money
and, by the way, statutory interpretation is not "legislating" from the bench it is defining the law as it is written in terms of the factual (political) situation in front of it
anyway, i could go on - as well as the rolling stones i find constitutional law and jurisprudence a fascinating topic (beats train spotting!!)
thanks for the link
Hmmmm......quite the conundrum for Riffhard and the rest of the George Walker Bush III pseudo-swish conservatives. Howe to answer? Which auto-reply to choose?:
A. You are wrong my friend, thats what the liberal media wants you to think. Here check out these media articles that show just howe wrong you and the media are......
B. I don't know about all that, but the right to bear arms is fundamental. Its in the parts of the Constitution I think its in. The legions of liberals judges want to take it away. They are outside of the mainstream. They want to destroy America.
C. Look over there! Its the Goodyear blimp!
D. Its Clinton's fault. |
| October 7th, 2005 10:49 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Politicians of every stripe are the blood suckers of humanity....Why do we waste time even givin a shit about them? |
| October 7th, 2005 11:47 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Politicians of every stripe are the blood suckers of humanity....
Nice use of overstatement there....but 99.99999% true. |
| October 7th, 2005 12:32 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
LOL |
| October 7th, 2005 12:46 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
C. Look over there! Its the Goodyear blimp!
independent test have revealed that if you face a multiple choice questionare with each question having four potential answers and you choose the answer C. for every question you have a better than 50 % chance of getting 50% of the questions right...
Look over there! Its the Goodyear blimp!
|
| October 7th, 2005 01:21 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Politicians of every stripe are the blood suckers of humanity....Why do we waste time even givin a shit about them?
because they control our m@#$%f(*&^ lives...that's why
because as much as we like to think of ourSelves as individuals, we are, after all, members of a community...
or else we are...
TERRORISTS??!!! |
| October 7th, 2005 01:48 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Hmmmm......quite the conundrum for Riffhard and the rest of the George Walker Bush III pseudo-swish conservatives.
Who in American politics do you consider to be a conservative, sirmoonie? And please don't answer with a recitation of why Bush isn't. |
| October 7th, 2005 02:09 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
SmallerBang wrote:
The issue here is political activism by the Rolling Stones being forced upon paying customers, lest you forget.
Can you elaborate what exactly is political activist about Sir Mick's comments? |
| October 7th, 2005 02:12 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
pdog wrote:
If I was GWB's friend I'd have a good job!
If you took what (I think) you spent on Stones tickets and instead gave it to the RNC you could be GWB's friend too! |
| October 7th, 2005 02:14 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
"P-doggy, you're doing a heckuva job!" |
| October 7th, 2005 02:40 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
the good wrote:
Who in American politics do you consider to be a conservative, sirmoonie? And please don't answer with a recitation of why Bush isn't.
Ahhh....good ole Option C. I was hoping Riffy would rush in with some antedated Option D Clinton material, but you proved up the point nicely. |
| October 7th, 2005 03:08 PM |
|
|
| JerryT |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
well Riffy I didn't get to read all of the judgment (well not yet any way) but i did come across this citation
>Finally, we note that, after his retirement, Chief Justice
Warren Burger uttered one of the most widely publicized
comments about the Second Amendment ever made by a Justice
inside or outside the context of a judicial opinion. In an
interview, former Chief Justice Burger stated that the traditional
individual rights view was:
"one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word
‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest
groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The real
purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure
that state armies — the militia — would be maintained
for the defense of the state. The very language
of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that
it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered
right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
in essence your terms are all back to front - a reading of the Amendment restricting the right to bear arms is actually the stricter, more black letter law, more conservative interpretation - it's a liberal interpretation that allows it to mean the right to private ownership of arms is to be unrestricted - that predictive clause regarding the Militia must, from a legalistically conservative perspective, be given as much weight as the declaration of the right then provided, as it serves to define it
i don't know what Burger's politics were (are) but that's a legally conservative point of view he's expresssing there - is it the authors of the constitution's intention being expressed there or or is it judicial activism?? you be the judge
the liberal reading of the Amendment (which seems to discount the the preambulatory phrase) is a result of the political reality that arms generally and arms manufacture in particular is a fundamenatl key to economic and political stability of the US
funny how it all comes back to lawyers guns and money
and, by the way, statutory interpretation is not "legislating" from the bench it is defining the law as it is written in terms of the factual (political) situation in front of it
anyway, i could go on - as well as the rolling stones i find constitutional law and jurisprudence a fascinating topic (beats train spotting!!)
thanks for the link
Individuals outside the judiciary, it would seem to me, read the Constitution liberally or conservatively depending on what their personal or political agenda, is at the time. They will read it as is best to fit their needs.
If you want to find evidence of judicial activism, find an instance where a judge advances a strict reading of the Constitution in one instance, and then find an instance where that same judge, with respect to another issue, advances a more liberal reading. Perhaps invoking the framer's intent. That, if it were the case, would seem to me to be a perfect example of an instance where a judge was motivated by an agenda, be it personal, economical or political. So, yes, statutory interpretation, in those instances where judges are consistently inconsistent is indeed, legislating from the bench. Or at least it could be seen that way. If it is not, then someone will have to explain to me the reasons for the inconsistency.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that judicial activism, relatively speaking, is not in existent and in excess. Certainly, given the amount of attention Congress gives to Supreme Court nominess, it clear that Congress recognizes and expects such activism. I suspect many judges, particularly at the lower levels, interpret statutes as needed to reach the result they feel is warranted. Whether that self-serving interpretation is motivated by politics or a sense of equity, it's still judicial activism. This self-serving interpretation, of course, is no different than what attorneys do when advancing their arguments on behalf of their clients.
And since this is my first post, I feel obligated to mention the Stones. I think the whole mess in Charlottesville was a shame. Kudos to Mick and the boys for finishing the show and not bolting out of town.
|
|
