Way to go Bill

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, the contitution preserves rights. Laws that remove them are struck down by the courts. No where are the courts given latitude to write, or force the leg. to creat a law.

You are right. Which is why the do not do that. What makes you think otherwise?

Who is "we" in your post?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,556]

Quote

Hhhmmm, I believe is some states a person can be charged for two deaths if a mother (and the unborn) are killed crimaly or neglegently

And that would be an inconsistency. The whole point is that laws should be consistent.

Of course, that whole "two lives for the pregnant mother" is the law that the pro-lifers say is not trying to start a "slippery slope" and change the definition of person, and that the pro-choicers think is. What do you think?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Read the IXth and Xth Amendments before proclaiming that the courts are inventing new rights.

Rights belong to the people.

Do you think a court telling a state that they have to write a law that acepts same sex partners is what a judge is supposed to do?

As far as I know, the courts have created no law which states that same sex marriage must be legal. I think you are confusing the issue.

They are not creating new law. They are correcting the current one. The judge that rules in favor of gay marriage has found that the constitution does not prohibit suchs things. Therefore, the CURRENT law, which makes same sex marriage invalid, must be repealed. Since a law is struck down, does this imply that a new law must be written? Yes, but only to correct the one curretly on the books.

And that is the judge's job: to point out when a law does not follow the constitution. if that results is that the legistalture having to make new law, then everything is working as it should.

Ahh yes, "correcting" in "your" opinion.
Using an un-constitutional tool.. the courts. The proper way is an amendment but, not being able to win that one the court will suffice huh?

Yeah, striking down a law that is unconstitutional is definitely out of bounds.

They are not forcing them to make law. They are telling them that the one that EXISTS IS UNCONSTITUIONAL. And being as such, would require a change. All the judge is saying is that until the law is changed to not violate the Constitution, it cannot be enforced. If you want to take that as a judge changing the law themself, you go ahead. You are wrong, but go ahead.

That is not using the courts inappropriately. That is using them correctly. The court is to enforce CONSTUTIONALLY SOUND laws. If a law is not constiutional, the courts cannot and should not enforce it until it is changed.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Who is "we" in your post?

Trick question? There is no "we" in my post.

[artistcalledian 0]

why do we have a birthday where we measure age from and not a conception day? we have that because a person is only a person once it's born.

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hhhmmm, I believe is some states a person can be charged for two deaths if a mother (and the unborn) are killed crimaly or neglegently

And that would be an inconsistency. The whole point is that laws should be consistent.

Of course, that whole "two lives for the pregnant mother" is the law that the pro-lifers say is not trying to start a "slippery slope" and change the definition of person, and that the pro-choicers think is. What do you think?

Wendy W.

Good point ! Consistancy is needed!

For the rest.......I believe the slippery slope began when cases, like Roe v Wade were decided years ago, regardless of which side of the issue you stand This type of activist attitude continues with the eminent domain decision made just recently.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

why do we have a birthday where we measure age from and not a conception day? we have that because a person is only a person once it's born.

If they actually knew conception day, some husbands would figure out they were away

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Read the IXth and Xth Amendments before proclaiming that the courts are inventing new rights.

Rights belong to the people.

Do you think a court telling a state that they have to write a law that acepts same sex partners is what a judge is supposed to do?

As far as I know, the courts have created no law which states that same sex marriage must be legal. I think you are confusing the issue.

They are not creating new law. They are correcting the current one. The judge that rules in favor of gay marriage has found that the constitution does not prohibit suchs things. Therefore, the CURRENT law, which makes same sex marriage invalid, must be repealed. Since a law is struck down, does this imply that a new law must be written? Yes, but only to correct the one curretly on the books.

And that is the judge's job: to point out when a law does not follow the constitution. if that results is that the legistalture having to make new law, then everything is working as it should.

Ahh yes, "correcting" in "your" opinion.
Using an un-constitutional tool.. the courts. The proper way is an amendment but, not being able to win that one the court will suffice huh?

Yeah, striking down a law that is unconstitutional is definitely out of bounds.

They are not forcing them to make law. They are telling them that the one that EXISTS IS UNCONSTITUIONAL. And being as such, would require a change. All the judge is saying is that until the law is changed to not violate the Constitution, it cannot be enforced. If you want to take that as a judge changing the law themself, you go ahead. You are wrong, but go ahead.

That is not using the courts inappropriately. That is using them correctly. The court is to enforce CONSTUTIONALLY SOUND laws. If a law is not constiutional, the courts cannot and should not enforce it until it is changed.

I do not agree! They are reading into the constitution those ideas that support thier own views. Again, if you want it changed the mechanism exists andit is not the courts.

And yes, they can and should strike down bad law however, they should not tell the law makers what law to write. (as the Mass. SC did!!)

And then you have David Souter saying the US SC should look at the laws of other counties. That is pure bullshit. He took an oath to uphold the constitution of the US. Not f@#%ing France

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Who is "we" in your post?

Trick question? There is no "we" in my post.

Sorry, I guess the word "the" was supposed to be "they". ( read the we into the sentence)

With that in mind, you are wrong. The Mass. SC did and the Florida SC did when they interjected themselves into specifically spelled out state law and tried to change Florida Stated election laws to get the canidate they wanted into the presidency.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

why do we have a birthday where we measure age from and not a conception day? we have that because a person is only a person once it's born.

Cause we measure age from the day we are born. Not the day life starts.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

With that in mind, you are wrong. The Mass. SC did and the Florida SC did when they interjected themselves into specifically spelled out state law and tried to change Florida Stated election laws to get the canidate they wanted into the presidency.

If my limited understanding is correct, isn't it the *plaintiff* who brings the case before the court, and not these so-called "activist judges"? If so, how is it that they were trying to get what you allege as their candidate into the presidency?

The people bring cases to the court. The court usually reviews the case and makes a decision. If the decision is out of line, for whatever reason, there's an appeals process, is there not?

Checks and balances.

What's your real beef here?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

1, the Mass. SC did tell the leg to write a law.

No...they didn't. They may have said that the law was ambiguous and that the legislature should correct that with a law, but they never told them what law to write, and even if they did, they couldn't make them.

Quote

2, the states are to have the power so, even if Roe v Wade was struck down, the states would still have the power to choose

OR to the PEOPLE. Funny how you skip over that part when you want to force others to capitulate to your views.

Quote

......and, by the way, how come none of the posts argue my point about judges being activists and putting laws (or striking them down) being the tool of the left.....cause the people will not support the laws they want?

Because it's a biased argument not worthy of debate. I could easily cite specific examples of judges striking down laws favored by liberals. But the conservatives jumped on the "blame the judges" band wagon first so they get to use it. We get to blame the executive branch, you get the judicial, and everyone can pick on the legislature. Did you read the rules?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

With that in mind, you are wrong. The Mass. SC did and the Florida SC did when they interjected themselves into specifically spelled out state law and tried to change Florida Stated election laws to get the canidate they wanted into the presidency.

If my limited understanding is correct, isn't it the *plaintiff* who brings the case before the court, and not these so-called "activist judges"? If so, how is it that they were trying to get what you allege as their candidate into the presidency?

The people bring cases to the court. The court usually reviews the case and makes a decision. If the decision is out of line, for whatever reason, there's an appeals process, is there not?

Checks and balances.

What's your real beef here?

You are right. (in one of the two cases I brought up).

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

In cases of the types you speek of they should only determine the constitutionality of the law. When they add things, or change things or tell law makers to creat new law they have over stepped the constitional powers given them.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

100% wrong.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

If you will also remember, the US Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.

The judicial system worked exactly as designed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

1, the Mass. SC did tell the leg to write a law.

No...they didn't. They may have said that the law was ambiguous and that the legislature should correct that with a law, but they never told them what law to write, and even if they did, they couldn't make them.

Quote

2, the states are to have the power so, even if Roe v Wade was struck down, the states would still have the power to choose

OR to the PEOPLE. Funny how you skip over that part when you want to force others to capitulate to your views.

Quote

......and, by the way, how come none of the posts argue my point about judges being activists and putting laws (or striking them down) being the tool of the left.....cause the people will not support the laws they want?

Because it's a biased argument not worthy of debate. I could easily cite specific examples of judges striking down laws favored by liberals. But the conservatives jumped on the "blame the judges" band wagon first so they get to use it. We get to blame the executive branch, you get the judicial, and everyone can pick on the legislature. Did you read the rules?

1 In the Mass. case I believe the court gave the leg a dead line to write and pass the new law (again, if I remember correctly)

2 I do not want anybody to go to my way just because. I have not implied that and I resent the statement

3 You say OR The People. I am with you but, when I have gotten into this debate befor the other side said the court is there to protect the minorities from the majority. which is it?

The courts job is to protect the minority "if the constitution is on that side" If the law (ie the constition is on the side of the majority then the majority is supported.

It is the "law" and the constitution that is the guiding document. It is not a living document meant to bend to the will of the people (unless done by amendment) or the fucking courts!


Could I suppose my point of view is not worth debating because you can't win?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

100% wrong.

Who requested that they interveen?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Could I suppose my point of view is not worth debating because you can't win?

Nope, thats not it.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

If you will also remember, the US Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.

The judicial system worked exactly as designed.

Exactly! If the US SC is a group of activist then the Florida court would have been to run contrary to the law! The US SC did the job they were put there to do.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

......and, by the way, how come none of the posts argue my point about judges being activists and putting laws (or striking them down) being the tool of the left.....cause the people will not support the laws they want?

So striking down Plessy v Ferguson was wrong since the people did not want to support racial intergration back in the 1950s. I like it how when a judge has enough common sense to see that a wrong is being committed to any geoup or minority they automatically get labeled as a 'activist'. I'm sure Justice Warren would be the poster child for 'activist' justices and how they are pushing the evil left wing agenda if he were on the bench today.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Could I suppose my point of view is not worth debating because you can't win?

Nope, thats not it.

Yep, it is.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Could I suppose my point of view is not worth debating because you can't win?

No.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If the US SC is a group of activist then the Florida court would have been to run contrary to the law!

Could you kindly rephrase this statement so that it might be found more reader friendly? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I'm gonna make a wild guess that someone isnt trying hard enough.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the Florida case the SC did get into the case without any request (if I remember correctly)

100% wrong.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html

You are more correct than I here. The link shows the chain of events in 2000.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln