tso-d_chris 0 #51 October 17, 2005 Quote The seperation of church and state has been made into something it is not! Care to elaborate? BTW, it is good form to at least pretend to read a post before commenting, don't you think? For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #52 October 17, 2005 Quote The seperation of church and state has been made into something it is not! I love this sentence So if it's not was it is, what is it? "Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #53 October 17, 2005 Quote Look, I do not have time to read your entire post but Sorry, I stopped reading after that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #54 October 17, 2005 Quote One of the rationales behind what some refer to as judge created law is that it is not actually a new law, but merely a proper enunciation of what the law has always been. ... However what is really happening is the Judge is simply saying that from the date of the constitution, the law against red heads speaking on the weekend has been illegal. As such any laws or activities countermanding that have been illegal. His judgment is not ''new law'', but old law properly stated. All previous laws and judgments have been mistakes and that this is actually the way it always was – just everybody failed to see it. That is right. The majority of ACTIVIST judges are not rewriting law. They are striking down laws which violate the Constitution. Are their judges who try to make laws? Sure? But then Congress often tries to pass laws that step out of bounds for their power too. Abuse exists in every branch. But this term activist judge is too often used for those who are actually striking down a unconstutional law (especially when the law is popular with the christian right). Hell, if a judge struck down a law that the christian right loved, I can bet that judge would be praised as being righteous and good and not an Activist. But for those who liked the status quo, this is a problem. Unfortunately, the status quo does not equal correct in every situation and so judges who change that suddenly become evil and accused of rewriting the Constitution. on topic a little more: There are a lot of groups that I do not agree with that the ACLU supports. Hell, on most days I hate the ACLU. But people fail to realize that in these extreme cases they are not defending a certain person or group. They are defending the RIGHT of that group (no matter how much our societal morals find that group repugnant) to say their piece. They are not defending the KKK to allow them to lynch black people or firebomb churches, but to simply allow them to speak. I depise the KKK and everything they stand for, but if we silence their right to speak, where does it stop? All it takes is one precedence where they were denied the right to free speech for some crafty lawyer to apply it to another group, even one the public finds more palatable, and another and another. The right to free speech is not the right to free MORAL speech. You may not like it, but they must be allowed to say it.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #55 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote Quote Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of I think he has a better grasp on our system than do many Americans. Dam, thanks for clearing that up for me Thats ok. If you'd like we can stop and wait while you catch up. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #56 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote Quote Quote Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of I think he has a better grasp on our system than do many Americans. Dam, thanks for clearing that up for me I guess I should bow to your superior intelect........ Thats ok. If you'd like we can stop and wait while you catch up."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #57 October 17, 2005 Like I said. Converting them one at a time. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #58 October 17, 2005 >The bible thumping anti-abortionists who give instructions as to how > to assasinate abortion doctors are just as evil as the NAMBLA group > giving instruction on how to seduce little boys. I agree. And if there is a website that says "take a gun and go to this address and kill this guy" it gets shut down and people get arrested, because it is illegal to help assassins kill people. Likewise, if there's a website that says "go to this playground and offer this kid candy, then take his pants off" that site gets shut down and the people who run it get arrested - because, again, they are enabling criminals. However, that is a poor reason to shut down _other_ websites that are virulently anti-abortion or pro-NAMBLA. Even if they celebrate the assassins as heroes, or lobby to change pedophilia laws. >Why is there a defense for heinous behavior? Let's call it all what it >is...pure evil. Instead of trying to defend it, we should be working >toward annihilating it. If you started an anti-NAMBLA group, I'd send you a check. This isn't about supporting an evil group. It is about what the first amendment says about ALL groups and ALL people, whether they are evil or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,565 #59 October 17, 2005 Quote There are a lot of groups that I do not agree with that the ACLU supports. Hell, on most days I hate the ACLU. But people fail to realize that in these extreme cases they are not defending a certain person or group. They are defending the RIGHT of that group (no matter how much our societal morals find that group repugnant) to say their piece. They are not defending the KKK to allow them to lynch black people or firebomb torches, but to simply allow them to speak. I depise the KKK and everything they stand for, but if we silence their right to speak, where does it stop?I just thought this bore repeating. Everyone has the right to free speech. Yes, there are limits (e.g. "Fire" in a theater, or "bomb" at the airport). But that right applies to the people you disagree with as much as the ones you agree with. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #60 October 17, 2005 Quote How anyone in their right mind can justify defending NAMBLA is beyond me. The ACLU defended neo Nazis and the KKK. All three groups, Nazis, KKK and NAMBLA are despicable IMO, but free speech is a bitch. Would you rather let the government decide what is ok for us to hear and say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #61 October 17, 2005 Once you draw a line in the sand as to who deserves their constitutional rights or not, someone needs to define where the line gets put. Tell me...who has the right to decide where the line goes? IMO, no one. That's why the eradication of the line, no matter who is on the other side of it, is vitally important to our continued freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #62 October 17, 2005 Read the IXth and Xth Amendments before proclaiming that the courts are inventing new rights. Rights belong to the people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #63 October 17, 2005 Quote Read the IXth and Xth Amendments before proclaiming that the courts are inventing new rights. Rights belong to the people. Exactly! Not the courts. Laws are changed and written through the leg. by those chosen by the people! Courts interpt the meaning when a disagreement comes up or, says the law is not constitutional. 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? Do you think that if a state votes and the people say that funds will not be provided for illegal aliens should have that vote turned over by a judge. Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? All done by judges......not the people. I know they do good too. But because the left can't get the laws they want in this country (BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PEOPLE DO NOT AREE WITH THEM) they use the courts to get what they want See, we agree on something"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #64 October 17, 2005 Quote Exactly! Not the courts. Laws are changed and written through the leg. by those chosen by the people! Courts interpt the meaning when a disagreement comes up or, says the law is not constitutional. 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? Do you think that if a state votes and the people say that funds will not be provided for illegal aliens should have that vote turned over by a judge. Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? All done by judges......not the people. I know they do good too. But because the left can't get the laws they want in this country (BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PEOPLE DO NOT AREE WITH THEM) they use the courts to get what they want I'm not sure you understand what a "right" is. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution preserves rights. That is to say that your "Constitutional rights" are things that the government has been forbidden to infringe upon. The government did not grant the rights. However, if the Supreme Court decides that gays have a right to get married, no state has the authority to infringe upon that right, and any laws forbidding such unions would in fact be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can't grant new rights. The Supreme Court (and the lower courts) can, however, clarify that long existing rights have been infringed, and compel the parties to cease such infringement of rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #65 October 17, 2005 Quote Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #66 October 17, 2005 Quote 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? Wow...that would be messed up. When did that happen? Oh that's right...it hasn't. What has happened is that courts have said that two existing laws conflict with each other. It is then up to the legislature to determine which way they want to go and get rid of the conflict. Would you prefer that judges ignored conflicts and just picked which laws they think they should follow? Quote Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? No where. Where does Roe v. Wade say that? All that Roe v. Wade said is that you can't prosecute someone for getting or giving an abortion. Not quite the same, now is it. What the constitution does say on the matter is... Quote Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #67 October 17, 2005 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.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #68 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" Life? Thanks for proving my point!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote Exactly! Not the courts. Laws are changed and written through the leg. by those chosen by the people! Courts interpt the meaning when a disagreement comes up or, says the law is not constitutional. 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? Do you think that if a state votes and the people say that funds will not be provided for illegal aliens should have that vote turned over by a judge. Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? All done by judges......not the people. I know they do good too. But because the left can't get the laws they want in this country (BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PEOPLE DO NOT AREE WITH THEM) they use the courts to get what they want I'm not sure you understand what a "right" is. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution preserves rights. That is to say that your "Constitutional rights" are things that the government has been forbidden to infringe upon. The government did not grant the rights. However, if the Supreme Court decides that gays have a right to get married, no state has the authority to infringe upon that right, and any laws forbidding such unions would in fact be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can't grant new rights. The Supreme Court (and the lower courts) can, however, clarify that long existing rights have been infringed, and compel the parties to cease such infringement of rights. 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."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #70 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote Quote Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" Life? Thanks for proving my point! Now, *that* was fuckin' funny! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #71 October 17, 2005 Quote Quote 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? Wow...that would be messed up. When did that happen? Oh that's right...it hasn't. What has happened is that courts have said that two existing laws conflict with each other. It is then up to the legislature to determine which way they want to go and get rid of the conflict. Would you prefer that judges ignored conflicts and just picked which laws they think they should follow? Quote Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion? No where. Where does Roe v. Wade say that? All that Roe v. Wade said is that you can't prosecute someone for getting or giving an abortion. Not quite the same, now is it. What the constitution does say on the matter is... Quote Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 1, the Mass. SC did tell the leg to write a law. 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 and, where do you see spelled out in any of the quotes you have above supporting (directly) your argument or, it is your interpitation. ......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?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #72 October 17, 2005 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?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,565 #73 October 17, 2005 Traditionally the fetus has not had a separate legal existence from its mother. Trying to recognize the fetus as a person, with all of the rights and responsibilities of a person, is new legal ground. It might mean that miscarriages will require full-up funerals with funeral directors and the like. It might mean that a woman gets to claim the IRS deduction while she is still pregnant, rather than having to wait until the baby is born. Maybe insurance will have to figure out what treatment is for the mother, and what is for the baby, and work it accordingly. It might mean that when a decision has to be made about "mother or child" that the mother's input is not taken as being any more important than the father's. Parents can be arrested for not nurturing their children appropriately -- maybe we should monitor pregnant women and make sure that they are eating properly, and not smoking, as well. A fetus can't only be a person when it matches what you want to have happen. If it's a person (and I really don't believe it's the same), then it's a person when it's inconvenient as well as when it's convenient. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #74 October 17, 2005 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 they do not do that. What makes you think otherwise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #75 October 17, 2005 Quote Traditionally the fetus has not had a separate legal existence from its mother. Trying to recognize the fetus as a person, with all of the rights and responsibilities of a person, is new legal ground. It might mean that miscarriages will require full-up funerals with funeral directors and the like. It might mean that a woman gets to claim the IRS deduction while she is still pregnant, rather than having to wait until the baby is born. Maybe insurance will have to figure out what treatment is for the mother, and what is for the baby, and work it accordingly. It might mean that when a decision has to be made about "mother or child" that the mother's input is not taken as being any more important than the father's. Parents can be arrested for not nurturing their children appropriately -- maybe we should monitor pregnant women and make sure that they are eating properly, and not smoking, as well. A fetus can't only be a person when it matches what you want to have happen. If it's a person (and I really don't believe it's the same), then it's a person when it's inconvenient as well as when it's convenient. Wendy W. 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"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
