Way to go Bill

[rushmc 23]

Quote

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.

I have not said they (judges) have not gotten anything right

I also do not see the case you mention to be suported in the constitution. Did they not do the "job" they are there for and strike down an un-constitutional 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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Here is how it works:

Leg. makes law A which states that situation B cannot occur.

A person disagrees with this and goes to court.

Judge C looks at arguements from each side and upon examining law A under the auspices of the constitution, finds that law A disallowance of situation B is not constitutional

Judges strikes law A down. The implied effect is that if Leg wants law A to exist, it must be changed. Until it is, law A is not a valid law.

Now, in the meantime, one group that was in favor of law A (not because it was constiutionally sound, but because it fit their moral ideas) calls the Judge an activist for striking down THEIR law.

But he is not. He is just doing what he is supposed to.

THAT is the mechanism for improper laws. The judge is not changing the law, he is saying it must be changed to exist within the framework of our Constitution.

I am not really sure how many more ways I can say the same thing. After this next example, I think I am done with this vein of argument. We have had this same debate in another thread so I am done repeating myself.

To take it to a real situation. No where in the Constitution does it say that gay people cannot marry. What it DOES say is that all men are equal. All have the same rights. Therefore, if a straight person has the right under law while a gay person does not, that law is unconstitional and is no longer applicable until it is changed. So you either throw out government recognizition and sanction of marriage (which I am in favor of anyway) or you allow anyone to marry.

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

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.

Sorry, I am a very poor speller and typist

The Florida SC was ruling agaist the constutional laws of Florida. (the constitution is very specific spelling out the states authority when it comes to elections) The US SC shut them down.

"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

Here is how it works:

Leg. makes law A which states that situation B cannot occur.

A person disagrees with this and goes to court.

Judge C looks at arguements from each side and upon examining law A under the auspices of the constitution, finds that law A disallowance of situation B is not constitutional

Judges strikes law A down. The implied effect is that if Leg wants law A to exist, it must be changed. Until it is, law A is not a valid law.

Now, in the meantime, one group that was in favor of law A (not because it was constiutionally sound, but because it fit their moral ideas) calls the Judge an activist for striking down THEIR law.

But he is not. He is just doing what he is supposed to.

THAT is the mechanism for improper laws. The judge is not changing the law, he is saying it must be changed to exist within the framework of our Constitution.

I am not really sure how many more ways I can say the same thing. After this next example, I think I am done with this vein of argument. We have had this same debate in another thread so I am done repeating myself.

To take it to a real situation. No where in the Constitution does it say that gay people cannot marry. What it DOES say is that all men are equal. All have the same rights. Therefore, if a straight person has the right under law while a gay person does not, that law is unconstitional and is no longer applicable until it is changed. So you either throw out government recognizition and sanction of marriage (which I am in favor of anyway) or you allow anyone to marry.

Convoluted at best

I agee on the "how it is supposed to work. But taking the marriage topic to thay point? Come on. It is not for the courts in this case because that is not in the constitution. I think is takes a wild interpitation to get there at best

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

[Zenister 0]

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!

you miss the point entirely.. a fetus has NO RIGHTS apart from those granted it by its mother...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The Florida SC was ruling agaist the constutional laws of Florida. (the constitution is very specific spelling out the states authority when it comes to elections) The US SC shut them down.

So you are saying the Supreme Court should not have reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

In hindsight that would have allowed us to avoid many problems.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

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!

That is your opinion however, I am not arguing Roe v Wade but rather, how it came to be decided. The wording of the decision says that the right to abortion is constitutionaly protected? That I do not buy.

you miss the point entirely.. a fetus has NO RIGHTS apart from those granted it by its mother...

"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

The Florida SC was ruling agaist the constutional laws of Florida. (the constitution is very specific spelling out the states authority when it comes to elections) The US SC shut them down.

So you are saying the Supreme Court should not have reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

In hindsight that would have allowed us to avoid many problems.

...and created many, many more

The good side of Gore winning? Not having to listen to Kerry!

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I agee on the "how it is supposed to work. But taking the marriage topic to thay point? Come on. It is not for the courts in this case because that is not in the constitution. I think is takes a wild interpitation to get there at best

Ahh, a real issue. I can respond without repeating myself.

Actually, it makes perfect sense within the laws we have made.

You are right. Marriage is not in the constitution. AT ALL. Not just gay marriage but straight. And yet we have all sorts of laws about them.

So, since the government has decided to make laws about marriage, they must either apply the law (and the constitutional rights within) EQUALLY to all who want to get married or we scrap all the laws about marriage.

As for me, I am for getting rid of ALL laws pertaining to marriage...thereby enforcing what the constitution has to say about it (which is nothing), but that is not about to happen, so instead we need to apply Constitutional rights pertaining to them equally to all citizens.

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

[Zenister 0]

abortion is a constitutionally protected 'Right" because the mother has the "Right" to self determination, free of government interference in matters of health care.

that means she can legally decide what medical procedures are best for her. Not you, not me, and certainly not the State.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,107]

>But taking the marriage topic to thay point? Come on. It is not for the
>courts in this case because that is not in the constitution.

Exactly! 100% correct! All it says in the constitution is:

-if the constitution doesn't mention a certain right, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Amendment 9.)

-if a right is not reserved to the US or prohibited by a state, then it belongs to the people. (Amendment 10.)

In other words, since the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, then you can marry whoever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. If a state passes a law against gay marriage, then it is prohibited there in that state. If someone tries to get married and is stopped by the law, they can bring suit against the state government, at which time courts (perhaps the Supreme Court) decides whether it is constitutional to deny people their rights in that manner.

[Nightingale 0]

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"

Um... Zen?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not mandatory authority for courts.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

abortion is a constitutionally protected 'Right" because the mother has the "Right" to self determination, free of government interference in matters of health care.

that means she can legally decide what medical procedures are best for her. Not you, not me, and certainly not the State.

What about the father of the life inside her?

Again my aim is not to debate abortion but rather how the decision was made.
But I do think that the states should decide. Not the federal courts.

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

abortion is a constitutionally protected 'Right" because the mother has the "Right" to self determination, free of government interference in matters of health care.

that means she can legally decide what medical procedures are best for her. Not you, not me, and certainly not the State.

What about the father of the life inside her?

Again my aim is not to debate abortion but rather how the decision was made.
But I do think that the states should decide. Not the federal courts.

You completely miss the whole point of the IXth and Xth Amendments. The Constitution and BoR do not take rights from the people , they guarantee rights to the people, INCLUDING rights not specifically listed, and limit the power of government.

In other words, you DO have a right to privacy (as does a pregnant woman). It is not a right invented by some judge, although the neo-cons would like you to believe that it is.

Thank goodness the ACLU is there to protect us from the intrusions of government, since you apparently don't care if the govt. tramples all over your rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

The law student in you is coming out.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

abortion is a constitutionally protected 'Right" because the mother has the "Right" to self determination, free of government interference in matters of health care.

that means she can legally decide what medical procedures are best for her. Not you, not me, and certainly not the State.

What about the father of the life inside her?

Again my aim is not to debate abortion but rather how the decision was made.
But I do think that the states should decide. Not the federal courts.

You completely miss the whole point of the IXth and Xth Amendments. The Constitution and BoR do not take rights from the people , they guarantee rights to the people, INCLUDING rights not specifically listed, and limit the power of government.

In other words, you DO have a right to privacy (as does a pregnant woman). It is not a right invented by some judge, although the neo-cons would like you to believe that it is.

Thank goodness the ACLU is there to protect us from the intrusions of government, since you apparently don't care if the govt. tramples all over your rights.

Well, here we will just disagree. The "right" to an abortion was, IMHO, was invented by a panel that contained 9 judges. I do not believe this is a right to privacy issue. It is much bigger than that when looked at from a society perspective. I am not missing the point at all. You and I just have different interpretations. The judges, in your opinion, decided correctly. In my opinion they created something not enumerated in the constitution.

In that light, we will also disagree what is juditial activism and what is not.

"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 2,584]

Another thing to consider in judges ruling on laws and the like is that there is a difference between when a court says that a law is improperly applied, and when a court says that a law itself is improper.

In the first case, the law stands. In the second one (and I'm not sure of the mechanics), the law itself is deemed to violate the constitution. That is more often seen as judicial activism; the legislature has to go and make a new law then, taking into account what the applicable court has ruled. Or the state/city/whatever can appeal to a higher court.

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)

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Well, here we will just disagree. The "right" to an abortion was, IMHO, was invented by a panel that contained 9 judges. I do not believe this is a right to privacy issue. It is much bigger than that when looked at from a society perspective. I am not missing the point at all. You and I just have different interpretations. The judges, in your opinion, decided correctly. In my opinion they created something not enumerated in the constitution.

The thing is, rights not enumerated in the Constitution still exist, according to the Ninth Amendment

Quote

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right of a female (or male) to do with their body what they see fit always existed, it just took Roe v Wade to clarify the point. They did not create a new right.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

The right of a female (or male) to do with their body what they see fit always existed, it just took Roe v Wade to clarify the point. They did not create a new right.

You mean I should become aquainted with the facts rather than my own interpretation of what I think something means?

What planet are you from!?!?

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Well, here we will just disagree. The "right" to an abortion was, IMHO, was invented by a panel that contained 9 judges. I do not believe this is a right to privacy issue. It is much bigger than that when looked at from a society perspective. I am not missing the point at all. You and I just have different interpretations. The judges, in your opinion, decided correctly. In my opinion they created something not enumerated in the constitution.

The thing is, rights not enumerated in the Constitution still exist, according to the Ninth Amendment

Quote

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right of a female (or male) to do with their body what they see fit always existed, it just took Roe v Wade to clarify the point. They did not create a new right.

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.

But I guess the ends justify the means as long as you agree with it!

"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

You mean I should become aquainted with the facts rather than my own interpretation of what I think something means?

Just my opinion, but I think much of the problem is due to the fact that Civics is not considered an important subject of study in many US high schools. Students have to only minimally learn about their state and federal constitutions. IMO, this is just begging for problems in a democracy, where the people are suppose to hold the real power.

F@#k the three Rs. Writing and arithmetic don't even start with F@#king R. The three Rs don't do any good in the modern real world, except to prepare students for middle school.

We need to emphasize the four Cs: Civics, Computers, Communications and Calculus. And it wouldn't hurt to require a bit more in the way of science either.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.

They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.

They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.

But I guess the ends justify the means as long as you agree with it!

I really wish you'd taken the time to read my post all the way back at the start of this thread. I know you said you didn't have time, but it really could have saved you a lot of wasted time posting in the long run. It really could have helped you understand the point. Remember, "a stitch in time saves nine".

You say Roe v. Wade should have been legislated not decided in a court. All that the Court did was tell everyone what the law is and has always been. It didn't make law. If Roe v. Wade had never happened the law would have still been exactly as stated in Roe v. Wade. People may have been acting illegally in violation of that law, but the fact that they did not know they were doing it wouldn't have made their actions any less illegal.

The nine in black robes didn't make anything or any law. They just pointed out the fact that people were already breaking a law that had stood since the very creation of your country.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

You've got things the wrong way round.

Individuals are allowed to do anything they like unless there is a law saying they can't.

Institutions are not allowed to do anything unless there is a law saying they can.

Where is there in the Consitution something saying that the Govt. is allowed to make a law infringing on the rights of the individual to do with their body as they wish?