kelpdiver 2 #51 February 10, 2006 Quote As much as it sucks, I prefer the third of those options. Judges should leave lawmaking to legislatures, and should not be in the business of conferring new and unrecognized substantive rights on people, even if merited. If it was that important, the legislature should deal with it. Often the ligislature is the problem. Like when passing bans on gay marriage. They can't be the solution in those circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #52 February 10, 2006 QuoteSaying that is like suggesting that I delieve that Bush is wrong for attempting to protect the people from terrorism. I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that he is going about it the wrong way. Kallend - who is the arbiter of what rights we have? Who? Who does it? In the tension between rights, who wins? I mean, we have the right to self-determination, right? What if a person determines that he has the right to not allow blacks in his restaurant? But a black man thinks he has the right to eat there? Who wins? You have the right to state what you think. But I have a right not to be liabled. Who's rights win? We have certain inalienable rights. They weren't enumerated. So when people asked, "What rights to I have?" The people said, "Whaever is in our constitution." And the people said, "What about the right to free speech?" And the people replied, "It isn't there." So the people said, "Well, then, let's amend it." And they did,and it was enumerated. And the people smiled upon the land, for it was good. List some "self evident truths." Actually, I think I'll post something asking it. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" most certainly was enumerated in the country's founding document, so why has it disappeared (according to your description above)?... 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
