If you want to save the fillibuster

[Wacka]

Dems of yesteryear? KKK Byrd is still there and is called "The conscience of the Senate" by the MSM.

[Reuben Gant]

Dems of yesteryear? KKK Byrd is still there and is called "The conscience of the Senate" by the MSM.

342803[/snapback]

With good cause. He is constantly warning against encroachment

of the executive branch into the legislative. If you think it is the

KKK that defines Byrd, well then, either you hate him or think

he would make a groovy grand dragon.

 

Personally, I think the guy is great on CSPAN, he talks about the

Peloponesian War and an Omnibus bill in the same breath.

Can't say I know his voting record, but I did once work a political

campaign in West Virginia and it was damn spooky from start to finish.

Death threats, race baiting, union plots, and being ex-KKK is not a liability in W.Virginia, for half the state it just means your Daddy was protestant and Christian because none of them had seen a black man until they got a TV around 1980.

 

Believe me, Byrd represents

the moderate middle in West Virginia, and I think he links most of

his speeches to history so his constituents don't know what the hell he

is talking about.

[Pac_Man]

I was commenting on the "activist judiciary" rant that has become the con buzzword.  There is no abuse, they are doing what they're Constitutionally required to do. 

 

I'll type slowly so you can follow along, 'kay?  Two parties have a dispute and are unable to settle it between them.  They go to court and present their side of the issue, and, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Justices hear the arguments made and then look for applicable law in rendering their judgment. 

 

In the event that a specific law hadn't been passed, or if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution,  the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights.  Lower courts will then use the Supreme Court's opinion as guidance in addressing future cases because of (drumroll please) precedent.

 

If you find that to be disturbing, perhaps you should reconcile that you live in a country in which her citizens are entitled to certain rights, although it really does sound like you'd prefer a system whereby the government is even MORE involved in your life than it is now, telling you right and wrong, and what you can and cannot do. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't like the government to be anymore involved in my life than it already is.  In fact, I'd prefer it if the government would just kinda' back off, but that's just me, I'm a believer in individual freedom and rights, but that's just me.

 

You mention abortion.  If you don't want one, don't get one.  But don't try to force your beliefs on that issue on others.

342780[/snapback]

 

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism. Reply again if or when you feel like discussing judicial activism instead of making irrelevant comments. I will however point out an inaccuracy:

 

"if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights." If this were actually true, noise ordinances would be unconstitutional, because nothing in the Constitution says I can't make as much noise as I want. Pollution ordinances would be an infringement of liberties also, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can't have a wildly polluting factory. By the same token I'd even be allowed to own a nuclear weapons arsenal. If the system worked the way you described, most laws, rules, and restrictions we have would be unconstitutional.

[Campy]

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism.

342867[/snapback]

Sorry. Your analogies just don't cut it. Excessive noise and pollution infringes upon others' rights - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy. In other words, it's easier to not make noise than it is to ignore noise. It's easier to not pollute than it is to not get sick living at Love Canal...

 

Lastly, the part where I said there's no such thing as judicial activism pretty much addresses the (non)issue of judicial activism. But go ahead with your talking points, I'm listening.

 

Really.

[Pac_Man]

Sorry.  Your analogies just don't cut it.  Excessive noise and pollution infringes upon others' rights - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy.  In other words, it's easier to not make noise than it is to ignore noise.  It's easier to not pollute than it is to not get sick living at Love Canal...

 

Lastly, the part where I said there's no such thing as judicial activism pretty much addresses the (non)issue of judicial activism.  But go ahead with your talking points, I'm listening.

 

Really.

342949[/snapback]

Another useless response. Well, I guess you tried.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism. Reply again if or when you feel like discussing judicial activism instead of making irrelevant comments. I will however point out an inaccuracy:

 

"if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution,  the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights." If this were actually true, noise ordinances would be unconstitutional, because nothing in the Constitution says I can't make as much noise as I want. Pollution ordinances would be an infringement of liberties also, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can't have a wildly polluting factory. By the same token I'd even be allowed to own a nuclear weapons arsenal. If the system worked the way you described, most laws, rules, and restrictions we have would be unconstitutional.

342867[/snapback]

 

Question: what do you think of the judicial elite's to push their liberal campaign of marital genocide, by which they're undermining the purity of the different subspecies of humanity, to the degree where the intermingling of Homo Sapiens Africanus and Homo Sapiens Europeansis will become so pronounced that there will be no more blonde people in the world by 2200?

 

I ask, only because it was a question that came up some time back...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it...

[Pac_Man]

Question: what do you think of the judicial elite's to push their liberal campaign of marital genocide, by which they're undermining the purity of the different subspecies of humanity, to the degree where the intermingling of Homo Sapiens Africanus and Homo Sapiens Europeansis will become so pronounced that there will be no more blonde people in the world by 2200?

 

I ask, only because it was a question that came up some time back...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it...

343509[/snapback]

This question really is out of the blue. I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the issues regarding judicial appointees--including the issue of judicial activism--rather than wander off into a discussion about race, mixed marriages, etc. What bothers me about judicial activism is the idea of the Supreme Court creating new constitutional provisions out of thin air. Regardless of what your views on contraception or abortion happen to be, the right way to put those views into law is through Congress, not by pretending the constitutional clause about unreasonable government searches of private homes has anything to do with either contraception or abortion. While this tactic gets many people the policies they want, it does so by abandoning the rule of law.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This question really is out of the blue. I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the issues regarding judicial appointees--including the issue of judicial activism--rather than wander off into a discussion about race, mixed marriages, etc. What bothers me about judicial activism is the idea of the Supreme Court creating new constitutional provisions out of thin air. Regardless of what your views on contraception or abortion happen to be, the right way to put those views into law is through Congress, not by pretending the constitutional clause about unreasonable government searches of private homes has anything to do with either contraception or abortion. While this tactic gets many people the policies they want, it does so by abandoning the rule of law.

343586[/snapback]

 

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant. The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights. The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission. Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent. Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post. Why change now?

[Pac_Man]

Allow me to dissect this post piece by piece.

 

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant.

In other words, you're not happy that I didn't allow myself to get sidetracked into a discussion about race and mixed marriages. Fine.

 

The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights. 

Actually, it does both. There is the habeus corpus provision, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to peaceable assembly, the right to bear arms, the freedom of the press. All these things are outlined in the Constitution and its amendments.

 

The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission. 

You are sort of right about this. The Constitution states that any rights not specifically set aside for the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

 

Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.

True, but not relevant. How can 200 years of legal precedent be used to justify a completely new interpretation of a constitutional provision that's been around for 200 years? You're no longer skating on thin ice here, you're skating where there's no ice at all.

 

Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

According to this line of thinking, Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, because it turned what was a state issue (abortion) into a federal issue. The chief effect of Roe vs. Wade was that the states no longer had control over their own abortion policies, because this was dictated from Washington.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post.  Why change now?

343642[/snapback]

Based on the errors you've made above, it would be easy for me to make some remark about the pot calling the kettle black. But to be honest, I'd rather engage in an intelligent debate about the issues at hand than fight a useless flame war. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable; which is why disagreements can often be resolved by exposing people to new information and new ways of thinking. This is the style of debate I will continue to try to follow. If you have any interest in this type of discussion, I may continue to respond to your posts.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But to be honest, I'd rather engage in an intelligent debate about the issues at hand than fight a useless flame war.

343690[/snapback]

 

That would be a HUGE step for you.

[Pac_Man]

That would be a HUGE step for you. 

343696[/snapback]

At least your response wasn't, um . . . . . . . a flame or anything!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

At least your response wasn't, um . . . . . . .  a flame or anything!

343700[/snapback]

 

You're not worth much more. Are you going to share your views on race with us again anytime soon, or do we have to go to find back issues of Der Stuermer for it?

[Pac_Man]

You're not worth much more.  Are you going to share your views on race with us again anytime soon, or do we have to go to find back issues of Der Stuermer for it?

343705[/snapback]

You appear to have taken my refusal to discuss race at all as meaning I'm some kind of Nazi. This "attempt" at a flame war is absolutely pathetic.

 

What bothers me most about this discussion is that nobody has even attempted to advance an intelligent reason why it's okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the rule of law. Despite this lack of intellectual justification, people seem quite content to attack myself and my views anyway.

 

Campy dodged the issue of judicial legality by saying that he agrees with the position the Supreme Court took on abortion, and that he disagrees with what he assumes my abortion views are. I specifically chose not to discuss my own views about abortion, instead focusing on the legal mechanisms by which any given view of abortion should be put into practice. Maintaining the rule of law is, in the long run, more fundamentally important to maintaining a democracy than achieving a short-term victory on an issue like abortion.

 

If it's okay for liberal justices to legislate from the bench, it's okay for conservative justices to do the same. The Constitution prohibits the government from maintaining a state religion. Well, conservative justices could (if they were activists) stretch this prohibition into something which would prohibit the government from doing anything which might influence people's religious views. So if the National Endowment for the Arts sponsored anything which might possibly have anything to do with Christianity (urine mixed with religious images comes to mind) this organization would immediately lose all federal funding. Judicial activism is all good and fun (for liberals) when it's being used to promote liberal causes. But if conservative judges started pulling this stuff, the liberals would be up in arms. Let's just be glad that at least conservative judges still believe in the rule of law.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The fillibuster is important in times like today. You have a spilt almost down the middle... Yet, one party controls all three houses.

 

The difference between this is under 10 million people.

 

I would never want to see it go, even if things were the other way.

 

There are what 50 some million constituents that need it?

 

If things were lopsided... I could not see the fillibuster actions.

 

Too much is at stake for an evenly divided country.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant.  The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights.  The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission.  Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.  Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post.  Why change now?

343642[/snapback]

 

Somebody took ethics training?

 

[Campy]

What bothers me most about this discussion is that nobody has even attempted to advance an intelligent reason why it's okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the rule of law.

343763[/snapback]

Simply put, your argument just isn't conducive to intelligent debate because it's not based upon an opinion but upon a false premise.

 

As I've tried to explain in previous posts, the Supreme Court interprets law. If there is no specific law relevant to a case they are hearing, they take the framework provided by existing law and apply it to their opinion/decision/judgment. You or I may not always like the outcome, but considering that the only thing they do is to interpret law, it is impossible for them to "ignore the rule of law" is it not?

 

To me it sounds like you're either confusing the role of the judicial branch with that of the legislative, or that you are simply unaware of the roles that the legislative and judicial branches play in that whole checks and balances thingy.

[Campy]

The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights.  The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission.  Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.  Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

343642[/snapback]

The above should be considered mandatory reading.

[Pac_Man]

Simply put, your argument just isn't conducive to intelligent debate because it's not based upon an opinion but upon a false premise.

If you want something based on a false premise, I suggest you reread the CTM post you just got done praising. I already pointed out the flaw in that post once, so I suggest you go back and read what I had to say about it.

 

As I've tried to explain in previous posts, the Supreme Court interprets law.  If there is no specific law relevant to a case they are hearing, they take the framework provided by existing law and apply it to their opinion/decision/judgment.  You or I may not always like the outcome, but considering that the only thing they do is to interpret law, it is impossible for them to "ignore the rule of law" is it not?

Too bad nothing in this paragraph addresses the issue of the Supreme Court creating a Constitutional "right to privacy"--by which they meant the right to contraception and abortion--out of whole cloth.

 

To me it sounds like you're either confusing the role of the judicial branch with that of the legislative,

To me it sounds like you're confusing me with an activist judge.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You appear to have taken my refusal to discuss race at all as meaning I'm some kind of Nazi. This "attempt" at a flame war is absolutely pathetic.

343763[/snapback]

 

On the contrary, I've taken your previous discussions of race as meaning you're a Nazi...

[Pac_Man]

On the contrary, I've taken your previous discussions of race as meaning you're a Nazi...

345070[/snapback]

You really are a lot better at labeling people than at intelligent discussion, aren't you?