Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 The future of the United States of America will greatly be set into motion in what will undoubtedly be one of the most important battles in recent times. Of course I am speaking about the nuclear war that is set to take place as GWB nominates not only one but two Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention that if all goes well, and some of the reports are true then he could also very well get the oppertunity to name a 3rd, which would make his presidency one of the the most important in the past 100 years. Consider the fact that he will more then liekly place at least two 50 year old (or so) conservative judges on the bench to go along with Scalia, and Thomas who are reletively young as SCJ go. That will be 4 young minds who are thinking correctly and if GWB is able to add that 5th good young judge, the tabel will be set for normal judicial action in our country for the next quarter of a century. Lets hope that Stevens see the light and steps away, as rumored. Or we would gladly replace Ginsburg with another woman justice perhaps in the mold of Mrs. Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 The future of the United States of America will greatly be set into motion in what will undoubtedly be one of the most important battles in recent times. Of course I am speaking about the nuclear war that is set to take place as GWB nominates not only one but two Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention that if all goes well, and some of the reports are true then he could also very well get the oppertunity to name a 3rd, which would make his presidency one of the the most important in the past 100 years. Consider the fact that he will more then liekly place at least two 50 year old (or so) conservative judges on the bench to go along with Scalia, and Thomas who are reletively young as SCJ go. That will be 4 young minds who are thinking correctly and if GWB is able to add that 5th good young judge, the tabel will be set for normal judicial action in our country for the next quarter of a century. Lets hope that Stevens see the light and steps away, as rumored. Or we would gladly replace Ginsburg with another woman justice perhaps in the mold of Mrs. Brown. 381473[/snapback] "Normal judicial action?" That's an interesting phrase.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 "Normal judicial action?" That's an interesting phrase.. 381482[/snapback] Almost as interesting as "minds who are thinking correctly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 Almost as interesting as "minds who are thinking correctly." 381488[/snapback] yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] Why are you pulling so hard for conservative candidates if their job is to interpret rather than legislate? If the system works as you are proposing, then it shouldn't matter as long as the most qualified judges are appointed. Unless... its okay for judges to legislate if it supports your personal beliefs. I'm sure that's not it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] There are very few people, Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal who approve of legislating from the bench. That being said, I'm glad many of our courts and the SC are willing to knock down legislation that is unconstitutional. What most partisans fail to realize is that the conservative wing of the court has knocked down more legislation of late than the liberal wing has. I guess being an "activist" isn't necessarily at odds with being a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] Like Clarence Thomas, who voted to overturn the will and intent of Congress in 65.63 percent of cases involving constitutional review, choosing instead to mandate his own personal viewpoint into the law of the land? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/14178/92515 No other current Supreme Court justice has been so "activist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Like Clarence Thomas, who voted to overturn the will and intent of Congress in 65.63 percent of cases involving constitutional review, choosing instead to mandate his own personal viewpoint into the law of the land? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/14178/92515 No other current Supreme Court justice has been so "activist." 381638[/snapback] Hmmm...if these figures hold water, it does pose some problems for those Conservatives throwing around the term "activist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 Why are you pulling so hard for conservative candidates if their job is to interpret rather than legislate? If the system works as you are proposing, then it shouldn't matter as long as the most qualified judges are appointed. Unless... its okay for judges to legislate if it supports your personal beliefs. I'm sure that's not it though. 381587[/snapback] Please the answer to the question is so obvious, I feel rather embarassed having to explain it toyou. But I will: You are correct the issue should be qualified judges. Moreover they should be judges who are not interested in legislating from the bench. The reason that I am (in your words..pulling so hard) for conservative judges is because they get that. They do have the tendancy to try to create things that are not there...they instead concentrate on what is there. Simple as that. The liberal leaning judges (including the one that just retired) have seemingly little respect for what is, and more interest on what they think it should be. That is a reciepe for the freak socialist state that we were heading towards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I am not concerned- everything goes in cycles, and if something I don't like happens, it will change within my lifetime. Majority rules- thats how things work, we can't always be happy with every decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that. 381661[/snapback] unfortunately not many on here have half a clue. At least not half a clue that is functioning all at the same time. I mean, they may actually have half of a clue...but maybe only 1/3 of the half is fucntioning at any one time. At other times maybe 1/8 of the remaining 2/3rds of a clue may be working and so on, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Simple as that. 381663[/snapback] It's only simple if you choose to look at it with a simpleton's point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I am not concerned- everything goes in cycles, and if something I don't like happens, it will change within my lifetime. Majority rules- thats how things work...381667[/snapback] Al Gore would probably disagree with that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Al Gore would probably disagree with that statement. 381688[/snapback] Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 unfortunately not many on here have half a clue. At least not half a clue that is functioning all at the same time. I mean, they may actually have half of a clue...but maybe only 1/3 of the half is fucntioning at any one time. At other times maybe 1/8 of the remaining 2/3rds of a clue may be working and so on, and so on. 381670[/snapback] Excuse me, but I am a member of a Bar, just as you are. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on judicial theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Why is that? 381690[/snapback] because the folks who voted for Nader should be forced to live on Long Island in an Escape from New York type scenario. If you count them, then technically Al only received a plurality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 There are very few people, Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal who approve of legislating from the bench. That being said, I'm glad many of our courts and the SC are willing to knock down legislation that is unconstitutional. What most partisans fail to realize is that the conservative wing of the court has knocked down more legislation of late than the liberal wing has. I guess being an "activist" isn't necessarily at odds with being a conservative. 381608[/snapback] To anyone who has studied constitutional law, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is a joke, a meaningless political catch phrase used to attract the attention of folks like Richio. It gives them a one line justification that is easy to remember and can be repeated ad nauseum. Actually thinking through a difficult issue that challenges even the best legal minds, conservative and liberals alike, would be waaaay to taxing and won't fit on a placard. Of course, that is not to even begin to point out the hypocrisy of being all for "legislating from the bench" when it suits your own politics such as in the Schiavo shame-a-thon or the Supremes telling Florida to shove its election laws up a shark's a$$. To be fair, I am sure we will hear the same from the other side along the lines of Judge so and so being opposed to civil liberties or more likely, an "ideologue". It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. Both sides will say there should be no litmus test but that is exactly what they both want, a litmus test on abortion. This is not about legislating from the bench, it is not about the constitution. It is about abortion and that is all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. 381736[/snapback] I couldn't agree with you more. We should be so luck to have a court with Scalia (who, while I don't agree with him, is brilliant) in one corner, Sunstein in another, and Posner floating out there in space . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 To anyone who has studied constitutional law, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is a joke, a meaningless political catch phrase used to attract the attention of folks like Richio. It gives them a one line justification that is easy to remember and can be repeated ad nauseum. Actually thinking through a difficult issue that challenges even the best legal minds, conservative and liberals alike, would be waaaay to taxing and won't fit on a placard. Of course, that is not to even begin to point out the hypocrisy of being all for "legislating from the bench" when it suits your own politics such as in the Schiavo shame-a-thon or the Supremes telling Florida to shove its election laws up a shark's a$$. To be fair, I am sure we will hear the same from the other side along the lines of Judge so and so being opposed to civil liberties or more likely, an "ideologue". It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. Both sides will say there should be no litmus test but that is exactly what they both want, a litmus test on abortion. This is not about legislating from the bench, it is not about the constitution. It is about abortion and that is all there is to it. 381736[/snapback] To be fair, given that Florida couldn't even define what a vote was, their election laws needed to be shoved up a shark's ass. Other than that...nice post. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" only do so against Republicans and not Democrats. I imagine I'll be waiting a LONG time for that explanation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 It's only simple if you choose to look at it with a simpleton's point of view. 381682[/snapback] Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day 381825[/snapback] Rich, I've read your posts and while I disagree with you in some instances, you're posts are usually provocative and well-reasoned. That being said, we both know that the very little is simple or clear with respect to constitutional law. Even within the basic divide, there are several subsets that can play off each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Rich, I've read your posts and while I disagree with you in some instances, you're posts are usually provocative and well-reasoned. 381842[/snapback] Glad to see there's another keen observer of intellect around here. Keep your eyes open: there are only a few in Rich's category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that. Well, the numbers may be right. It's only their presumptions and conclusions that are crap. For me, 50% or more of the laws coming out of Congress being unconstitutional is not a stretch of the imagination. In fact, six out of nine justices would appear to agree it's at or close to 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day 381825[/snapback] Rich, that covers about 95% of what people argue about, when you come right down to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Well, the numbers may be right. It's only their presumptions and conclusions that are crap. For me, 50% or more of the laws coming out of Congress being unconstitutional is not a stretch of the imagination. In fact, six out of nine justices would appear to agree it's at or close to 50%. 382080[/snapback] The validity of the assumptions and conclusions can certainly be debated. What I was happy to see is that someone attempted to articulate and quantify a defintion of activism, as opposed to those who throw around the BS activist tag as a slag on certain jurists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The validity of the assumptions and conclusions can certainly be debated. What I was happy to see is that someone attempted to articulate and quantify a defintion of activism, as opposed to those who throw around the BS activist tag as a slag on certain jurists. But it's their very attempt to quantify and (re-)define "judicial activism" that's crap. They're well aware of the difference between overturning an unconstitutional law and making up new rights that are clearly not included in the Constitution, yet they penned the article to forward their (flawed) version of the "yeah, well so are you" argument. Such a display is hardly worthy of encouragement. Overturning an unconstitutional law is what the SC is supposed to do. Maybe it's Congress that's lost sight of what their responsibilities are - any chance of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 But it's their very attempt to quantify and (re-)define "judicial activism" that's crap. They're well aware of the difference between overturning an unconstitutional law and making up new rights that are clearly not included in the Constitution, yet they penned the article to forward their (flawed) version of the "yeah, well so are you" argument. Such a display is hardly worthy of encouragement. Overturning an unconstitutional law is what the SC is supposed to do. Maybe it's Congress that's lost sight of what their responsibilities are - any chance of that? 382130[/snapback] "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. 382151[/snapback] LOL... Rehnquist just announced he won't be stepping down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 LOL... Rehnquist just announced he won't be stepping down. 382152[/snapback] LOL, responding to yourself. You really are getting good, please keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. 382151[/snapback] I guess if my attempt to examine decisions and the respective reasoning behind them can be dismissed as "bull**it" because I think "judicial activism" has a clearly defined context, then there's not much point in continuing. BTW, you're replying to your own posts now. That's just strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 For Pete's sake, I just saw Rehnquist was staying on and hit the button. Talk about trivial.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I guess if my attempt to examine decisions and the respective reasoning behind them can be dismissed as "bull**it" because I think "judicial activism" has a clearly defined context, then there's not much point in continuing. BTW, you're replying to your own posts now. That's just strange. 382165[/snapback] My point is your judicial activism isn't necessarily the definition that others give to it. For example, I'm guessing many Conservatives don't view the Bush-Gore decision as activism, whereas some Liberals do. That's all I'm saying..no disrespect intended towards you at all. I just hate the way people throw around labels and use them as dialogue-ending insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 For Pete's sake, I just saw Rehnquist was staying on and hit the button. Talk about trivial.. 382168[/snapback] Well, your style reminded me of BF. I had to make mention of it. Kind of like running to the window, " The Ice Cream Truck is here, The Ice Cream Truck is here" Nice work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 My point is your judicial activism isn't necessarily the definition that others give to it. For example, I'm guessing many Conservatives don't view the Bush-Gore decision as activism, whereas some Liberals do. That's all I'm saying..no disrespect intended towards you at all. I just hate the way people throw around labels and use them as dialogue-ending insults. Perhaps there are better examples of decisions that would illustrate judicial activism as practiced by a conservative justice. I thought the argument in the article linked was flawed at it's foundation. I still believe judicial activism has a clear (derogatory) context, but I'm open to the suggestion a better argument can be made on the subject. I'm not offended; it's just difficult to size up someone I've never met, can't see, and can't hear. I'm sure there's posters here that I think I agree with that I would avoid in public, and others I may think little of that I would actually have a great time hanging out with. Just the limitations of the medium. After getting thoroughly reamed by someone for paying them a compliment that they took as cutting sarcasm, I try to be as clear as I can. Or alternately, completely goof off. I try to avoid the in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts