Hugh_Hoy Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 The following is typical of judicial activism in the U.S. Judicial activism is a favorite means of liberals to get what they can't from voters or legislators. It is a means liberals use to negate the will of the people. It is McCain's position that courts should follow the Constitution narrowly, while Obama and his neo-commies would use it advance their "social justice", "economic justice" and other favorite code-words to take away the power of the people and states to rule themselves. From the AP: WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court says the law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in cases of child rape violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented. There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Don't ask for my opinion, I'm totally against the death penalty. Barbaric anachronistic practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 whats your pov on SHU program in pelican bay. 23 hour solitary lock up? rape a kid. death upon them. no mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Don't ask for my opinion, I'm totally against the death penalty. Barbaric anachronistic practice. There are separate issues here. One is whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in certain cases or ever. Another issue is how the people of a constitutional republic should determine whether and when the death penalty is applied. I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the death penalty, but I am foursquare against judicial tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Are these the same judicial tyrants who handed Bush the presidency against the will of the people in 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the death penalty, but I am foursquare against judicial tyranny. Hmmmm. Judicial activism. More neo-con speak. It simply means that some judge does not agree with them. Let's analyze. What is a judge's job description? It is to interpret the law as written as it applies to the situation at hand. Any arguments? I didn't think so. Judges are elected positions (or appointed by elected officials). And they are human. If you do not like them, change them. Do not, various neo-cons have called for, attempt or threaten to assassinate them. Since the ABA's site is pay-per-view, I'll use that link's cut-n-paste of the ABA meeting minutes regarding the subject. Get over it. Because it is a barrel of laughs, or would be if they weren't serious (I know one of the founders via friend-of-a-friend and assure you it is *very* serious), I'll quote "Conservapedia" on this subject, vis-a-vis Brown-v-Topeka BoE: [color:purple]"The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case Brown v. Board of Education and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced Judicial Restraint, they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst."[/color] Or in other words, 'all men are created equal' only applies to white folk, and besides, we've been doing this for years, so it is OK. Only upitty Negras think they are equal to us crackers!" So is "judicial activism" really, as is "states rights," "welfare reform," and many other neo-con catch-phrases just right wing hate/bigotry speech? I'd say yes... QED. YMMV. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Are these the same judicial tyrants who handed Bush the presidency against the will of the people in 2000? What do you mean "the will of the people"? President Bush won the election. Then Al Gore tried to steal it away from him. The Florida State Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution in support of Al's larceny so the U.S. Supreme Court smacked them down and let the original results stand. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Judicial activism. More neo-con speak. It simply means that some judge does not agree with them. No, it means something quite different than that although not everyone possesses the intelligence and education to engage the issue substantively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Judicial activism. More neo-con speak. It simply means that some judge does not agree with them. No' date=' it means something quite different than that although not everyone possesses the intelligence and education to engage the issue substantively.[/quote'] Correct. I did engage the issue substantantively. You punted. Next. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 What do you mean "the will of the people"? Ah yes. You mean the edict from SCOTUS that expediency was more important than what the voters wanted? That is, the "fuck the recount, we need to pick now!" decision? That *could* be called partisan politics, since a) it was a precedent and the decision was a group effort but those appointed by the GOP. But not judicial activism... And do you mean the final accredited study by the Miami Herald that showed who really won the election? (Uh, that'd be Gore by a few fractions of a percent.) We are foregtting the dodginess that was Ohio here, too. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.