Another Activist Judge Overrules the Will of the People

How DARE you even THINK about infringing upon their Constitutional right to blow up SUVs and burn down housing developments!!!!??? Clearly you're a bigoted, right wing, neo-con, facist who cares nothing for the environment!!!

-Kiamat Dusk
...drives a sedan

Again, not to get sidetracked, but I'd like to point out the (expensive) irony with groups like ELF who burn down housing developments in the name of the environment. Those houses were insured and *will* be built again, and we end up using TWICE the materials because of the vandalism.

I'm all for the environment, but burning down shit just seems counter productive.


OK.. back on topic.

Insinuating that liberals support terrorists and suicide bombers doesn't help your case. It just makes you sound like an irrational and hateful extremist with no grasp on reality.

Who's insinuating? Time and again, the Left has openly rooted for our enemies. Constantly siding with Palestine over Israel. Take a look at the crowd at any number of demonstrations and the truth of this will bear itself out. Being so close to DC, Chip, you should know this yourself. From FDR affectionately referring to Joseph "One murder is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" Stalin as Uncle Joe to Ward Churchill who referred to 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans", the Left has consistantly sided with America's enemies and then screamed when their patriotism is questioned.

-Kiamat Dusk

I rest my case. You're an irrational bigot. Ward Churchill is no more representative of the average liberal than Jerry Falwell is of the average conservative. If you think anything but I tiny minority of the extreme left supports Churchill's statement you're either ignorant or a loon.

Right. And this is why college after college was bringing him to lecture. Scream all you want, Chip, the facts make a liar out of you again.

-Kiamat Dusk

No, true; he also made some money from scamming people. In 1979, John Kerry and a colleague at the D.A.’s office, Roanne Sragow, opened the firm of Kerry & Sragow, at 60 State Street, in downtown Boston. One of Kerry and Sragow’s more memorable cases involved a series of patients who had received an experimental treatment for baldness: implants of carpet fibers in an attempt to simulate actual hair. This is one of several cases to which I was referring.

During the early eighties, Kerry and a friend, K. Dun Gifford, opened a cookie stand in Quincy Market. They called the business KILVERT & FORBES, after their mothers’ maiden names. Kerry sold his interest years ago, but the cookie emporium still exists.
According to David Liederman of DAVID'S COOKIES:
“Some guy who called me up was John Kerry, in 1980. He said he wanted to come down and talk to me about franchising. He came to the office and said he had an incredible space in Boston, which was in Faneuil Hall. He said he needed some plans and some layouts and recipes and all sorts of things to get the approval of the landlord. So I gave him the layout, the package, and he went back and I didn’t hear from him for six or seven months.”
Then one day Liederman got a call from someone who said they’d seen one of his stores in Faneuil Hall. Not having a store in Boston, Liederman decided to have a look for himself. “It was a direct, 100-percent knock off of David’s Cookies,” said Liederman, from the appliances to the shop’s design to the cookies themselves. “I told him (Kerry) he had stolen my idea, and he replied: ‘You’re absolutely right. I am a politician; I shouldn’t be in the cookie business, so let me sell you my store,’” Liederman wrote. Liederman never bought the store, he said, because Kerry was operating it in violation of his lease. “He was supposed to be selling jams and jellies, not cookies.”

I think any sort of state involvement in marriage, one way or the other, is bullshit. Let anybody marry anyone they want, privately. It's not the government's job to sanction some special type of relationship, or define what marriage is, which existed long before the state stuck it's damn nose in it.

Nonetheless, they being the government, they probably should offer the same benefits to everyone. Equality before the law is a good concept. I happen to think that those benefits should = 0, but that's just me. (isn't the government discriminating against single people? )

As for activist judges, well, I think that executive regulatory bodies are more of a problem. Judges kind of have to be activist by their nature. It's their job to interpret the law. The fact that they might be really partisan hacks, well, that's a problem that has no easy solution. Maybe have all judges elected, rather than appointed.
But for a legislature to pass its own powers over to the executive branch is pretty scary when you think about it. Because the executive branch is the one with all the guns.

The big problem behind all of this is that the government has become the god of this society. People need to stop using government sanction as their measure of social truth. We need to go back to being private citizens that don't give a damn about the government except to grumble when they come to steal our pay, and to thank them when they put out fires.

Then this issue would be settled, like so many others would be, in multiple ways for different people, as it should be. But then again, without all the strife and bs, maybe people would get bored.

Uh no, they make someone with no grasp of numbers out of you. A few colleges does not all liberals make. And just because some people were interested to hear him speak doesn't mean they agree with or support his position, or is that too difficult for you to comprehend? I've seen Bush on TV. It doesn't make me a Bush supporter. Loon.

Kiamat, your "Liberals hate America" shtick is counterproductive, divisive, and nearsighted. If you want us to believe that you are opposed homosexuality but do not hate homosexuals, then perhaps you can try to grasp that just because progressives (and moderates, even many right-leaning moderates) disagree with your positions does not mean we hate you.

Some do hate the Neo-Con crowd, passionately, granted, but it does not then follow that we hate America, because YOU ARE NOT AMERICA. Yes, the Neo-Cons are largely running things and they've gamed a lot of support by paying lip-service to Gawd and organizing Evangelicals around a few pet projects, like the rash of Dibs on Marriage Acts. Good work. Way to play. At last count, however, nearly half the voting populace opposed this leadership.

The fact is, your so-called "Liberals" embody the progressive values on which this nation, this Revolution, was founded. If we express ourselves passionately in support of these values, it is not because we hate America and love its enemies, but because we hate its enemies and the fact that they have gained office.

/me shakes head


Wow has this slid downhill since I last read it......

This whole thread has turn into:

Neo-Lib: fascist!

Neo-Con: hippie!

I've got a bigger answer for this, but I haven't had breakfast, yet, and I'm saving it for another thread. But I will say this: with everything going on in the world today, the only enemies of America you can find are Christians and George W. Bush. The only enemies of America you can find are....your fellow Americans.

Some patriot.

And, Vince, you're right. This thread as deteriorated beyond it's intended discussion. Until someone posts about the original intent of the thread, I will no longer post here. I'd say this discussion has run its course.

Please make with the plethora of dead thread pictures now.

-Kiamat Dusk

We are married in the eyes of my God and Goddess. The state will have to catch up.

Legally speaking, every time my partners and I adjourn to the bedroom, we owe the state a $10 misdemeanor fine. There may be additional fees involved for certain positions and apparatus - I haven't made a study of our blue laws, since they're neither constitutional, enforcible nor ethical.

When one of my partners was hospitalized recently for a major medical procedure, it would have been nice to be able to visit without having to misrepresent myself as a sibling. But I'm not considered a family member of the people to whom I am married. I've got no legal benefits or protections enjoyed by most spouses. As far as the law is concerned, I'm a roommate.

My situation is different from gay partners seeking recognition, but I support and applaud them in their quest for equal treatment. Even if equality is never extended to my little triad, it is only right and fair to treat people as you would like to be treated.

Hmmm, now where did I read that?

Hi! I haven't read *anything* in this thread other than the 1st and last post, so I'm going to spill my opinion untainted by anything other than my own huge biases.

Y'know, it's funny how no one ever uses the words "judicial activism" unless the judge makes a decision they disagree with. A judge's job is to interpret the law. That's what the word "judge" means, more or less. Yet the decisions of a judge are so controversial nowadays. No one actually believes in what the court is supposed to stand for. Heck, even the *words* "fair and balanced" have been cheapened.

TY'know what we should do when a judge makes a decision we don't like? We should STFU. We don't get everything we want in life. Sometimes matters actually need to be *settled*. Terry Schiavo's case should be a wake up call against those who want to circumvent the judicial system. There will be a *huge* debate over judge appointments over the next few years...as there should be. But once a judge has been sat on the bench....that's it. We accept his judgements of what the Constitution says. Judges will have biases...they are *people*, after all. The majority is not always right in the eyes of the law, however...and that's why laws (and judges) exist. Otherwise the 'majority' could subjugate the rights of anyone they disagreed with.

Just because a judge 'overrules the will of the people' doesn't mean he's an 'activist'. He could just be doing his job.

I don't agree with that. Open discussion and debate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. It's when we're all marching in lockstep without tolerating dissent that we stride headlong into disaster.

If that means I have to listen to individuals attacking my most fundamental beliefs, that's the price we pay for freedom.

Besides, if we stifle people for questioning good judges, what's going to happen when the other side gets their hard-liners appointed to the bench? We're going to need all the rhetorical practice we can get before they finish compromising fundamental principles such as freedom of the press, privacy rights, freedom of speech and association, and other bothersome trifles that might impede "national security".

How about we let consenting adults decide how they wish to live their lives, as long as it brings no harm to anyone else?

Let's draw the line at NOT allowing bigoted, bible- thumping, narrow-minded and/or prejudice individuals decide how others should live their lives.

I agree with the spirit of Liona's post and the technicalities of Arcadia's post. On the one hand, I agree that we need to cultivate a deeper respect for the judiciary. On the other, I don't think that means that we stand idly by when judges make bad decisions. Instead, we follow the well-trodden paths of grass-roots reformation to legitimize the changes we seek without becoming usurpers.

I think Ill try to Clarify this a bit.

The Constitution was designed as a plan for the government. Added to it, by agreement were Ammendments guaranteeing rights to the American people.

Each of the states, also have their own constitutions, they agreed, and later were forced to understand by war, that states rights can not superceede Federal protections.

Religeon and the Government were deliberately seperated, becuase moral judgements can lead to oppression.

Provisions were made for the judiciary to be a CHECK and BALANCE for the Legislature. So that the duties of governement and of the people are upheld.

Since its inception , the definition of being one of the "people" has changed becoming more and more tolerant as bigotted judgements were removed. There were ammendments added expressisely becuase the Intolerant refused to see minorities and women as full people.

Minorites, women, homosexuals, non christains, ARE people .. they are included in the "WE THE PEOPLE" ... just becuase the institutions and intolerant have, and continue on different levels, refuse to see that does not mean they are not.

Since a homosexual is a person, he or she is entitled to the SAME rights as any other person.

Since two homosexuals are BOTH people, if they are of age , they should be allowed to be married.

The Judge struck down the state ammendment becuase it Violated federal protections of citizens. It really is as simple as that.

The reason other states have not / or likely will not is very simple ... Politics

Not Justice.

In my opinion it should already be illegal to deny Homesexual's marraige .. in every state. I think any wording saying that they can not is actually unconstitutional in a fundamental sense.

Me stating this does not mean I hate America, Id argue its proof I believe in this country. Since its not our system that oppresses homosexuals, its the people in it, and the people who vote.

So when does the debate stop? We debate who gets to be on the court until finally someone is seated...and then we debate every ruling that's made? Sure, you have revisionist conservatives. You also have revisionist liberals, too...as well as *anyone* who has an opinion. You might as well make the courts meaningless, if their rulings can be overruled as easily as everyone would want to have them. Don't agree with a life support ruling? Appeal it 15 different times, have your governor write an unconstitutional law, then have Congress take an unconstitutional action.

If we want to fight for our judicial beliefs, we fight when we're *supposed* to fight: during the nomination process. That's where our check on the judicial system occurs. Then there's the other option...the one no one dares contemplate: Amending the Constitution. *gasp* We can't do that...it's much easier to be loudmouth minority and get our way then trying to work out the true Will of the People

But it doesn't matter. People don't want justice. They want it their way. Cooperative problem solving is not how we Americans solve anything. What we do is attack, compete, and degrade until anyone with a differeing idea is subjugated. Survival of the fittest.

Do you know the real reason why Evangelicals oppose Darwinism? They don't want anyone treading on thier trade secrets.

Yes.

The debate never stops. There is never a point where we as a society can afford to silence somebody who takes a principled stand on an issue, even if they're outnumbered by millions to one.

Disputes may be settled by the courts, but the issues resurface in new contexts. And it's a good thing. If judicial decisions were inviolate, slavery would still be legal.

It's exhausting to maintain an active defense of principles. It's easier to say, "the courts have already settled that, let's not talk about it". But sometimes the courts are just as wrong as the legislature and executive, and it's our duty as citizens to fight the good fight when that occurs.

Our inviolate right to say "no, you're wrong" to authority is precious... even though it may not seem that way when authority is on our side of an issue. I am deeply unsettled when people voice opinions that perpetuate bigotry, intolerance and irrational fear... but how can we begin to address and heal that fear and hate if it remains unvoiced?

So I expect that every controversial decision handed down by the courts will become the subject of a raft of appeals and fodder for rabid commentators on the cable news circuit. If they didn't, then I would be deeply concerned... even if every decision favored "my side".

Well, the problem here is that bigotry, intolerance, and irrational fear can be used against court decisions as well as to support them. Bigotry,for example, can come from the court bench...and it can also be directed against the court bench.

Judges are given lifetime appointments for a reason. They are to remain inviolate to administrations and third parties. This is why our rabid political system chews on nominees hard before they get the appointment...it's the last time they will have an influence on the person in question. Once the judge has the seat, no one can take it away.

I don't believe you shouldn't disagree with a court's decision. What concerns me is that the Surpreme Court is *no longer* the final say on a matter. Not that an issue is somehow set in stone decided, but that in this instance the case is resolved. The Surpreme Court had to turn down the Schiavo case three times...and there are a number of conservative-minded judges on that bench. Yet people seem to think that the judge shouldn't have the authority to be a judge nowdays.

We can disagree all we like with court rulings. But one rule I *do* believe in is that when a judge says "No", that's a No...accept it for the moment, and work to restate your case.

Judges are not activists. The people who disagree with them so strongly that they deride the judge's authority *are* activists.

I can't argue with you there. If nothing else, presenting the same tired argument in the same tired way bespeaks a profound lack of creativity.

Well, since this thread refuses to die, let me take a different tack here.

How do you feel about the current filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees? Your feelings about the individuals aside, do you believe they deserve an up or down vote? If not, why not?

-Kiamat Dusk

Well the notion of Judical Review-the court having the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional is one of the bedrock foundations of US constitutional law. The Case of Marbury v Madison, decided in the 1790's, stands for the principal that judical power extends to and includes the determination of the consitutionality and validity of legislative acts in cases coming before the courts. this case was interpreting Article III of the Constitution as well as the Judiciary Act of 1789.

In striking down the law against gay marriage, the court simply ruled the the actions of the legislature were unconstitutional. this is wel within the power of the judiciary, which is not bound by the capricious whims of the people. Even amendments to the constitution may be struck down as unconstitutional.

If one wishes to see judical activist judges, one need to look at the segregation disputes of of the 1960's and 1970's wher eat one point activist judges were enterin inot the realm of local politics by reivewing gerrymandering schemes, and at one point, in some cities, federal judges were reviewing the school bus route and school districting, retaining jurisdiction over city school boards to ensure the implementation of the constitutional rulings. Perhaps without this Judicial activism, civil rights would never have progressed, given that it flew in the face of the will of the people in many state to allow black people to drink from the same fountain.


Judical review is not Judicial activism. I am not convinced that the latter is a bad thing, and the former is essential to our government, and has been for over 200 years.

The notion of a congressional filibuster is not new. Simply because one party is frustrated does not mean its time for reform. The irony is that the republicans need to be be agressively -activist in making congress do thier bidding, so they can radiaclly reform the judicalry to make it fit with thier notions of a pillar of the chirstian community.

It's no different than the filibusters used to hold up some of Clinton's nominees when the Republicans were the minority. This is just a frighteningly clear demonstration that the Republican party has no interest in reaching compromise or consensus. They're attempting to abuse majority status. I find it incredibly short sighted, especially when certain Republicans like DeLay try and misrepresent the issue as anti-Christian. That's the worst kind of demagoguery. Judges serve for life and they're meant to interpret the law objectively and with impartiality. When there are candidates that the minority party (whoever it is at the time) object to so strongly that they're willing to resort to filibustering, that candidate doesn't belong on the bench. We're talking about only 4 or 5 nominees out of over 200 that have already been appointed. Bush should be trying harder to find nominees that we can agree on instead of trying to change house rules to serve the agenda of the majority party. If it were the Democrats doing it to try and thwart Republican filibusters I'd still feel the same way.