A View Bearing on Judicial Activism in the U.S.

[Biggles]

this might give you some idea

Frightenly similar to that truechristian.com website I posted a while back.

[3RA1N1AC]

The Supreme Court's main argument was the "trend" since 1989 that seven countries (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo, and China) have banned juvenile capital punishment. Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter changed U.S. law so we can follow the lead of those seven countries.

do these columnists read the things to which they refer, or do they all just rely on Cliff Notes and hearsay? there's an awful lot of taking-for-granted going on, that Kennedy's opinion substitutes "international opinion" for a legal explanation.

Kennedy's full opinion, for anyone who may be curious to read what the thread is actually about:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html

the main argument is not that a juvenile death sentence defies international opinion, but that putting children to death qualifies as a cruel and unusual punishment. first by American standards, and second by international standards. if the eighth amendment were to specify "cruel and unusual ONLY by 18th century American notions, with no regard for later notions or for international notions" then i'd say these columnists have hit the nail on the head.

this columnist goes on to say

Furthermore, most other countries don't allow jury trials or other Bill of Rights guarantees, so who knows if the accused ever gets what we would call a fair trial?

so what? we don't have a constitutional amendment prohibiting generous and unusual freedoms, but we do have one prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments. intentionally or not, she misses the nail completely.

[clocker]

[I][COLOR=Blue]The big majority of countries reject U.S.-style abortion on demand, so the supremacist justices conveniently omitted that "international opinion."

If however, the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade based solely on "international opinion", I'll bet conservatives would have no problems with that at all.
As usual, "activist judiciary" and "international opinion" are the bogeymen in the closet...hustled onstage when necessary to scare the kiddies and ignored when convenient.
If I recall correctly, Bush made quite an effort to curry international favor in support of his Iraq invasion, why was their opinion of worth then and not now?

[JPaul]

The problem with referenda and the like is that few people express their opinion (at least where I come from). This leads to decisions being made by those with a positive agenda in the particular area. (I know the same can be said for elections, however in a democracy we really need to have them.)

In my mind what you then have is decisions made by a specific and limited demographic, in short those who care enough to be arsed to vote. The other option is to have bodies who make these decisions, but enjoin them to consider the wishes and rights of all parties in their deliberations.

The only argument I can think of to counter this is to say that those who can't be bothered to express their opinion forfeit their rights. I can't agree with that. Unless your constition specifically precluded the terminally apathetic (the majority of folk it would appear).

[vidcc]

J2 my feeling on roe v wade is that state rights should not be overruled unless the state is denying individual rights given in the national constitution. Denying the right of individual choice on abortion and I feel gay marriage goes against the US constitution. ...and we are Americans first and members of the individual states second.

You have freedom of religion, what if your state decided to ban religion?...it can't because you are protected.

your freedom of religion does not mean that your moral beliefs should be forced on those that don't share them. I have seen many times people say the wording is freedom of and not freedom from.

It's everyone else's America as well. If you disagree with gay marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex. If you disagree with abortion....don't get one.... you have no right to force your values on those that don't share them.

[hobbes]

J2 my feeling on roe v wade is that state rights should not be overruled unless the state is denying individual rights given in the national constitution. Denying the right of individual choice on abortion and I feel gay marriage goes against the US constitution. ...and we are Americans first and members of the individual states second.

You have freedom of religion, what if your state decided to ban religion?...it can't because you are protected.

Thusly your freedom of religion does not mean that your moral beliefs should be forced on those that don't share them. I have seen many times people say the wording is freedom of and not freedom from.

It's everyone else's America as well. If you disagree with gay marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex. If you disagree with abortion....don't get one.... you have no right to force your values on those that don't share them.

I echo this verbatim.

You cannot aggregate people within this country and create your own rules under the guise of States rights. You cannot vote blacks into slavery just because the people in your State support that idea. Blacks are equal citizens and are protected by the national Constitution.

States rights that violate Constitution rights are unacceptable.

In a free country, you must be willing to tolerate those things which you do not care for, but are allowed under the Constitution, just as others tolerate your right to live as you chose.

Gay marriage is a right granted by the Constitution under pursuit of happiness, it should never have been put to a vote. Such as vote is just as absurd as voting for slavery.

[vidcc]

There actually is a constitutionally-described recall process for the Justices, but for some reason, it hasn't given any of the Justices pause.

What do you think of that?

I think they are not concerned about it because they are making the correct rulings (mostly)

[Everose]

Stock Market Crash of 29 and Franklin Roosevelt?

[Everose]

Prohibition and Carrie Nation?

[hobbes]

While this may seem a bit antiquated, it is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind.

You see, then, how far we've come.

The individual states were intended to be allowed to tailor their laws to the wishes of their citizenry.

I'll bet most of you don't know what historical event precipitated the (unintentional) move away from this stance, nor who was (unwittingly) it's driving force.

First one with the correct answer wins the prize, but only if you answer within 15 minutes of this post.

For Americans, the limit will be 7 minutes, 30 seconds.

Then what is the point of writing a national Constitution? Tailor the laws yes, but within the boundaries of what the Constitution allows.

So you like a slavery state, one which violates an Americans' rights.

In Texas we have no state income tax, you cannot sue a person for his home, the schools operate on trimesters not semesters, we elect to have daylight savings time and a hundred other little things.

Tailoring is not descrimination or enfringement upon the rights of others.

States Rights:
Rights guaranteed to the states under the principle of federalism. Under the Constitution, states have considerable autonomy to pass, enforce, and interpret their own laws and to pursue their own public policy programs. Proponents of states’ rights argue that the states should be governed with a minimum of interference from the federal government.

1
‡ The relationship between federal and state responsibilities has often been controversial. Until the middle of the twentieth century, for example, the Supreme Court left the interpretation of many civil rights guarantees to the states, resulting in hostile and widespread discrimination against minorities.

Federalism:

A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution.

One nation, one language, one Constitution.

Freedom and liberty for all, void where prohibited is not my style.