Printable View
So?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@18 June 2004 - 14:55
Reagan endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.
He was against abortion, as was his right.
Besides, even behind the bully pulpit of the office, "endorsing" is not quite the same as abusing judicial fiat, is it?
Abortions can still be obtained all across the fruited plain, yes?
So?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+18 June 2004 - 17:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 18 June 2004 - 17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 June 2004 - 14:55
Reagan endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.
He was against abortion, as was his right.
Besides, even behind the bully pulpit of the office, "endorsing" is not quite the same as abusing judicial fiat, is it?
Abortions can still be obtained all across the fruited plain, yes? [/b][/quote]
He also endorsed appointments of anti-abortion judges and new restrictions on family planning programs that involved abortion services.
(I actually agree with the latter, just not as an amendment)
The Constitution gives rights. It doesn't them away (well except Prohibition).
The actual function of the Constitution is somewhat vague these days, what with our activist and agenda-driven judiciary.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@20 June 2004 - 02:08
The Constitution gives rights. It doesn't them away (well except Prohibition).
Roe v. Wade, for example, is probably the all-time worst example of judicial activism, and not for the reason(s) you might think. ;)
Wouldnt you say "The Gore Exception" was?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 12:25
Roe v. Wade, for example, is probably the all-time worst example of judicial activism, and not for the reason(s) you might think. ;)
:rolleyes:
Laymans Guide to the Gore Exception
"Was" what?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2004 - 07:35
Wouldnt you say "The Gore Exception" was?
:rolleyes:
Honest to God, Rat; at base, the Florida/Supreme Court situation was nothing more than the Dems hoist on their own petard.
Jusy because you can find links to sites sympathetic to Gore (and you can do it all-day-long, as I'm well aware) doesn't mean they are correct, all it means is they can't get over it. ;)
Well, these 2 Republican Justices that sat on that supreme court differ to yourself in their opinion :PQuote:
Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States."
Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . " We "risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."
Edit: Added 2 Democrat Justices remarks.... these are the 4 that voted on the rule of Law, and not because their wifes were collecting names for the Bush Administration's appointees ( Justice Thomas (Republican) ) or sone were working as Bush's Lawyers (Justice Scalia (Republican) ) or wished to retire unless a Democrat was elected (Justice's Rehnquist and O'Connor (Republican) )
Im merely following on a topic, and saying that there is a worse case of Judicial Activism than the one you quoted.. ;)
Quote:
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this is the first time a court has ever refused to count votes in order to protect one candidate's "legitimacy" over another's.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
It would follow then that you believe Stevens and Souter to be "Conservative" Justices?
Just so we're clear, Rat, Thomas and Scalia are the only constructionists amongst the Supremes.
Activism is the order of the day for the rest, depending on the issue, of course.
BTW-Where did your second quote come from? ;)
From the original source above... The Gore Exception.
As the guy that hosts that is an Atorney at Law, I'll assume he knows more about the Laws of the USA than either of us :P
Especially as he's quoting 4 Supreme Court Justices that voted against, and gives reasons that 4 out of the 5 that voted for should have dismissed themselves from the case anyway....
Edit:
This aint about the results and whether Gore won or lost... it was about "Judicial Activism", whereby the Supreme Court made sure that Bush Won before the results were known :P
You brought the subject up ;)
What is "activist" about interpreting the laws as they stand?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2004 - 08:09
This aint about the results and whether Gore won or lost... it was about "Judicial Activism", whereby the Supreme Court made sure that Bush Won before the results were known :P
You brought the subject up ;)
That is what happened in Bush/Gore, no matter what your expert says.
The activism I was referring to was Roe v. Wade.
Just to be clear, j2....
When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.
When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".
Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?