Observations: (Not quite a rant)

[Colleen Thomas]

Pure said, in part: "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if the religious folks re-criminalize blasphemous speech, under the new Supreme Court, and amicus--never quite aware of who he's in bed with--as an atheist, feels moved to defend such laws? (as consistent with the mental set of the framers).

There are already moves to expand prayer in schools; something one doesn't hear about from amicus, the atheist, since he wants to post a trollish rant about FDR and old age pensions in effect in all advanced Western democracies..."

Everything you disagree with, Pure, you describe as a 'trollish rant', sighs, grow up, get a life, there are others who hold opinions different than yours.

The real answer is to abolish public schools, but it would take a revolution to do that.

I do not support flag burning laws, burn the damned thing, it is a piece of cloth, even though a symbol.

And although I object to the use of religious objects and sayings in any public building, god the creator is indeed a part of american history and I suppose we must leave the peons something.

Your continual haranging about the Supreme Court continues to illustrate that you do not understand the issue. Congress makes law, the Court weighs the constitutionality of such laws.

People have had enough of 'activist' judges, that is the issue.

amicus...

Actually, the issue is slightly diferent.

A belief among many conservatives deals with the liberal agenda. Even with both houses of congress in their pockets and the president getting blow jobs from interns, liberals couldn't legislate their agenda onto the american people. American's won't accept it or put up with it. Since liberals cannot convince more than half of us to buy into their program, they decided they would simply adjudicate that agenda. So they began packing the federal courts with liberals who would add the interpretation to the law that liberals favored.

This is where the idea of activist judges had its genisis. And, to be perfectly fair, there are enough cases where a liberal judge or liberal panel of judges have made decisions that would seem to be politically motivated to feed such a concept.

The call, then, from conservatives is for judges who don't buy into the liberal agenda and intend to undo what they see as the damage of liberal rulings. Of course, that calls for acctivist judges of their own. A truly conservative judge would be just as loath to overturn a previous liberal decision for no reason as he would to reinterpret an existing ruling that had a conservative bent.

A conservative would only vote to change things where change was necessary. As part of the definition of conservative, change for the sake of change would be anathema.

Roberts is one of these neo-conservative judges who entertain the idea they need to "fix" previous rulings. rather than coming in with the idea of hearing only the cases they MUST hear as new laws come up against existing constitutional definitions and influence.

 

[Pure]

ami repeated from an old tape

People have had enough of 'activist' judges, that is the issue.

Define 'activist' applied to judges.

Give three examples of 'activist' SC rulings, and just so we don't hear more tapes, let's leave aside Roe v Wade.

---
Note to Colly: the symmetry you note is pretty clear. it's going to take 'activism' so-called for the SC to return, with any speed, to acceptance of subtly coercive school prayer.

Note in the Roberts decision his willingness to go against the basic _stare decisus_ in argumentive maneuvres around school prayer. (Urging rejection of the 'Lemon' test.) This is not really conservative in the economic, social(values) or legal sense.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Tell you what -- you start on boy bands, and I'll start on Britney Spears.

Yah!!! Britney for president, oh, this ain't the lesbian site, anywho, back on topic.

Amicus is lookin for the usual suspects to jump in feet stompin, I dunno, sometimes I wonder if what he says goes over my head (huh) like a discussion on whether homosexuality is real or imagined, maybe it was on Jerry Springer or The Judge Judy Show or somethin.

I think the totality of his initial post was just disillusionment, with politics, morals, or his view of morals, crappy t.v. shows, and the way things are going today.

I agree with him completely, but from a stupendously different point of view, and if I am imaginin lesbianism I don't think even wet dreams could explain the multiple, multiple orgasms.

Oh well, if we ever do move forward slightly it will prolly be with an idiot like Hillary as president, and Martha Stewart runnin the treasury, but maybe Britney Spears runnin my department of interior.

Its funny, we want change, and change is good though often not what we want, and I am sure we will still be disillushioned, but I remain hopeful.



A quick off topic aside "god bless the crew of discovery, keep them safe and bring them home safe"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

ami repeated from an old tape

People have had enough of 'activist' judges, that is the issue.

Define 'activist' applied to judges.

Give three examples of 'activist' SC rulings, and just so we don't hear more tapes, let's leave aside Roe v Wade.

---
Note to Colly: the symmetry you note is pretty clear. it's going to take 'activism' so-called for the SC to return, with any speed, to acceptance of subtly coercive school prayer.

Note in the Roberts decision his willingness to go against the basic _stare decisus_ in argumentive maneuvres around school prayer. (Urging rejection of the 'Lemon' test.) This is not really conservative in the economic, social(values) or legal sense.

Sme previous rulings probably need review. This latest, expanding iminent domain to basically say you can't own property in this country anymore should a suitably rich person/company want your property and make vague promises that his development of it will increase tax revenue is, liberal unto the point of socialism. It expands the traditional idea of for the public good, to include percioeved public good through projected tax revenue that benefits the public. It does so at the cost of stripping anyone who owns a home of any security they will still own it when they retire. The five justices who voted for it should be hung in effigy, IMHO.

Just as obviously, the ruings the religious right want overturned would require judicial activism on the part of the SC. A true conservative wouldn't move to overturn roe because that ruling is grounded in constitutional law. It basically bars the federal government from usurping a reserve power of the states. The basis of any federal law that does so is that it must stand up to scruitiny under the neccessary and proper clause. In the early 70's when the ruling came out there was no concensus on when life began and there was no basis for extending the priveledges of citizenship to embryos. Almost 40 years later, there is still no concensus. A true conservative wouldn't even be for rehearing the case, barring a sudden breakthrough in the medical community that gave such concensus. Medical matters, including liscencing of doctors and requirements to practice, are still the province of the states.

The high court should not be a partisan war zone. As long as the country remains so divided however, the courts really have no choice in the matter. As long as the ACLU is willing to challenge any law that has a conservative bent and conservative groups will challenge any legislation they percieve as liberal, the courts will eventually become arbiter. The supreme curt has, for a long time, remained above much of the partisan bickering. In theory, they can continue to do sin indefintely, as long sa they refuse to hear cases that don't invlove constitutional questions and as long as they simply apply the constitution to the law in question.

Very few cases are, however, cut and direied. It is forever a matter or intepretation of the words. And lets be realistic, what you find neccessary and proper J, varies wildly from what Amicus finds neccesary and proper. Doc m agrees with the Mass supereme court ruling that marriage laws that bar homosexuals do not meet hte constituional criteria of equal protection under the law. i think it was Boxlicker who pointed out, no man can marry another man and no woman can marry another woman, thus the standard of equal protection is being apllied. Same words, from the same caluse, but a different evaluation of what they mean.

One source of irritation in recent years has been that the courts are out of step with public opinion. Amicus is crowing because it appears likely the GOP will be able to change the balance of power on the high court. He's further crowing because the majority of americans are for that change. Every dog has his day, as the saying goes, and a certain amount of crowing should probably be tolerated. In the final analysis, roberts replacing O'connor does NOT change the balance of power. Nor does replacing Renquist. It's simply a step in that direction. replacing a swing vote with a Neo-con and a true conservative with a neo-con only gives them 3 neo-cons and Scalia. The other five are still moderate to liberal. But it does leave them with what I suspect will be three relatively young Neo-cons. And they are one heart attack, stroke or burnout from getting thier majority. Bryer or Ginsburg having to step down would be the worst case scenario for liberals, but even Kennedy, Souter or Stevens going would give them a majority.

If you strip away the gloating from one side and defensiveness from another you get this basically.

Neo-cons are breaking out the bubbly. Conservatives are pleased to see some justices they can probably count on for conservative interpretation. Moderates are concerned. Liberals are breaking out the double shots of whatever is strongest.