Political activist Judges

[JamesG]

This is perhaps the bigest problem right now. Everyone here talks about the morality of the issues, but very few realize that our efforts to correct the problems in society are stoped dead by political activist Judges.

If there is anyone to blame for the legalization of aboration, the acceptance of gay marriage and many other issues it is these people.

Something has to be done about them. Some law has to be passed that will give permision to the governent to fire them. It seems to me that these people act above the law. They abuse their positions of power and act like medieval Barons.

“The first thing we do,” said the character in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, is “kill all the lawyers.”

Back them the surest way to chaos and tyranny was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.

Today, these people are the guardians of chaos and tyranny. They need to be removed.

 

[wapsi]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a similar problem with conservative activist judges striking down portions of The New Deal. These things seem to run in cycles. Change will happen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a similar problem with conservative activist judges striking down portions of The New Deal. These things seem to run in cycles. Change will happen.

No, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a problem with judges upholding the Constitution. Big difference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Politically activist judges is just code for “judges who aren’t deciding cases the way we want them too.” It cuts both ways, and always has. It has been the case since the very first case of judicial review Marbury v. Madison and has never stopped. It’s a silly joke perpetrated by the right to claim that decisions are made outside the constitution. Liberals make the same claims now against Alito, Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. They do exactly the same thing, but the Right likes their decisions so they are termed constitutional.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Politically activist judges is just code for “judges who aren’t deciding cases the way we want them too.” It cuts both ways, and always has. It has been the case since the very first case of judicial review Marbury v. Madison and has never stopped. It’s a silly joke perpetrated by the right to claim that decisions are made outside the constitution. Liberals make the same claims now against Alito, Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. They do exactly the same thing, but the Right likes their decisions so they are termed constitutional.

So explain how the Court took this Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My emphasis)

. . . and found a “right” to abortion emanating from the penumbra?

 

[mapleoak]

Politically activist judges is just code for “judges who aren’t deciding cases the way we want them too.” It cuts both ways, and always has.

No, to be an activist, one has to have a position at odds with the foundation of our freedom and “actively” pursue its subversion. An example of an “activist judge” is one who holds a position at odds with our constitution such as a judge who rejects our constitution and “actively” pursues to subvert it by voting to allow innocent people to be slaughtered. There were “activist judges” who decided the court case of Roe v. Wade, for instance.

 

[ribozyme]

So explain how the Court took this Amendment:

(My emphasis)

. . . and found a “right” to abortion emanating from the penumbra?

You do have to remember that a significant fraction of the Constitution was influenced by the Enlightenment. Do you have any evidence that people such as Locke and Montesquieu were concerned about defending life inside the womb in contrast to their explicit concern about property rights?? Do you have any evidence that they thought the right to life (Locke believed in natural rights while later philosophers such as Bentham and Mill rejected it) extends to the unborn?

Also you do have to remember that Locke was a product of the Enlightenment and the concept of “natural rights” was an alternative to the Divine Right of Kings. Yes, they believe in “God,” but he was a detached deistic God, and most certainly wasn’t an entity that would send his son to die of our sins.

The Enlightenment proudly proclaimed the values of rational individualism, and philosophes of all lands joined in constructing the new “science of freedom.” Even those who, like Hume, enjoyed the benefits of relative political freedom and representative government enlisted as combatants in the great battle to free men’s minds from the ignorance and superstition of religion. They assiduously cultivated the scientific method as their most formidable weapon. Science could demonstrate the true origins of the human species and its myths, explain the establishment of societies, catalogue the phenomena of the natural world, establish the true principles of human perception, chronicle the progress of civilization and the arts, and lay down the rational guidelines for the creation of a more humane society. Science, in a word, would permit men to tailor society to fit their own needs; it would release them from the contorted postures imposed by priests and kings in the name of an irrational higher truth.
In this sense, the Enlightenment, despite its diversity, represented an emerging ideology. Man, it claimed, was made for freedom. Established authority had perpetrated inhuman subservience long enough. The ideological chains of the traditional world view within which human society existed to serve the greater glory of God’s inscrutable purpose had to be broken. If the concept of God was not banished entirely from the workings of the universe, it was commonly confined to the sphere of general providence; thus the particular regulation of human affairs was left to man. Considered as a whole, the Enlightenment proposed to change the consciousness of man.

warsocialism.com/physiocrats.pdf

I do not think one can make a reasonable case that the Constitution* intends *to protect unborn life. The best case you can make is defining “life” to include the unborn although it is unlikely that was suppose to include them. Could you derive a defense for the unborn based on Enlightenment philosophy, not merely your simplistic interpretation of the word “life” in the Constitution. Of course, you cannot use resource from Papal encyclicals or the Catechism since one main focus of Enlightenment philosophy was to affranchise man from the influence of religion and superstition.

 

[mapleoak]

You do have to remember that a significant fraction of the Constitution was influenced by the Enlightenment. Do you have any evidence that people such as Locke and Montesquieu were concerned about defending life inside the womb in contrast to their explicit concern about property rights?? Do you have any evidence that they thought the right to life (Locke believed in natural rights while later philosophers such as Bentham and Mill rejected it) extends to the unborn?

It is reasonable to conclude that the right to life was intended to apply to all human beings. Note that the constitution does not exclude groups of people, such as the elderly, the sick, the unborn, children, people we don’t like, or the person who thinks green coke is cool.

 

[ribozyme]

It is reasonable to conclude that the right to life was intended to apply to all human beings. Note that the constitution does not exclude groups of people, such as the elderly, the sick, the unborn, children, people we don’t like, or the person who thinks green coke is cool.

I suppose habeas corpus excludes the people being held in Guantanamo.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suppose habeas corpus excludes the people being held in Guantanamo.

Habeas Corpus is not a right, it is a privilige:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, to be an activist, one has to have a position at odds with the foundation of our freedom and “actively” pursue its subversion. An example of an “activist judge” is one who holds a position at odds with our constitution such as a judge who rejects our constitution and “actively” pursues to subvert it by voting to allow innocent people to be slaughtered. There were “activist judges” who decided the court case of Roe v. Wade, for instance.

You’re missing the point. Sure you can point to cases that don’t square well with the actual words of the constitution. My point is that there are cases the other side can point to as well. It’s just another buzz word for “we don’t like this decision.” It’s always been the case. Marshall was thought to be an activist as well. Just depends on whose ox is being gored. A problem of all forums is the use of pejorative buzz words instead of actual thinking language. It’s the easy way out of a discussion and proves exactly nothing.

 

[mary_bobo]

Politically activist judges is just code for “judges who aren’t deciding cases the way we want them too.” It cuts both ways, and always has. It has been the case since the very first case of judicial review Marbury v. Madison and has never stopped. It’s a silly joke perpetrated by the right to claim that decisions are made outside the constitution. Liberals make the same claims now against Alito, Roberts and Scalia and Thomas. They do exactly the same thing, but the Right likes their decisions so they are termed constitutional.

I do not agree. When the SC ruled in the Roe v Wade it was based, as I recall, on the “right to privacy.” I have not found that right enumerated in the Constitution anywhere. But perhaps I overlooked it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not agree. When the SC ruled in the Roe v Wade it was based, as I recall, on the “right to privacy.” I have not found that right enumerated in the Constitution anywhere. But perhaps I overlooked it.

They found it “emanating from the penumbra” of the 14th Amendment – which, as I pointed out earlier, says no such thing, but does guarentee the right to life.

 

[mapleoak]

You’re missing the point. Sure you can point to cases that don’t square well with the actual words of the constitution. My point is that there are cases the other side can point to as well.

What is the other side? The side that supports the Roe v. Wade decision or the side opposed to it? Obviously the side supporting it must support activist judges in order to get their intentions pushed. They have to subvert the constitution through activism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is the other side? The side that supports the Roe v. Wade decision or the side opposed to it? Obviously the side supporting it must support activist judges in order to get their intentions pushed. They have to subvert the constitution through activism.

Back in 2000, a candidate said, “I will appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution **our **way.”

I would have said, “I will appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, using the Debates and Federalist papers to determine the original intent. If we want a different interpretation, we’ll have to pass an amendment.”

 

[mapleoak]

Back in 2000, a candidate said, “I will appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution **our **way.”

I would have said, “I will appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, using the Debates and Federalist papers to determine the original intent. If we want a different interpretation, we’ll have to pass an amendment.”

It’s like when you look at a black dot on a piece of paper for a while and then close your eyes, it becomes white. I think if you have to look real hard for a loophole, there is a good chance the original authors did not intend for it to be there. Especially when they have provided additional supporting documents such as the Federalist papers, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s like when you look at a black dot on a piece of paper for a while and then close your eyes, it becomes white. I think if you have to look real hard for a loophole, there is a good chance the original authors did not intend for it to be there. Especially when they have provided additional supporting documents such as the Federalist papers, etc.

Spirit Meadow does have a point, though – those who originally sponsored this idea that the Constitution “is a living document” (French for, “It means whatever we say it means”) squeal like stuck pigs when someone turns their own tactics against them.

I keep hoping we’ll all wake up and realize that it’s best for all of us if the Constitution is interpreted strictly – and use the amendment process when we can’t live with the original intent.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What is the other side? The side that supports the Roe v. Wade decision or the side opposed to it? Obviously the side supporting it must support activist judges in order to get their intentions pushed. They have to subvert the constitution through activism.

Sigh…we have been talking about strict constructionists vs those that consider the Constitution a living document. they are fluid groups, changing sides when they don’t like the decision. It has nothing to do with any real activism. All judges are activists as any expert on the judiciary would tell you. You focus on one, and tha is incorrect, there are dozens of decisions that fall into this category depending as I say whether you like them or not. Scalia is just as activist as say Ginsburg, it just depends on the issue.

You buy into political rhetoric that is meant to be a buzz word to get your attention. It in truth is just nonsense.

 

[ribozyme]

Spirit Meadow does have a point, though – those who originally sponsored this idea that the Constitution “is a living document” (French for, “It means whatever we say it means”) squeal like stuck pigs when someone turns their own tactics against them.

I keep hoping we’ll all wake up and realize that it’s best for all of us if the Constitution is interpreted strictly – and use the amendment process when we can’t live with the original intent.

As I asked before, do you have any evidence that the original intent of the Constitution involves protecting the unborn? Do you have any evidence that the “Founders” regarded unborn life having the right to life? I do not want your simplistic interpretation of the word “life” in the Constitution, but I want evidence from Enlightenment era thought.

How could the Constitution deal with an issue involving 20th Century bioethics? One cannot derive an argument against abortion using a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

And regarding the soi-disant original intent… voting for Senators is unconstitutional (and antithetical with the original intent of the Founders) although amended by the 17th Amendment.

James Madison (1751-1836) – “the father of the U.S. Constitution” [10] – was born into a community of self-made Lockean Virginians to whom property rights were both natural and civil. Madison studied Smith carefully, hoping to discover “the true principles of political economy [which] are everywhere needed … more so in our young country than in some old ones.” [11]

Madison’s primary political concern centered on the maintenance of social stability by the political and social control of competing factions; control by government itself was a secondary consideration. The framers crafted an elaborate political system:

• Where “first object of government” (highest priority) was “the faculties” of acquiring property. [12]

• Where the struggle of classes and passions (e.g., religious conflict) was replaced with the struggle of interests in the economic sphere.

• Where the political system was extremely resistant to change.

• Where political power was reserved for a white male minority while projecting the** illusion **of self-government to the majority.

Madison scholar Richard K. Matthews explains:

By consciously denying virtually all but a handful of citizens any role in a governmental structure that, by design, was to be run by an elite of superior ability (who nonetheless would have to check and balance each other), Madison left [economic struggle] as the prime avenue for humanity to search for meaning. [13]

Madison even went so far as to boast that “the true distinction” between ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government “lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” [14] Matthews continues:

These passages all too neatly anticipate Madison’s conception of citizenship: do not give “the people” any power when they are assembled; allow some of the white males, acting in isolation, the fleeting participation of voting for their representatives and restrict the right for as long as politically possible to one branch of the legislature.

Beyond this minimalist approach to politics, ask little else of the people, except under extraordinary conditions. [15]

That’s the theory, here is how it works:

In 1884, one of the wealthiest men of his time, Henry B. Payne, wanted to become the next United States senator from Ohio. Payne’s son Oliver, the treasurer of Standard Oil, did his best to help. Just before the election for Ohio’s seat, son Oliver “sat at a desk in a Columbus hotel with a stack of bills in front of him, paying for the votes of the state legislators,” who then elected U.S. senators. [16]

dieoff.com/page168.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I asked before, do you have any evidence that the original intent of the Constitution involves protecting the unborn?

Do you have any evidence that the original intent of the Constitution involves protecting people using the handle Rybozyme?

Do you have any evidence that the “Founders” regarded unborn life having the right to life?

Do you have any evidence that the “Founders” regarded people without jobs having the right to life?

I do not want your simplistic interpretation of the word “life” in the Constitution, but I want evidence from Enlightenment era thought.
I do not want your simplistic interpretation – I want evidence that they set aside the unborn as not worthy of protection.

How could the Constitution deal with an issue involving 20th Century bioethics?

How could the Constitution deal with Freedom of Speech in an era with telephones, radio, television and the internet?

One cannot derive an argument against abortion using a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I take it you never read the 5th and 14th Amendments?

And regarding the soi-disant original intent… voting for Senators is unconstitutional (and antithetical with the original intent of the Founders) although amended by the 17th Amendment.

Well, gee, then it isn’t unconstitutional, is it?

The Constitution has provisions for amendment – and that’s what was done in the case of the 17th Amendment. And that’s what should be done when we want the Constitution to say something it plainly does not say.