Political activist Judges

[ribozyme]

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 people without jobs having the right to life?

How pathetic!! I am not the one invoking the Constitution and the position of the “Founders” to support ethical views. (Obviously, I reject the whole concept of “natural rights” [which were vogue during that time period] and favor a more utilitarian approach as advocated by Mill and Bentham as expressed in a previous post here.) I wanted you to play your own game.

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

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

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.

Well, I guess the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn. I suppose an additional Amendment is necessary in order for the Constitution to protect the unborn. Good luck trying to get that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How pathetic!! I am not the one invoking the Constitution and the position of the “Founders” to support ethical views. (Obviously, I reject the whole concept of “natural rights” [which were vogue during that time period] and favor a more utilitarian approach as advocated by Mill and Bentham as expressed in a previous post here.) I wanted you to play your own game.

How pathetic. Beaten at your own game.

Well, I guess the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn. I suppose an additional Amendment is necessary in order for the Constitution to protect the unborn. Good luck trying to get that.

Well, I guess the Constitution does not explicitly protect people without jobs. I can’t find anything that says drones have the right to life.

 

[ribozyme]

How pathetic. Beaten at your own game.

Well, I guess the Constitution does not explicitly protect people without jobs. I can’t find anything that says drones have the right to life.

No, I am NOT the one invoking the Constitution (especially a very strict interpretation) to support a moral position. The burden of proof is not on myself, but it should be directed at you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I am NOT the one invoking the Constitution (especially a very strict interpretation) to support a moral position. The burden of proof is not on myself, but it should be directed at you.

Huff and puff all you like, but you’re still beaten at your own game.

 

[ribozyme]

Huff and puff all you like, but you’re still beaten at your own game.

No, I am immune from having to support my own views using a political philosophy based on a strict interpretation of a certain document because I do not advocate that position. However, it is your burden because it is your position. Do you have any evidence that a political philosophy based on the Enlightenment expatiation of “natural rights” precludes women to abort their unborn fetuses? You are the one advocating a strict intepretation of the Constitution’s “original intent,” not me.

 

[Exalt]

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.

The only reason you have a problem with them is because many of them don’t necessarily support your world view. If it was the other way around (and abortion was made illegal via a court decision, for example), you’d be all for “activist judges.”

 

[jman507]

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.

I would more think of political activist judges as those who supersede a political policy over his or her legitimate judicial philosophy and reasoning. (As an example, though not limited to, of a illegitimate judicial philosophy I would say is deciding “I’ll decide with whatever I feel like.”)

I would not say that political activist are no where, nor would I say they are everywhere. I’m sure there are a lot of claims made that may not be accurate, and omitted claims where it actually does occur. Counter – “you too” – claims are probably even worse, if they are mainly reactionary.

Part of the problem is there is a large number of qualified trained lawyers who are political pundits. Each pundit may have his or her expertise, not everyone is a lawyer. One’s opinion may not be enough to give an accurate picture. On the other hand, it typically isn’t a good idea to just leave it all up to the “experts” be. Real political activism would be an abuse of the judiciary, it should be reserved elsewhere. If a judge can disregard a properly reasoned decision without other proper reasons to do so, why should that decision be followed?

I think it is much akin to the idea regarding ethical systems. “What good is an ethical system if one can disregard it as one feels?”

 

[mapleoak]

Well, I guess the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn.

Actually it doesn’t explicitly exclude the unborn. The way legalese works is that it would be assumed that the unborn as well as all other human life forms are protected if they are not specifically ‘excluded’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I am immune from having to support my own views using a political philosophy based on a strict interpretation of a certain document because I do not advocate that position. However, it is your burden because it is your position. Do you have any evidence that a political philosophy based on the Enlightenment expatiation of “natural rights” precludes women to abort their unborn fetuses? You are the one advocating a strict intepretation of the Constitution’s “original intent,” not me.

Do you have any evidence that a political philosophy based on the Enlightenment expatiation of “natural rights” precludes killing people who don’t have jobs?

You’re hoist on your own petard!!