Let's Get Gay

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Ct. Rockula wrote:
In all seriousness though, I’d like to see the reaction of everyone in our country. We all say we’d like to have the most qualified person cough Al Gore in the job. We also know how two faced society is. Now, I dont belon to a political party (truthfully I dont believe in any of the suit and ties), so I have no real goal in trying to promote a party here.I just want to see some shit shake up. In any case, you can definitely see she is qualified.

Appointees to the courts shouldn’t have anything to do with part affiliation. They supposed to rule on cases and uphold the constitution.

but theyll always be an argument for a more conservative or liberal appointee.

[/quote]

There shouldn’t be. I am not sure what a conservative judge would be? There’s either activist or originalist.

22

Conservative judges tend to call themselves originalists, and critics of liberal judges tend to call them activists.

23

[quote]forlife wrote:
Conservative judges tend to call themselves originalists, and critics of liberal judges tend to call them activists.[/quote]

What the fuck is your point? They either uphold the constitution or they don’t. you even know why the federal court exists?

They are either originalists (uphold the constitution) or activist (don’t uphold the constitution and rule based on popular opinion). What exactly don’t you agree with here? Just the terms originalist and activist? What is inaccurate here?

24

Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

25

[quote]forlife wrote:
Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.[/quote]

Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.

26

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
forlife wrote:
Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.[/quote]

Word.

27

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.[/quote]

The letter of the law only allows for the specific applications explicitly designated by that law.

The spirit of the law allows for those specific applications, and for additional applications implicitly designated by the same law.

The latter is definitionally more broad in scope.

28

oh yes what a great idea!

But why stop there? Appoint some freak of nature from NAMBLA while your at it! Why not? oooohh that aughta really stick it to all those evil righties!!
And oh we simply MUST get a transvestite, a misandrist who hates white people, a polygamist, throw in a couple of death loving Jihadists and man that should really round out the Supreme Court VERY nicely! Woohoooo! Isn’t this fun?

29

[quote]forlife wrote:
Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.[/quote]

You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t read much, if any, of the constitution and certainly don’t pay attention to court rulings.

The court is supposed to rule on cases with the constitution as their legal bench mark. They are not supposed to interpret the constituion beyone the original intent, or the spirit as you put it. If the constitution needs to be changed, we have process for that. It does not include the unelected judiciary. Originalist to not look at the letter of the law. The do look at original intent. You seemed confused here.

The court is also limited by the constitution to hear only cases that it has consitutional jurisdiction on. I am pretty sure you have no idea what this is. Let me help you out. Only cases that have to do with powers granted the federal gov’t. ie, not cases that fall under states rights. Again, if you believe that the federal gov’ts jurisdiction should be increased, there is a process for that with zero involvement from the court.

When justices follow their constitutional obligations, they are originalist. It matters not if they ar liberal or conservative. They are doing their job by the letter of the law.

When justices decide to rule on cases influenced by what they beleive the constitution should mean, what it could have meant if original intent is thrown out, or just ignor it out all together, they are not doing their job by the letter of the law. They are activists. This is the dark history of out supreme court.

I forget the famous quote by Turgood Marshall but I will attempt to paraphrase. I decide what is just and let the law catch-up.

If you are really interested in this (I doubt you are outside of a few ignorant statements), I would start with the constitution, Men in Black, The Nine, and just general sorting and research of milestone supreme court rulings. Particularly when it comes to rights reserved to the states and to the people.

30

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
forlife wrote:
Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.[/quote]

He doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

31

[quote]forlife wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.

The letter of the law only allows for the specific applications explicitly designated by that law.

The spirit of the law allows for those specific applications, and for additional applications implicitly designated by the same law.

The latter is definitionally more broad in scope.
[/quote]

Really. Is this why activist judges mearly look (if they look at all) at the letter of the law and not what those that wrote the law and ratified the law (spirit) wrote and thought?

Is this why originalist site sourse outside the letter of the law? You know, the spitit. What those have said and written before the law was ratified.

Dude, you are way off here. Quit while your only slightly behind. And don’t interpret what I meant by “behind” outside of the context of this post, you perverted activist bastard.

32

[quote]forlife wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Considering the spirit of the law is even MORE restrictive than the letter, I don’t think you really have a point here.

The letter of the law only allows for the specific applications explicitly designated by that law.

The spirit of the law allows for those specific applications, and for additional applications implicitly designated by the same law.

The latter is definitionally more broad in scope.
[/quote]

General Welfare - What is more restrictive? What this might mean literally, or what the framers and ratifying states thought it meant (spirit)? Do you think they envisioned welfare, social security, free education, subsidized transportation, subsidized businesses, protectionist labor policies, ect? Activist judges have the use just the words “general welfare” to mean many things beyond the imagination of the framers and the “spirit” of general welfare.

Interstate Commerse - What is more restrictive? What this might mean litterally. Like anything that remotely effects interstate commerse. Or the “spirit” of interstate commerse. Like avoiding trade wars and protectionism between states, or settling disputes between states. Activist judges have use the literal interpretation to restrict wheat production used for ones own livestock. Do you think this was in the “spirit” of interstate commerse?

These are the big ones, but I cite more if you like?

The spirit of the law is what the framers and ratifiers of the law inteneded. Do you really think any of the states would have ratified the constitution if they would have even had a glimpse at the power of the federal gov’t today? Not a chance. This is the “spirit” of the constition. This is what originalists site and activists ignor.

33

[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t think sexual orientation should be a consideration for choosing a Supreme Court justice, but I’ve heard that two of the people under consideration to replace Souter are gay.[/quote]

Its all part of the agenda, to destroy our values and undermine the civilisation based on those values.

"By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?

The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization."

The Feminist agenda and Gay agenda are two sides of the same coin, and both are being used to conquer us from within.

34

[quote]dhickey wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t read much, if any, of the constitution and certainly don’t pay attention to court rulings.[/quote]

Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated idiot with an activist agenda. I guess that settles it then.

35

[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t read much, if any, of the constitution and certainly don’t pay attention to court rulings.

Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated idiot with an activist agenda. I guess that settles it then.[/quote]

If you have something to refute, then fucking refute it or go away. You’re not distracting anyone from you lack of knowledge with this last post. It will be very evident to anyone that that reads it, that you have no argument and this an attempt to back out while retaining your dignity. Mission not accomplished. It just makes you look like an idiot.

You can certainly disagree. But if you are going to constuct an arguement that is just plain wrong and lacks any research or even basic knowledge of the subject, you would be an idiot for doing so. I have disagreed, at some point, with just about everyone on this forum and don’t consider most of them idiots. There are quite a few that are probably significantly smarter than I am. I am really starting to worry about you though.

36

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Ct.Rock,you might want to stick to topics that involve Twilight,weed,and Skittles.[/quote]

LMAO!

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed? [/quote]

Because half the population got tired of being treated like shit and taken for granted by a small part of the other half?

Revolt of the Rib-People.

38

[quote]forlife wrote:

Both originalists and what you call “activists” believe they are upholding the constitution. The difference is in the degree to which they believe you should follow the letter vs. the spirit of the law. Originalists are modern day Pharisees, in my view. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.[/quote]

Great Scott - is there a topic you won’t embarrass yourself on?

An interesting choice of label, at any rate - a “Pharisee”, or someone who is hypocritically self-righteous, certainly applies to judicial activists of the Left far more than originalists. How do we know? They simultaneously urge more democracy and less democracy at the same time - and you can’t have democracy and oligarchy at the same time.

The “spirit of the law” as you define it, is nothing more than an invitation for a robed politician to make up the law arbitrarily as he/she feels. Well, upon further review, it’s no wonder you like that approach.

39

At any rate, Obama should replace Souter with the most qualified legal mind that understands the role of a judge in our Constitutional framework.

I think it is safe for us to all assume that isn’t going to happen.

As Obama personally has no interest in the rule of law himself in advancing his agenda - see Chrysler, among many other examples - he wouldn’t dream of a judge that didn’t see his/her role as god-king sent to bring Progress down to the rubes from the mountaintop…written words, history, and logic be damned.

40

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Great Scott - is there a topic you won’t embarrass yourself on?
[/quote]

Back to the ad hominems, I see. Your true colors are shining through (queue Cindy Lauper music).