| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2005 06:19:50 PM |
| Object: |
OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
A Demagogue in Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/opinion/29sat2.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.9441
Tough diplomacy must continue to curb Iran's nuclear aspirations, but
there must be no illusions about the ideologue presiding there.
The Road to Riches
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 06:42:12 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
.
|
|
|
| User: "uray" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 09:49:42 AM |
|
|
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ec39f.7732$7h7.4965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Although you should be correct, you are not. President Bush has made it
clear that he defines judicial activism as ruling according to law and
ignoring personal beliefs. Reference the recent pledge rulings for more
info.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 10:05:33 PM |
|
|
uray wrote in talk.origins
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ec39f.7732$7h7.4965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR20051
02801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was
unconstitutional to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers
in Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their
race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Although you should be correct, you are not. President Bush has made it
clear that he defines judicial activism as ruling according to law and
ignoring personal beliefs. Reference the recent pledge rulings for more
info.
Yeah, there is even a group based out of DC that is going around trying
to get support to make the Supreme Court follow the whims of congress.
Calling the recent rulings that adhered to the Constitution "Judicial
Activism". Totally ridiculous. But given some of the morons in congress
the idea will get more of a hearing than it deserves.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 12:48:37 PM |
|
|
uray wrote:
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ec39f.7732$7h7.4965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Although you should be correct, you are not. President Bush has made it
clear that he defines judicial activism as ruling according to law and
ignoring personal beliefs. Reference the recent pledge rulings for more
info.
Well, I would find it hard to object to those kinds of rulings, though I
think the definition is bass ackwards. Where did the president define
the term that way?
Klaus
.
|
|
|
| User: "uray" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 05:43:18 PM |
|
|
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9Gt9f.7164$BZ5.6207@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
uray wrote:
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ec39f.7732$7h7.4965@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Although you should be correct, you are not. President Bush has made it
clear that he defines judicial activism as ruling according to law and
ignoring personal beliefs. Reference the recent pledge rulings for more
info.
Well, I would find it hard to object to those kinds of rulings, though I
think the definition is bass ackwards. Where did the president define
the term that way?
Klaus
In speeches he defines it one way, his actions define it another. He
objects to rulings based on law that do not consider personal and especially
religious viewpoints. The pledge rulings, the Terry Schiavo case and stem
cell research are all examples. Not that I object to letting a little
personal belief entering into the equation from time to time, but Bush, by
his actions, makes it clear that he feels it should be paramount.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
04 Nov 2005 10:30:34 AM |
|
|
uray wrote:
...
Although you should be correct, you are not. President Bush has made it
clear that he defines judicial activism as ruling according to law and
ignoring personal beliefs. Reference the recent pledge rulings for more
info.
Surely the "real" defintion of "judicial activism" (for those who use the
term in earnest) is:
Hey! Them sombitches ruled against me!
-BruceW
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 02:30:55 PM |
|
|
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is.
Nor do you, apparently.
That was clearly a Constitution derived ruling.
Gee, ya think?
All rulings are Constitutionally derived. The endless debate is what
can (and should) be derived from the Constitution.
Parks was not given equal protection under the Alabama laws (which
were enacted by Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
According to the Equal Protection Clause as it was enacted, she was.
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that any significant number
of those legislators who proposed and ratified Amendment XIV intended
that it required sweeping equality with regards to race. The notion
that sitting anywhere on a city bus was a matter of 'equal protection'
was neither one of historical intent nor one of precedent. The United
State Supreme Court, in Browder v. Gayle (1956), extrapolated it from
Brown v. Board of Education (1950). Brown (and its derivative cases
such as Browder) goes along with Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the
various cases establishing the Doctrine of Incorporation that are all
flaming examples of judicial activism as well as cases that almost all
(Clarence Thomas being one well-known exception) opponents of judicial
activism wholeheartedly support. In other words, most shrill opponents
of judicial activism don't really oppose judicial activism - they
simply oppose those particularly cases of judicial activism that they
don't like, and support the ones they favor.
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
'Judicial Activism' is the making of law by the courts, rather than
merely interpreting law. Of course, the fact is that contrary and/or
vague laws often necessitate the courts 'making law', but never mind
that inconvenient little fact.
Brown and Browder took the Equal Protection Clause and applied it in
ways it was never intended to be applied. In other words, they are
clear cases of judicial activism. Understandably, this presents a
problem for those who have put a lot of effort into making their cause
one of standing against judicial activism, while they understand that
opposing precedents like Brown would be political suicide. And I have
no problem with it. But it is problematic for those who have invested
a lot of time into whining about judicial activism.
Brown wasn't judicial activism? Pfffft. Even Janice Rogers Brown
openly admits it was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 03:08:58 PM |
|
|
Andrew F. Heil wrote:
Brown wasn't judicial activism? Pfffft. Even Janice Rogers Brown
openly admits it was.
It surely was activism. If Stare Decisis had held in this instance,
Plessy would not have been overturned. The late and unlamented Earl
Warren stated out loud that the SCOTUS should be a court of justice. But
that is not what the Constitution said it is.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 03:33:25 PM |
|
|
Andrew F. Heil wrote:
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is.
Nor do you, apparently.
That was clearly a Constitution derived ruling.
Gee, ya think?
All rulings are Constitutionally derived. The endless debate is what
can (and should) be derived from the Constitution.
Parks was not given equal protection under the Alabama laws (which
were enacted by Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
According to the Equal Protection Clause as it was enacted, she was.
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that any significant number
of those legislators who proposed and ratified Amendment XIV intended
that it required sweeping equality with regards to race. The notion
that sitting anywhere on a city bus was a matter of 'equal protection'
was neither one of historical intent nor one of precedent. The United
State Supreme Court, in Browder v. Gayle (1956), extrapolated it from
Brown v. Board of Education (1950). Brown (and its derivative cases
such as Browder) goes along with Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the
various cases establishing the Doctrine of Incorporation that are all
flaming examples of judicial activism as well as cases that almost all
(Clarence Thomas being one well-known exception) opponents of judicial
activism wholeheartedly support. In other words, most shrill opponents
of judicial activism don't really oppose judicial activism - they
simply oppose those particularly cases of judicial activism that they
don't like, and support the ones they favor.
Article IV. - The States
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec2.html
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Equal protection was implicit in Article IV Section 2. 14th amendment
made it explicit.
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
'Judicial Activism' is the making of law by the courts, rather than
merely interpreting law. Of course, the fact is that contrary and/or
vague laws often necessitate the courts 'making law', but never mind
that inconvenient little fact.
Brown and Browder took the Equal Protection Clause and applied it in
ways it was never intended to be applied. In other words, they are
clear cases of judicial activism. Understandably, this presents a
problem for those who have put a lot of effort into making their cause
one of standing against judicial activism, while they understand that
opposing precedents like Brown would be political suicide. And I have
no problem with it. But it is problematic for those who have invested
a lot of time into whining about judicial activism.
Brown wasn't judicial activism? Pfffft. Even Janice Rogers Brown
openly admits it was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 07:29:35 PM |
|
|
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Yep.
In other words, when someone from New York (ie, a citizen of New York)
travels to North Carolina, for example, they must be treated the same
was as people who normally lives in North Carolina (ie, a citizen of
North Carolina). What you think this has to do with Equal Protection
of classes, I don't know.
Equal protection was implicit in Article IV
Equal Protection of classes? (ie, race, gender, and so forth?) Uh ...
no. All Article IV, Section 2 concerns itself with is mandating that
states treat all citizens of the various states the same as they treat
their own citizens. It doesn't demand that they treat their own
citizens equally, however. Google up a few sites with annotated
comments on the Constitution if you don't believe me. So, if in 1816 a
white male Protestant relocated from New York to North Carolina, he
would enjoy all the privileges of a white male Protestant in North
Carolina. On the other hand, a black or a woman or a Jew ... well,
they'd enjoy all the privileges that a black or a woman or a Jew
enjoyed in North Carolina. In other words, fewer than a white male
Protestant.
Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism. It made new law, it
fundamentally re-interpreted existing law in ways in which those who
made that law never intended, and for which there was not precedent.
And I have no problem with that.
Denying this fact is foolish. And incorrect. You seem to have a
problem with judicial activism and wish to shoehorn all decisions you
like into the category of non-judicial activism. I have no such
problem with judicial activism, and I have no time for such foolishness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 07:42:15 PM |
|
|
Andrew F. Heil wrote:
In other words, when someone from New York (ie, a citizen of New York)
travels to North Carolina, for example, they must be treated the same
was as people who normally lives in North Carolina (ie, a citizen of
North Carolina).
Treated the same by the -government-. This does not apply to private
parties or private arrangements.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 08:47:35 PM |
|
|
Treated the same by the -government-. This does not apply
to private parties or private arrangements.
Right.
I guess that would explain why I said this [minus the now-added
emphasis]:
"All Article IV, Section 2 concerns itself with is mandating that
STATES treat all citizens of the various states the same as THEY
[the aforementioned STATES] treat their own citizens."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 05:21:13 AM |
|
|
Andrew F. Heil wrote:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Yep.
In other words, when someone from New York (ie, a citizen of New York)
travels to North Carolina, for example, they must be treated the same
was as people who normally lives in North Carolina (ie, a citizen of
North Carolina). What you think this has to do with Equal Protection
of classes, I don't know.
Equal protection was implicit in Article IV
Equal Protection of classes? (ie, race, gender, and so forth?) Uh ...
no. All Article IV, Section 2 concerns itself with is mandating that
states treat all citizens of the various states the same as they treat
their own citizens. It doesn't demand that they treat their own
citizens equally, however. Google up a few sites with annotated
comments on the Constitution if you don't believe me. So, if in 1816 a
white male Protestant relocated from New York to North Carolina, he
would enjoy all the privileges of a white male Protestant in North
Carolina. On the other hand, a black or a woman or a Jew ... well,
they'd enjoy all the privileges that a black or a woman or a Jew
enjoyed in North Carolina. In other words, fewer than a white male
Protestant.
Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism. It made new law, it
fundamentally re-interpreted existing law in ways in which those who
made that law never intended, and for which there was not precedent.
And I have no problem with that.
Denying this fact is foolish. And incorrect. You seem to have a
problem with judicial activism and wish to shoehorn all decisions you
like into the category of non-judicial activism. I have no such
problem with judicial activism, and I have no time for such foolishness.
That's what the authors of the 'Fugitive Slave Act' also thought. But
to Northern states it was an outrage. Civil War became inevitable.
Fugitive Slave Act
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b06efae448c279d1
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 12:56:47 PM |
|
|
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Well, then, what would be an example of undesirable judicial activism?
Are there any cases of "undesirable (to the right) judicial activism"
that are _not_ cases of defense of rights or protections?
Eric Root
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 05:50:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Well, then, what would be an example of undesirable judicial activism?
Are there any cases of "undesirable (to the right) judicial activism"
that are _not_ cases of defense of rights or protections?
The recent case allowing municipalities to use eminent domain to
acquire property in order to turn it over to _a private party_ if it
will generate more tax revenue.
Chris
Eric Root
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 07:50:14 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 15:50:10 -0800, in talk.origins ,
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> in
<1130716210.581034.251680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote:
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Well, then, what would be an example of undesirable judicial activism?
Are there any cases of "undesirable (to the right) judicial activism"
that are _not_ cases of defense of rights or protections?
The recent case allowing municipalities to use eminent domain to
acquire property in order to turn it over to _a private party_ if it
will generate more tax revenue.
That is, in fact, an examples of judicial *non*-activism. The court
refused to make rules regarding what was acceptable and unacceptable
use of eminent domain. The court, in a 5-4 decision with the
conservatives on the 4 side, said that it was the political process
that would determine the appropriate rules. If the people don't like
what is being done, they can vote out the elected officials. You
cannot get less activist than that. The problem is that everyone, no
matte what word they use, wants judges that vote the way they want
them to vote on each individual case.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
30 Oct 2005 09:47:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 15:50:10 -0800, in talk.origins ,
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> in
<1130716210.581034.251680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
eroot@swva.net wrote:
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
Klaus
Well, then, what would be an example of undesirable judicial activism?
Are there any cases of "undesirable (to the right) judicial activism"
that are _not_ cases of defense of rights or protections?
The recent case allowing municipalities to use eminent domain to
acquire property in order to turn it over to _a private party_ if it
will generate more tax revenue.
That is, in fact, an examples of judicial *non*-activism. The court
refused to make rules regarding what was acceptable and unacceptable
use of eminent domain. The court, in a 5-4 decision with the
conservatives on the 4 side, said that it was the political process
that would determine the appropriate rules. If the people don't like
what is being done, they can vote out the elected officials. You
cannot get less activist than that. The problem is that everyone, no
matte what word they use, wants judges that vote the way they want
them to vote on each individual case.
I stand corrected. The ruling still sucked. I hope those guys get
Souter's house in New Hampshire.
Chris
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 04:26:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are hardly the
same as the Democrats of today. It's rather like condemning the British
Tories for something Disraeli did.
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
That's odd, because the only definition of judicial activism I ever see is
"they didn't rule the way my Constitutional interpretation says they should
have, so they're judicial activists."
In short, it's a way for folks who dislike a ruling to try to cast
dispersions on it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 07:04:44 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndmd6ha.22c.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200
5102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to
America presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the
strength at my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs:
"Thank God Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this
makes me a heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns
supreme, especially after the trashing of White House counsel and
now-withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still
pay tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to decide in
1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that Rosa Parks and
other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of buses
solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly
a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection
under the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most
other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are hardly
the same as the Democrats of today. It's rather like condemning the
British Tories for something Disraeli did.
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
That's odd, because the only definition of judicial activism I ever
see is "they didn't rule the way my Constitutional interpretation says
they should have, so they're judicial activists."
In short, it's a way for folks who dislike a ruling to try to cast
dispersions on it.
That's the definition used by liberals to cast aspersions on
conservatives who complain about judicial activism.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
— Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 05:11:22 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to America
presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the strength at
my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs: "Thank God
Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a
heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist
judges. After all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an
"activist" Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional
to require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery,
Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was clearly a
Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal protection under
the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats, as were most other
"Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are hardly the
same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party of
Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist attitudes
of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by southern Democrats.
Politics is sewage.
It's rather like condemning the British
Tories for something Disraeli did.
Judical activism is judges making rulings based on personal beliefs
INSTEAD OF law.
That's odd, because the only definition of judicial activism I ever see is
"they didn't rule the way my Constitutional interpretation says they should
have, so they're judicial activists."
In short, it's a way for folks who dislike a ruling to try to cast
dispersions on it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 07:11:22 PM |
|
|
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to
America presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the
strength at my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs:
"Thank God Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this
makes me a heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns
supreme, especially after the trashing of White House counsel and
now-withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still
pay tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to decide in
1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that Rosa Parks and
other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of
buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal
protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats,
as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are hardly
the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party of
Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by southern
Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They still
disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the racial
remarks made about black Republicans.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
— Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to
America presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all the
strength at my command so that I may shout at the top of my lungs:
"Thank God Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I suppose this
makes me a heretic in a town where radical right dogma reigns
supreme, especially after the trashing of White House counsel and
now-withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still
pay tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to decide in
1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that Rosa Parks and
other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of
buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal
protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted by Democrats,
as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are hardly
the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party of
Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by southern
Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They still
disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the racial
remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats, the
folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can trace
their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with Strom Thurmond.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
Deadrat
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
- Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 10:11:57 PM |
|
|
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9CA9f.3097$Lv.1659@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to
America presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all
the strength at my command so that I may shout at the top of my
lungs: "Thank God Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I
suppose this makes me a heretic in a town where radical right
dogma reigns supreme, especially after the trashing of White
House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet
Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist judges. After
all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an "activist"
Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional to
require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in
Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of
their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal
protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted by
Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are
hardly the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party of
Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by southern
Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They still
disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the racial
remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats, the
folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can
trace their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with Strom
Thurmond.
Thurmond left his racism behind in the Democratic party, in the keeping
of Robert Byrd.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
What they're thinking is: "We're not waiting for Democrats to give us
more handouts that are just enough to keep us down on the plantation."
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
They're still Democrats. They traded Jim Crow for the implicit bigotry
of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Gotta keep them darkies from
realizing that they're responsible for their own prosperity.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
— Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
31 Oct 2005 11:09:52 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700EC224577Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9CA9f.3097$Lv.1659@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution to
America presents an excellent opportunity for me to summon all
the strength at my command so that I may shout at the top of my
lungs: "Thank God Almighty for liberal judicial activism." I
suppose this makes me a heretic in a town where radical right
dogma reigns supreme, especially after the trashing of White
House counsel and now-withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet
Miers. But I'll still pay tribute to activist judges. After
all, it was a default by elected leaders that led an "activist"
Supreme Court to decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional to
require that Rosa Parks and other black passengers in
Montgomery, Ala., sit at the back of buses solely because of
their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given equal
protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted by
Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are
hardly the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party of
Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by southern
Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They still
disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the racial
remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats, the
folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can
trace their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with Strom
Thurmond.
Thurmond left his racism behind in the Democratic party, in the keeping
of Robert Byrd.
Yeah, sure. Thurmond left his racism behind. Ole Strom loved black
people. Hell, he even had a black daughter. Sorry, but yesterday's Dixiecrats
are today's Republicans. Not every Dixiecrat. And not every Republican.
Good rule of thumb, though.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
What they're thinking is: "We're not waiting for Democrats to give us
more handouts that are just enough to keep us down on the plantation."
Well, I doubt that many black people think that. They certainly don't vote that.
But non-rich Republican voters? Yeah, they're thinking something like
that or as incoherent as that, as their party picks their pockets.
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
They're still Democrats.
If by "they" you mean the heirs to the Dixiecrats, you're just wrong.
They traded Jim Crow for the implicit bigotry
of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Gotta keep them darkies from
realizing that they're responsible for their own prosperity.
I'm sure you know as much about welfare and affirmative action
as you do everything else you opine about.
Deadrat
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
- Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
01 Nov 2005 06:31:27 AM |
|
|
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:AMC9f.3137$Lv.1270@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700EC224577Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9CA9f.3097$Lv.1659@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution
to America presents an excellent opportunity for me to
summon all the strength at my command so that I may shout at
the top of my lungs: "Thank God Almighty for liberal
judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a heretic in a
town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay
tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to
decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that
Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala.,
sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given
equal protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted
by Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are
hardly the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party
of Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by
southern Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They
still disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the
racial remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats,
the folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can
trace their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with
Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond left his racism behind in the Democratic party, in the
keeping of Robert Byrd.
Yeah, sure. Thurmond left his racism behind.
Yes, he did. He was among the first Senators to hire black assistants.
Ole Strom loved black
people. Hell, he even had a black daughter.
Whom he supported and put through college.
Sorry, but yesterday's
Dixiecrats are today's Republicans. Not every Dixiecrat. And not
every Republican. Good rule of thumb, though.
Yeah, good rule of thumb for a racist Democrat who is trying to hide
behind a pile of hypocritical *****.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
What they're thinking is: "We're not waiting for Democrats to give us
more handouts that are just enough to keep us down on the
plantation."
Well, I doubt that many black people think that. They certainly don't
vote that. But non-rich Republican voters? Yeah, they're thinking
something like that or as incoherent as that, as their party picks
their pockets.
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
They're still Democrats.
If by "they" you mean the heirs to the Dixiecrats, you're just wrong.
Nope.
They traded Jim Crow for the implicit bigotry
of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Gotta keep them darkies from
realizing that they're responsible for their own prosperity.
I'm sure you know as much about welfare and affirmative action
as you do everything else you opine about.
I sure you know more revisionist "history" about them.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Nothing brings shame upon capitulators
quite like the courage of their allies."
— Robert Garcia Tagorda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
01 Nov 2005 03:18:07 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97014CA911240fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:AMC9f.3137$Lv.1270@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700EC224577Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9CA9f.3097$Lv.1659@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution
to America presents an excellent opportunity for me to
summon all the strength at my command so that I may shout at
the top of my lungs: "Thank God Almighty for liberal
judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a heretic in a
town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay
tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to
decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that
Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala.,
sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given
equal protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted
by Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are
hardly the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party
of Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by
southern Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They
still disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the
racial remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats,
the folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can
trace their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with
Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond left his racism behind in the Democratic party, in the
keeping of Robert Byrd.
Yeah, sure. Thurmond left his racism behind.
Yes, he did. He was among the first Senators to hire black assistants.
Ole Strom loved black
people. Hell, he even had a black daughter.
Whom he supported and put through college.
Sorry, but yesterday's
Dixiecrats are today's Republicans. Not every Dixiecrat. And not
every Republican. Good rule of thumb, though.
Yeah, good rule of thumb for a racist Democrat who is trying to hide
behind a pile of hypocritical *****.
Well, that's definitive. I'm convinced.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
What they're thinking is: "We're not waiting for Democrats to give us
more handouts that are just enough to keep us down on the
plantation."
Well, I doubt that many black people think that. They certainly don't
vote that. But non-rich Republican voters? Yeah, they're thinking
something like that or as incoherent as that, as their party picks
their pockets.
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
They're still Democrats.
If by "they" you mean the heirs to the Dixiecrats, you're just wrong.
Nope.
Well, that's definitive. I'm convinced.
They traded Jim Crow for the implicit bigotry
of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Gotta keep them darkies from
realizing that they're responsible for their own prosperity.
I'm sure you know as much about welfare and affirmative action
as you do everything else you opine about.
I sure you know more revisionist "history" about them.
(*shrug*) I can read voting records and party affiliations
Deadrat
--
Fred Stone
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "BruceW" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
06 Nov 2005 11:02:36 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97014CA911240fstone69@213.155.197.138...
...
Yeah, good rule of thumb for a racist Democrat who is trying
to hide behind a pile of hypocritical *****.
Well, that's definitive. I'm convinced.
...
Fred said it, Fred believes it, that settles it (for Fred anyway).
-BruceW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
01 Nov 2005 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97014CA911240fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:AMC9f.3137$Lv.1270@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700EC224577Bfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Deadrat" <ephemera1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:9CA9f.3097$Lv.1659@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700CD841F94fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1130800282.274011.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
AC wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:42:12 GMT,
Klaus Hellnick <khellnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
maff wrote:
'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2
005102801812_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=
1791.7364
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23
The celebration of Rosa Parks's extraordinary contribution
to America presents an excellent opportunity for me to
summon all the strength at my command so that I may shout at
the top of my lungs: "Thank God Almighty for liberal
judicial activism." I suppose this makes me a heretic in a
town where radical right dogma reigns supreme, especially
after the trashing of White House counsel and now-withdrawn
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. But I'll still pay
tribute to activist judges. After all, it was a default by
elected leaders that led an "activist" Supreme Court to
decide in 1956 that it was unconstitutional to require that
Rosa Parks and other black passengers in Montgomery, Ala.,
sit at the back of buses solely because of their race.
WRONG!
You obviously don't know what judicial activism is. That was
clearly a Constitution derived ruling. Parks was not given
equal protection under the Alabama laws (which were enacted
by Democrats, as were most other "Jim Crow" laws).
I think we can all agree that the Democrats of yesteryear are
hardly the same as the Democrats of today.
Yes. Now they're Republicans. It's no small irony that the party
of Lincoln is the one that has become associated with the racist
attitudes of Jim Crow. Attitudes which were once held by
southern Democrats.
Except that it's not. It's still the Democrats who hold the racist
attitudes. Racists *love* blacks who "know their place". They
still disparage blacks for "getting uppity", as evidenced by the
racial remarks made about black Republicans.
Nice try, but the subject was the descendants of the Dixiecrats,
the folks who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 because
of their disagreement with the majority over civil rights. You can
trace their path directly to the Republican Party, starting with
Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond left his racism behind in the Democratic party, in the
keeping of Robert Byrd.
Yeah, sure. Thurmond left his racism behind.
Yes, he did. He was among the first Senators to hire black assistants.
Ole Strom loved black
people. Hell, he even had a black daughter.
Whom he supported and put through college.
As long as she never, ever said a word about her daddy. I wonder what
sort of hypocritical vitriol you'd spew if we were discussing Clinton.
Sorry, but yesterday's
Dixiecrats are today's Republicans. Not every Dixiecrat. And not
every Republican. Good rule of thumb, though.
Yeah, good rule of thumb for a racist Democrat who is trying to hide
behind a pile of hypocritical *****.
Well, that's definitive. I'm convinced.
I make the same remarks about black Republicans who support
a candidate who speaks at Bob Jones University as I do about
middle class people who support a candidate who cuts taxes for
the rich and programs for the poor and middle class. And those
remarks begin, "Hey, rubes! What're ya thinkin'?"
What they're thinking is: "We're not waiting for Democrats to give us
more handouts that are just enough to keep us down on the
plantation."
Well, I doubt that many black people think that. They certainly don't
vote that. But non-rich Republican voters? Yeah, they're thinking
something like that or as incoherent as that, as their party picks
their pockets.
Now, if you'd like to start a thread about the hypocrisy of the
politically correct, be my guest. But don't confuse that with the
modern history of the Jim Crow wing of the Democratic Party.
They're still Democrats.
If by "they" you mean the heirs to the Dixiecrats, you're just wrong.
Nope.
Well, that's definitive. I'm convinced.
They traded Jim Crow for the implicit bigotry
of Welfare and Affirmative Action. Gotta keep them darkies from
realizing that they're responsible for their own prosperity.
I'm sure you know as much about welfare and affirmative action
as you do everything else you opine about.
I sure you know more revisionist "history" about them.
(*shrug*) I can read voting records and party affiliations
Deadrat
--
Fred Stone
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Judicial Activism' to Be Thankful For |
01 Nov 2005 06:42:51 PM |
|
</ | | | | | | | | | | |
