Comments on: Activist Judges Invalidate Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No.81

by: Squiggler

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 08:11:09 +0000

Daedalus … I think Roberts made it clear that he believes Roe to be wrongly decided because of bad reasoning that leans on the 9th & 10th Amendments. Roberts hinted that he would look in the Liberty Clause to find the “right of privacy,” if it exists anywhere then that’s where to look. Now, whether he ultimately finds it there we’ll have to wait and see, but it sure sounded to me that he’d found his out. Even though I’m against abortion, I would be whole lot happier to have a decision upholding the practice if that decision were based on something other than a manufactured phantom right. As a woman and in very simplistic terms, if my body is so private that I have the right to control the life or death of the baby inside it, then I sure as heck should have the right to sell it to the highest bidder. I don’t think the courts would look too kindly to a right of privacy defense of prostitutes. The point is that conservatives and liberals alike think the Miers appointment is replacing the O’Connor swing vote. I don’t think so. I think her vote has been replaced with Roberts. Miers, on the otherhand, is most like solidly in the overturn Roe camp. The Mt. Soledad issue is nothing more than a few atheists trying to get something they know would never come to them except through some crazy judge. The Soledad Cross is a landmark in San Diego that has long lost any religious significance. It marks a memorial. What’s next? Removing all the crosses and Stars of David from graves in National Cemeteries?

by: Daedalus

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:37:09 +0000

p.p.s. i just read my post and realized that i didn’t finish a sentence. “he thing is that SCOTUS (how fortunate they gave us a great acronym)” I meant “At least SCOTUS gave us a great acronym” as an attempt at lightening up my post. I know that some rightwing sites would call me “stupid” for that, so I hope you realize that typos are just a part of the blogosphere. (Shame on me- I’m a professional editor!)

by: Daedalus

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:27:14 +0000

p.s. Although I don’t comment on your blog, I often read it. I’m just trying to find some common ground.

And also, I hope you are not a Yankees or Braves fan, because blaaaaaaaah!

Cheers. Seriously.

by: Daedalus

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:25:31 +0000

Nope,nope,nope… I did read your post, and despite what you think, it Was slanted towards the right. I don’t believe for a second that the judiciary should be “making laws.” Sorry if I implied otherwise. The thing is that SCOTUS (how fortunate they gave us a great acronym) If it seemed I was implying otherwise, I apologize. I agree with you in that the Court is the weakest branch. But, our leg. and exec. branches have abused their power (both parties) to the point where the Court has become the last resort, and I think, as a result, is ruling on cases (such as the em. domain) that should have never come to court.

Thanks for reassuring me that you are not as extreme as some say you are. We all want the best for our country, even if our ideas for best are differnt.

My main point is that I think, and I may be wrong, that Miers or Roberts were chosen to overrule Roe v Wade rather than for their good judgment. Believe it or not, I am not opposed to the right. I, like you, just want what is fair and best for the country.

Our whole political system needs to revert back to the basics. It’s a shame we’ve pitted ourselves against each other in the name of some anti-American ideology. I’d like to belive that American ideals are all the same. I mean, could you even imagine being born in another country?

We need to stop demonizing each other and find something to agree on. And I, for one, agree with your post and apologize for trying to provoke you into an argument. I just needed to know if you were just.

Cheers… Dems and Reps can live together peacefully, and it’s really time that we stop all of this nonsensical rhetoric, don’t you think?

by: Marv

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:54:20 +0000

But you see Daedalus, that’s where you lefties get so screwed up. The idea is that those holy ones on the bench aren’t there to decide that all schools must or must not have anything, that’s not their job. Remember who’s job it is to make laws?

So, YES, if she decides that all schools must have a crucifix on the wall, she WOULD be activist and SHOULD NOT be there.

by: Cao

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:18:27 +0000

That’s right, Duncan, I don’t think this twirp understands what is meant by “legislating from the bench”. Legislating from the bench is a judge taking the law into his own hands, dismissing the will of the people, and ruling against it. The whole idea of the judicial branch is to interpret laws, not invent new ones; and certainly not deem that old ones are no longer relevant.

That’s the whole purpose of the legislative branch. I really wonder what kind of government classes people are taking when they don’t understand the concept of the three branches of government and the purposes of the said branches. The three branches, if they are operating properly, provide the checks and balances in the system so no one branch ends up a rogue. Right now, the judicial branch is a rogue branch of government that quickly needs to be reigned in…but then…it’s the only area the liberals have left to change things; to legislate through the courts.

They really are having a tough time of it.

by: Duncan Avatar

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:15:11 +0000

Of course, if they are “activist” in reviewing laws that go with YOUR ideology, that’s ok, isn’t it?

Actually, I guess that you did not read my post. If it goes against the Constitution, regardless of conservative/liberal ideology, then it is wrong. But liberals can’t change the Constitution the way it was meant to be changed, through the amendment process. Just too much work to do that. Slavery was abolished through the amendment process. Women’s right to vote through the amenndment process. THat wouldn’t happen today. Some activist judge would “reinterpret” some part of the Constitution to fit what they wanted to change. But I don’t expect you to understand that….

by: Daedalus

Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:04:32 +0000

Of course, if they are “activist” in reviewing laws that go with YOUR ideology, that’s ok, isn’t it? So if you cons get to appoint a judge that decides cases in YOUR favor, they aren’t “activists” at all, are they? Of course not. If Harriet overturns Roe v Wade, she isn’t “making law” is she? If she decides that all schools must have a crucifix on the wall, she isn’t “activist”.

by: Parrot Check » Blog Archive » Activist Judges Invalidate Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No.81

Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:28:22 +0000

[…] tution of the United States is a “living, breathing” document. Cross-posted @ The Wide Awakes.

[…]