Vote yes to Prop 8.......or at least donate.

[implacable44]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand?

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

[doobs]

NOW? The judiciary has always been political. Its completely unreasonable to expect the cons ution to lay out what to do in every single possible case. They have to interpret meanings. Its just the way things are.

I understand if you don't like it even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't understand the romanticizing of a mythical judiciary who didn't have to do the things today's judges have to do or interpret the laws the best they can. They've always been political in that sense and there's a reason for their life long appointments.

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous cons utional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

[FromWayDowntown]

This is what happens when you get so much talk of "legislating for the bench". It seems that every time someone sees a ruling they disagree with they assume the judge was working with a specific agenda and combing the laws to find a way to rule the way they wish to achieve their goal.

I guess in this sense I'm annoyed that the judiciary has been politicized too. But lets be clear on who is playing politics here because its not the judiciary.

Oh, I think political and social philosophies have something to do with how these cases are decided -- particularly at the Supreme Court level (Bush v. Gore, anyone?). But I absolutely agree with you that "legislating from the bench" has to be about the most inane term I've ever heard. If a Court rules as you would like it to, it's strictly applying the law; if a Court rules against the position you would prefer, it's going out of its way to read the law in a manner that the law was never intended to be applied. It's all utter nonsense.

[MannyIsGod]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

First of all, the argument for sexual marriage has nothing to do with whether or not they were born that way or if it is natural. You keep bringing it up and I'd love to see a court ruling in favor of gay marriage that is based on the naturalness of sexuality. You miss the whole point.

Second of all, children can't marry because it takes a consenting adult. Thats whats going to stop NMBLA.

and @ your implication of persecuted Christians. Why are they never defended? Lets deal with specifics, where exactly are they under attack?

[MannyIsGod]

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous cons utional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

The courts do not invent anything. A case is argued in front of them and then they courts decided the merrit of said case. Courts do not "invent rights". They rule because the rights are there. I think there's a severe lack of understanding from you in just how the court system works.

[FromWayDowntown]

The judiciary has not always been political, or at least not the extent they are today. The executive and the legislative branches are the political branches. The judiciary is supposed to be different. They have lifelong appointments precisely because they're not political--that is, they're not accountable to the people.

So when the people believe they've been denied equal protection of the law by the political branches in some novel way that isn't expressly covered by the text of the Cons ution, where is their recourse -- the very political branches that have denied them that right?

There's a huge difference between making law and interpreting law. If Congress passed a law allowing for slavery, the judiciary would have a proper role in striking down the legislation because such a law clearly violates an unambiguous cons utional provision. But when states outlaw abortion, the Supreme Court invents a quasi-fundamental right to abortion for women, with basically no textual justification? Looks, the politicized judiciary is a recent phenomenon in America--you can trace it to the mid-twentieth century. For our first 150 years, the judiciary was remarkably restrained.

I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

[romad_20]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

On a side not -- how come the civil liberties of the Christian are never defended?

Gays want to have civil liberties because of the legal implications of marriage. I said earlier in the thread there are issues of home ownership, hospital visitation, insurance polices among other things. They also want to validate their relationship. If a religion was created for just gay people and they wanted to marry what ground would you have to stand on then?

What Christian civil liberties are being denied? Who is keeping Christians from doing anything except trying to legislate their morals on others that don't share their views.

[doobs]

The courts do not invent anything. A case is argued in front of them and then they courts decided the merrit of said case. Courts do not "invent rights". They rule because the rights are there. I think there's a severe lack of understanding from you in just how the court system works.

Are you a lawyer?

[doobs]

I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

Marbury v. Madison is good cons utional law. A clear cons utional provision had been violated. That's not what I'm talking about. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is textbook of what courts should be doing.

Are you a lawyer?

[implacable44]

Courts / judges interpret and based on their interpretation laws are estasblished. The "rights" are there because Judge X said they are there.

[MannyIsGod]

So when the people believe they've been denied equal protection of the law by the political branches in some novel way that isn't expressly covered by the text of the Cons ution, where is their recourse -- the very political branches that have denied them that right?



I think you're naive to think that a politically motivated judiciary is some sort of modern development in the law. You might read Marbury v. Madison, for instance.

Exactly. The brilliance of the cons ution is in how flexible of a do ent it is and thats why the rulings that have taken place are completely justified. A more rigid do ent would not have survived to be as completely relevant today as it was when it was initially drafted. This was not done by accident.

[romad_20]

Marbury v. Madison is good cons utional law. A clear cons utional provision had been violated. That's not what I'm talking about. In fact, Marbury v. Madison is textbook of what courts should be doing.

Are you a lawyer?

I do believe he is.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you a lawyer?

No - I just play one on the internet

[MannyIsGod]

And yeah, FWDT is a lawyer.

[doobs]

And yeah, FWDT is a lawyer.

I am, too, and I think he's wrong about Marbury v. Madison. I'm an appellate lawyer, in fact, so cons utional law is something I actually think about on a daily basis.

[MannyIsGod]

I still say I know more about the law than you!!!!

I kid, I was 90% sure you were going to say that when you asked if I was a lawyer. Its always good to have people like yourself posting here even if I don't understand how you've come to your viewpoints.

[doobs]

I still say I know more about the law than you!!!!

I kid, I was 90% sure you were going to say that when you asked if I was a lawyer. Its always good to have people like yourself posting here even if I don't understand how you've come to your viewpoints.

But it's not good to tell someone that they lack understanding or are naive, though. Especially when they actually understand the issues better than you do. I'm serious. I appreciate your insight, but it's not a lawyer's insight, it's a layman's insight. It's almost necessarily a political insight. I've been making a legal argument this whole time. Just sayin'.

[MannyIsGod]

Nah you're right. It was a pretty stupid statement by me.

[implacable44]

the judiciary is VERY political and it is obscene to believe otherwise

[Findog]

Re . So those with different opinions then yours should go f- themselves ?

People who would discriminate and deny people their civil rights can go themselves, yes.

Marraige = Man and a woman. - you change the definition to suit all of you "secular progressives" and where does it stop ? Man and boy ? etc.. etc.. but then - none of you folks believe in the slippery slope

I support the ability of gays in committed relationships to qualify for health benefits under the partner's insurance plan, to have hospital visitation rights, to be able to pass on property in their inheritance wills just like married heterosexual couples. Call it "civil unions" or "marriage," I just don't give a . Why do you support discrimination? Why do you equate sexuality with pedophilia? You've got to be the dumbest poster in the political forum, even dumber than whottt and AggieHoopsFan.

[Findog]

how hard is what to understand ? gays want marraige rights and cry discrimination and prejudice -- that their civil liberties are being denied... what is to stop NMBLA folks from doing the same ? Being that their desire is natural and they were "born" that way ?

Oh the dumb! It burns! It burns!

Just to spell it out for you: sexuality is not a crime. Pedophilia is. That you seem to equate the two is sad.

[Findog]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand?

It's very hard if you're a freep .

[implacable44]

Oh the dumb! It burns! It burns!

Just to spell it out for you: sexuality is not a crime. Pedophilia is. That you seem to equate the two is sad.

its a crime right now.. what will happen when we adopt Sharia law like GB ? when the ACLU decides to defend NMBLA and their civil liberties ? you know -- like someone said earlier - stay out of my bedroom

[romad_20]

its a crime right now.. what will happen when we adopt Sharia law like GB ? when the ACLU decides to defend NMBLA and their civil liberties ? you know -- like someone said earlier - stay out of my bedroom

As far as I know, GB doesn't have the US Cons ution as its law.

Keywords for you to remember CONSENTING ADULTS. Your NMBLA argument is out the window.

[implacable44]

no it isnt out the window. IT has come up -- it will come up again and again and again.