Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Earlier this week, a once-prominent American politician weighed in on the questions of judicial appointees, the filibuster and religion in politics, and he made a lot of sense. Here's what he said:

    "We began as a nation with a clear formulation of the basic relationship between God, our rights as individuals, the government we created to secure those rights, and the prerequisites for any power exercised by our government."

    "'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' our founders declared. 'That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . .'"

    "But while our rights come from God, as our founders added, 'governments are ins uted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.'"

    "So, unlike our inalienable rights, our laws are human creations that derive their moral authority from our consent to their enactment--informed consent given freely within our deliberative processes of self-government."

    "Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly."
    Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges! And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.

    What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.

  2. #2
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    So you are against Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

    Understood.

  3. #3
    Believe. blaze89's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    605
    "activist judges"

    A term used by people to describe judges who don't rule in their favor.

  4. #4
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    "Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly."
    Last I checked a majority of the people were against the war in Iraq, Social security reform that involves any mention of the two words - private accounts. A majority of the people have weighed in against the Bill Frist sponsored Senate Nuclear Option, and W's proposed energy bill.

  5. #5
    Who's Your Caddy?! NeoConIV's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Post Count
    2,024
    "activist judges"

    A term used by people to describe judges who don't rule in their favor.

    "deep religious convictions"

    A term used by people to describe judges who don't rule in their favor.

  6. #6
    Chronic User Bandit2981's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    2,145
    Take that, activist judges!
    funny how republicans are rallying against these "activist judges" now, but back in 2000 when florida judges gave Bush the presidency, republicans couldnt have been more excited about judicial activism

  7. #7
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    funny how republicans are rallying against these "activist judges" now, but back in 2000 when florida judges gave Bush the presidency, republicans couldnt have been more excited about judicial activism
    There wasn't anything activist about what the Supreme Court did in 2000. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was being activist; allowing ex-post facto lawmaking in the case of allowing the changes in certification dates and ignoring the equal protection clause by allowing narrow re-counts in heavy Democratic districts.

    So, yeah, we've been fighting activist judges for quite a while.

    What the Supreme Court did wasn't activist...it was doing their job.

  8. #8
    Chronic User Bandit2981's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    2,145
    What the Supreme Court did wasn't activist...it was doing their job.
    the same argument could be made about the Schiavo judges, but since it doesn't fit your narrow-minded agenda, you dont realize it of course

    So, yeah, we've been fighting activist judges for quite a while.
    for a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sure have your lips pressed tightly around that elephant penis

  9. #9
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    the same argument could be made about the Schiavo judges, but since it doesn't fit your narrow-minded agenda, you dont realize it of course
    I agree...what the conservatives attempted in the Schiavo case was activist. The ploy failed and we're probably cons utionally better, if not morally better, for having done so.
    for a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sure have your lips pressed tightly around that elephant penis
    Actually, I've never stated my political ideology but, yeah, I'm more conservative than was Yonivore.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •