So you are against Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.
Understood.
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:
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.
So you are against Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.
Understood.
"activist judges"
A term used by people to describe judges who don't rule in their favor.
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."Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly."
"deep religious convictions"
A term used by people to describe judges who don't rule in their favor.
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 activismTake that, activist judges!
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.
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 courseWhat the Supreme Court did wasn't activist...it was doing their job.
for a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sure have your lips pressed tightly around that elephant penisSo, yeah, we've been fighting activist judges for quite a while.
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.
Actually, I've never stated my political ideology but, yeah, I'm more conservative than was Yonivore.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)