Land of the Free my A$$

aaharvel

Originally posted by MacLeod
This is EXACTLY what is meant by ACTIVIST JUDGES.

Stupid **** hippy liberal judges that do not interpret the constitution but hand down judgements the way they think it should be.

With all due respect Mac.Leod, the U.S. Supreme Court is a Conservative Court by a margin of 5-4.

I fully agree with you and everyone on this thread that this ruling is absolutely uncalled for- and there will be serious future implications as a result; but I should point out that politicizing it as "STUPID **** HIPPY LIBERAL JUDGES" is not only ridiculous; it's simply not true.

bobman1235

Originally posted by aaharvel
With all due respect Mac.Leod, the U.S. Supreme Court is a Conservative Court by a margin of 5-4.

I fully agree with you and everyone on this thread that this ruling is absolutely uncalled for- and there will be serious future implications as a result; but I should point out that politicizing it as "STUPID **** HIPPY LIBERAL JUDGES" is not only ridiculous; it's simply not true.

Sorry chief. All four dissents on this issue came from CONSERVATIVE judges. You are correct about the breakdown of the Court, but on this issue, it was a liberal vote that won it.

aaharvel

Originally posted by bobman1235
Sorry chief. All four dissents on this issue came from CONSERVATIVE judges. You are correct about the breakdown of the Court, but on this issue, it was a liberal vote that won it.

yup. after double checking w/google you're right on. However, I don't agree with the whole "STUPID **** HIPPY LIBERAL JUDGE" thing. That kind of generalization is no good regardless of what side of the fence you're on. "STUPID **** REDNECK CONSERVATIVE JUDGE" is just as bad and shouldn't be used either. If you look at their records- most all of the 9judges are moderate.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Court.htm

MacLeod

I stand by my statement. Any judge that will look at the Constitution and flat out IGNORE it only to hand down a judgement that meets with their ideaology and what is politically correct at the time is a stupid **** hippy liberal judge.

Conservatives by definition believe a judge's duty and responsibility is to INTERPRET the Constitution not to change it. Judges dont make law, Congress does.

Ill go back to my previous example. Say youre the Supreme Court and a womens group sues because the Constitution says "Thou shalt not let women vote". Well of course youre going to think this is discrimination and wrong. But that doesnt matter. You HAVE to look at what the Constitution says and you HAVE to vote against the womens group. IT IS NOT UP TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO MAKE LAWS!! Thats the job of the legislative branch.

This is what conservatives believe. Liberals on the other hand cannot win at the ballot box therefore they must, thru activist judges (stupid hippy liberal judges) have to re-write the law.

exalted512

thats funny...i dont care who you are


but yet, so very very true
-Cody

aaharvel

Originally posted by MacLeod
"Any judge that will look at the Constitution and flat out IGNORE it only to hand down a judgement that meets with their ideaology and what is politically correct at the time is a stupid **** hippy liberal judge. Conservatives by definition believe a judge's duty and responsibility is to INTERPRET the Constitution not to change it. Judges dont make law, Congress does."




Mac.Leod the Constitution is and has never been set in stone. It has been amended many times since it's inception. You talk about political correctness- I seem to recall that the Civil Rights Movement and equality for women ushered in a NEW era of political correctness that at the time many traditionalists balked at. History shows the traditionalists were proven wrong.

Yes the Legislative Branch makes the laws- but it's the Judicial system that has the responsibility of determining if those laws are constitutional: they don't just simply "interpret" the laws. So saying the Judicial Branch should keep their "HIPPY LIBERAL" butts out of Legislative and Executive processes is not only UNCONSTITUTIONAL- but it totally defies the founding fathers definitions of checks and balances in the United States Government. Separation of Powers?- absolutely. But not at the expense of balking at the Constitutional process.

Mac.Leod in this case- you are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court f--ked up. Big time. Four moderate/left judges plus one moderate/conservative judge (don't forget about him) swayed the decision in favor of the government seizing private property. Also keep in mind that 7 of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents. Guilt by association? Are you going to blame them for being hippy liberal as well? To say that all bad decisions are made by hippy liberals and that all activist judges are liberal is a bunch of non-sense. Are you going to tell me that conservative Presidents, judges and justices have never left their mark on the Judical system? Give me a break: both parties are responsible- it goes both ways.

Basically, what i'm getting from your argument is that Conservatives are good and Liberals are bad. Period. It's really a shame that you think it's that simple. You talk of idealogy blinding the truth - yet If you didn't let your own idealogy lower yourself to simple name calling and assigning liberals with "bad" and conservatives with "good" then maybe you could see a little bit clearer on how our system actually works.

You can stand by your statement all you want- that's your right- but if all you can do is define right or wrong as merely liberal or conservative than you're either watching too much FOX News or listening to too many nutty Howard Dean speeches. And don't accuse me of being either liberal or conservative. I'm a moderate-always been. I'm not blinded by one particular idealogy and never will be. That's the problem with this country today and why nothing ever gets accomplished on capital hill.

Basically, I've said my piece- and I don't even think Polk forums allow for political debate in the first place, so i'm going to respect those rules and the ones on this forum that don't want to engage in a remake of Crossfire. After all the show was cancelled because it sucked.

(EDIT) MacLeod at least we can both agree that the decision the court made sucks a big one. Let's hope they learn from their mistake.

ND13

[/quote]
Basically, I've said my piece- and I don't even think Polk forums allow for political debate in the first place, so i'm going to respect those rules and the ones on this forum that don't want to engage in a remake of Crossfire. After all the show was cancelled because it sucked.[/quote]

To quote RusSman, "ED ZACHRY".

BTW, If most of us really looked deep into their political beliefs, ideals, preferences, etc., they would realize that they're closer to Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans. Conservative in government/political issues but liberal in social issues.

Shizelbs

Originally posted by ND13

BTW, If most of us really looked deep into their political beliefs, ideals, preferences, etc., they would realize that they're closer to Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans.[/QUOTE]

YES. Someone who understands.

ND13

[/QUOTE]
YES. Someone who understands. [/B][/QUOTE]

Because our great nation has become so 2 party oriented, we're likely never to see a libertarian in any major offices, and that's a shame. There was once a day when you would see Whigs, federalist, etc,etc.

exalted512

you guys suck at quoting
-Cody

PolkThug

Originally posted by exalted512
you guys suck at quoting
-Cody

ND13

Originally posted by exalted512
you guys suck at quoting
-Cody

Well, excuuuuse me.:p

aaharvel

ND13:

"BTW, If most of us really looked deep into their political beliefs, ideals, preferences, etc., they would realize that they're closer to Libertarians than Democrats or Republicans. Conservative in government/political issues but liberal in social issues."



+1

EDIT: I suck at quoting too.

bikezappa

Large corporations controlled by a few people have been running the world for about 100 years. These elite people, who are few in number, control and bought our government and media many years ago. Yes it pisses me off that they can take my home in order to make more money. They can change the laws to suit their needs.

We live in a democracy, how much democracy can you buy?

bikezappa

Action Items

Ask your president, senator and congrss men in your distict to comment on this action by the court.

You will get nothing but cosmic dedris and corparate swill.

Your home is your castle, right.

amulford

I personally think you never TRULY own your home anyway. At least here in this state, the taxes are almost like having another mortgage. And if you don't pay the taxes, your home is 1) placed under lien or 2) taken and sold to recover the taxes.

Think you actually OWN it? NOT....

MacLeod

Originally posted by aaharvel
Mac.Leod the Constitution is and has never been set in stone. It has been amended many times since it's inception. You talk about political correctness- I seem to recall that the Civil Rights Movement and equality for women ushered in a NEW era of political correctness that at the time many traditionalists balked at. History shows the traditionalists were proven wrong.

This is the most common misconception of the constitution. It IS NOT a "living, breathing document". It is set in stone. But that doesnt mean it cant change. You can change it thru a process spelled out in the Constitution but until its changed, its the final word on how it is! And judges DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE IT! Only the people do.

If the people dont ammend the Constitution then there is no refuting it. If the Constitution did not abolish slavery in the 13th amendment then it would still be legal and there wouldnt be anything a judge could do about it! Just like now, slavery is clearly abolished in the Constitution so there is nothing a judge can do about it.

Yes the Legislative Branch makes the laws- but it's the Judicial system that has the responsibility of determining if those laws are constitutional: they don't just simply "interpret" the laws. So saying the Judicial Branch should keep their "HIPPY LIBERAL" butts out of Legislative and Executive processes is not only UNCONSTITUTIONAL- but it totally defies the founding fathers definitions of checks and balances in the United States Government. Separation of Powers?- absolutely. But not at the expense of balking at the Constitutional process.

You are right. When a law is passed you can bring it to the judicial system to see if it passes Constitutional muster, but here is where the problem lies. Take slavery again (this is an extreme example but makes the point). Some state passes a law legalizing slavery. It comes before a judge. Obviously the 13th amendment forbids it so it is unconstitutional. An activist judge will look at the 13th and disregard it and call the law Constitutional. So when you have judges that look at the 5th amendment and blatently disregard it theyre activist judges. Same with the "seperation of church and state". There is no such thing in the Constitution.

Mac.Leod in this case- you are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court f--ked up. Big time. Four moderate/left judges plus one moderate/conservative judge (don't forget about him) swayed the decision in favor of the government seizing private property. Also keep in mind that 7 of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents. Guilt by association? Are you going to blame them for being hippy liberal as well? To say that all bad decisions are made by hippy liberals and that all activist judges are liberal is a bunch of non-sense. Are you going to tell me that conservative Presidents, judges and justices have never left their mark on the Judical system? Give me a break: both parties are responsible- it goes both ways.

I dont care what your political affiliation is. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, when you take liberties with the Constitution youre a stupid **** hippy liberal! John McCain is a prime example. This guy is about as conservative as Ted Kenedy. Political party affiliation doesnt necessarily make you a conservative. In fact I believe there is NO conservative party in DC right now. Just a liberal and not-so-liberal party.

Basically, what i'm getting from your argument is that Conservatives are good and Liberals are bad. Period. It's really a shame that you think it's that simple. You talk of idealogy blinding the truth - yet If you didn't let your own idealogy lower yourself to simple name calling and assigning liberals with "bad" and conservatives with "good" then maybe you could see a little bit clearer on how our system actually works.

You can stand by your statement all you want- that's your right- but if all you can do is define right or wrong as merely liberal or conservative than you're either watching too much FOX News or listening to too many nutty Howard Dean speeches. And don't accuse me of being either liberal or conservative. I'm a moderate-always been. I'm not blinded by one particular idealogy and never will be. That's the problem with this country today and why nothing ever gets accomplished on capital hill.

Oh spare me the psychobabble. Im dont think liberals are bad I think liberalism is bad and conservatism is good. And Im sick of moderates acting all snooty claiming if you are a mind numbed robot with a closed mind if you subscribe to one side or the other. In my opinion its the moderates that dont believe in anything. They have no core beliefs. They have to hear both sides before they can make a decision as to what they believe. I myself have certain core values and beliefs that I have developed over the years thru intelligence guided by experience. I dont need to hear everybodys opinion on illegal immigration before I come to a decision on what I believe.

MacLeod at least we can both agree that the decision the court made sucks a big one. Let's hope they learn from their mistake.

Agreed.

ND13

Mac,

When are you announcing your candidacy for office?:D

bert26

If he does, he has my vote!

I couldn't agree with Mac more. There has been SO much read into the Constitution that just isn't there (church and state, privacy vis a vis abortion etc). This recent decision is an abomination - the basis of a "free" republic is, and has always been, the ownership of property.

And what part of "Congress shall make no law .... " don't they understand?

MSALLA

Originally posted by bikezappa
Large corporations controlled by a few people have been running the world for about 100 years. These elite people, who are few in number, control and bought our government and media many years ago. Yes it pisses me off that they can take my home in order to make more money. They can change the laws to suit their needs.

We live in a democracy, how much democracy can you buy?

It's not that simple. I don't agree with the ruling. I under stand what they are thinking but I don't agree. The media is so liberal that it has become one sided, so I don't see how they fit with big corperations. Ya the country is a mess, but shut down all those evil "big Corperations" and see all the jobs that go bye bye.

The fact of the matter is, it's not that black & white. The president (Democrat or Rep.) is not as responsible for as much as people think. And a person in this country can still make as much money as he/she wants all they have to do is work for it.
If you think it's bad here, go try another country.

aaharvel

Originally posted by bert26
There has been SO much read into the Constitution that just isn't there (church and state, privacy vis a vis abortion etc).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment I of the Constitution)

http://www.constitution.org/

The EXACT phrase "Separation of church and state" (or "right to privacy" and other phrases we use today) do not appear verbatim in the Constitution but the principles inspired by them are obviously there. For example, The Separation of Church & State mythos is in the 1st Amendment itself- originally masterminded by Thomas Jefferson in part to his own fears that The Church Of England (Anglican Church then: Protestant Church today) was trying to force religious doctrine on Virginia, much like before which motivated the colonials to leave England for the New World in the first place.

In retrospect you could say that our country was founded on MORAL beliefs- not necessarily Christian ones.

MacLeod

Poppycock!

The Constitution forbids the governemt from establishing a state religion like the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church. That doesnt mean you cant post the 10 Commandments on a government building or you cant have "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or a county treasurer cant have a plaque of "In God We Trust" on her desk. Thats outrageous and and a totally false interpretation of what is CLEARLY stated in the Constitution.

The founding fathers were very religious and this country was founded on Christian beliefs and morals (for the record Im not religious at all so I have no agenda here). God is mentioned in virtually all the founding documents. "Endowed by our Creator" means God and "our Creator" means God created us which is Christianity!

Another instance is Congress opens every session with prayer and has since its inception.

What the founders were afraid of was a state run religion running everything and outlawing any other religious practice, for instance making Jewish faith illegal.

In other words, this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles and beliefs but you dont have to share them and youre welcome to worship in any way you see fit if at all because we dont have an state run religion.

And moral is a relative term. I mean head on over to Iran and see the way they treat their women. To them this is very moral, to us its barbaric. We as a society get our morals from our religious beliefs.

aaharvel

Hey again MacLeod!

Yeah I don't agree with the banning of the 10 commandments from government sights either- but I do believe in a separation of church and state - if nothing else because it violates religious groups tax-exempt status- but the 10 commandments ruling just doesn't make any sense to me either.

I agree with everything you said. But i'm still glad that they keep religion out of public schools. Too much diversity in our public schools- and we should not cater to just one group. Anyway- that's what Sunday School is for right?

ohskigod

in regards to imminent domain, thought you would like this, someone petitioned a town to take the house of a supreme court justice to build a hotel. seems their serious.

funny but serious readhttp://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Skynut

in regards to imminent domain, thought you would like this, someone petitioned a town to take the house of a supreme court justice to build a hotel. seems their serious.

There is know way they will be allowed to take the house of a supreme court justice but it would be funny if they did.
We should all try to open bed and breakfast inns at the expense of the so called Justices

MSALLA

I was just told that due to the outrage of EVERYONE in the country this is going back to court for a more strict ruling on the situation. NO WAY the people of this country will let this stand.

Skynut

I think we need to throw a TEA PARTY, perhaps in Boston.

jdhdiggs

Originally posted by MSALLA
I was just told that due to the outrage of EVERYONE in the country this is going back to court for a more strict ruling on the situation. NO WAY the people of this country will let this stand.

WHAT????? You mean people actually want to keep what's theirs? What a bunch of sissies standing in the way of progress... Pffft

MacLeod

Originally posted by aaharvel
Hey again MacLeod!

Yeah I don't agree with the banning of the 10 commandments from government sights either- but I do believe in a separation of church and state - if nothing else because it violates religious groups tax-exempt status- but the 10 commandments ruling just doesn't make any sense to me either.

I agree with everything you said. But i'm still glad that they keep religion out of public schools. Too much diversity in our public schools- and we should not cater to just one group. Anyway- that's what Sunday School is for right?

Good for you bro. That, I can respect.

If you dont feel religion should influence or have any part in policy then I respect that and thats a well thought out position even though I disagree.

I have a problem with people that believe as you but try to read something into the Constitution that isnt there.

I only get snippy when people try to read something into the Constitution that isnt there.

aaharvel

that's cool MacLeod.


and there's already a backlash coming against the Supreme Court decision. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.