Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by mandym, Sep 8, 2011.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rginias-challenge-to-obamacare/#ixzz1XOpwBXLO
Currently the most activist judges are those appointed to the Supreme Court by G. Bush. They testified under oath that precedence is very important. But their rulings in several cases overturned precedence.
There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court overturning precedent, when the activist judges before you ignored the constitution.
Do you think the Supreme Court should ignore the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, and overturn it? Or just say, "oh well, nothing we can do."?
Divided Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on ObamaCare Lawsuit
Since they don't agree with you, they must be "activist" judges. :laugh:
No sir. When they don't agree with the Constitution, or throw out a law because of some ideology (or create a law out of thin air), they are "activist" judges.
Again, point in case: Roe V Wade.
Please list them, and state where precedence was overturned. And no reading assignments. I would like you to back up your statement.
And of course, you are the one to decide if they agree with the Constitution or not, right!
Ain't gonna happen. :laugh:
And be careful, Curtis. Keep it up and Crabby will punish you by putting you on ignore if you keep insisting that he back up his claims instead of you doing your homework assignments. :laugh:
Thanks for the research assignment ... which you could have researched for yourself. :laugh: [Yes, I am being sarcastic.]
One quote of John Roberts testimony on precedence ..........
That should be enough on this post. It appears that Roberts and Alito are more driven politically than in following the Constitution and and certainly precedence seems to mean little to them.
They swore under oath to Congress and the American people that precedence was very important. They decisions have not lived up to their words.
Of course. Let me quote...
"We the people, of these United States..."
You do remember that we rejected the idea of kings, right? A ruling class? When something is so plain, it cannot be ignored.
Again, what is your view of Roe v Wade? Did they make a mistake, or should we just trust our overlords?
Sorry, those OPINION pieces do not count. Each case, the constitutionality of the original law could be called into question. How something official ?
Hasd Obama lived up to his ?
Anyway, I know judges who further the leftist commie agenda will be praised by people like C.T.Boy, and the judges who actually care about the constitution, and overturn bad law will be called "activist". It is one of the bullets they use.
What judges are you speaking of? Back up your belief with credible links and information. I did for you.
I see you do not disagree with my statement that Roberts and Alito do not follow their testimony about precedence by their decisions.
First, he did not say that any judges have done this, so there is nothing to back up. He was just stating a principle.
Second, your previous post regarding Roberts and Alito ABSOLUTELY honor precedent. They have the right view, which is that the only thing that trumps precedent is the Constitution.
I keep asking: let me ask again, and see if you will answer. DO YOU THINK THAT ROE V. WADE SHOULD BE OVERTURNED? Or do you think that judges should just "honor precedent'?
I await your answer, though I won't be holding my breath..
I'd say it is opinion, but he should be able to back it up.
What principle are you speaking of?
How is precedence respected if it is overturned?
1. I am against abortion.
2. It will not be overturned for reasons I have stated in numerous times in the past. There is no court decision with more precedence than Roe v. Wade. [No, I will not do that research again for you. You are intelligent and you surely know how to research such topics on your own.] If the SC does not overturn Roe v. Wade the only other way is a constitutional amendment and that just is not going to happen.
3. Because of #2 my personal view is of little or no consequence. So, don't push it. It is a fruitless discussion.
Did you agree with the SC ruling that corporations are individuals and thus are exempt from being limited in their political contributions?
Will you apologize for the left-handed slap?
It is very much germain to the discussion. If you say you are against abortion but do not want it over turned then it puts you in a contradictory place as far as your stance on abortion.
If you want it overturned then again, it puts you in a contradictory place with regards to your stated view of how judges should make decisions.
Your avoidance of the question only works to appear as if you want to avoid one or the other.
It is a fruitless discussion. It might be an interesting academic discussion, but it is of absolutely no consequence.
What aspects of morality do you want the courts making decisions on and which ones do you want them to keep their nose out of?
Also if they rule Roe v. Wade unconstitutional it will not stop abortions. It will increase the number of young women who die in back alley abortion mills as was the case before Roe v. Wade.
My wife's secretary lost her mother in the 1930's in this way. Do you want that? Or are you one of those who say "She deserved it."
Should the young man who impregnated the woman be held responsible for helping her and the baby, at least economically, even if they are not married?
Would you support the SC making such a decision holding the father responsible?
ROFL. You have yet to answer my very simple question in another thread. Did or have you read the essay about Bush?
I have shown it is very fruitful
All laws are based on morality
This statement is contradictory to your earlier statement that you are against abortion. Would you clear this up for us?
I do not know what you mean by "she deserved it" but engaging in illegal and highly risky activity in order to take an innocent human life is tragic.
Of course so long as it has nothing to do with taking an innocent human life.
They are already held responsible. Not sure where you are coming from
Yea it got sidetracked by an exaggerated accusation so I bowed out. But yes I read it. However, after seeing you make several statements to others about being off topic I am surprised you would do this yourself.
Now, do you want R v. W overturned?
You posted opinion pieces from leftist idealogues. I do not consider them credible sources of information.
Then you truly don't know how to read.