Ravenstorm
04-22-2004, 01:21 PM
Because I didn't want to sidetrack the other thread.
Originally posted by The Edine
Raven, republican does not mean conservitive, especialy in a state like Mass.
If you are not making up in the first place.
Unlike some people, I try not to talk out of my ass and make shit up to agree with my point of view. Especially when it's something so easily verifiable by anyone who wanted to check. But I'll be glad to document my facts since they were called into question. Unlike some people, I have no problem with proving my case.
Re: Massachusetts decision
http://www.csubak.edu/~lle/macourt.html
All but one of the justices were appointed by Republican governors. They are not, for the most part, considered ideologues, and their views are often difficult to pigeonhole, experts say.
Re: Lawrence vs. Texas
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33277
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the White House should take notice that four of the six justices making the decision were appointed by Republican presidents.
So. Does Republican mean conservative? No, it certainly doesn't have to. But when a Republican evangelical President, speaking to the country about an issue that is of great concern specifically to conservative Christians, denounces so-called 'activist judges' you can be certain that the majority of people will be assuming they are horribly liberal judges appointed by the most left-wing Democrats. As is certainly NOT the case. However, that little fact is never mentioned. Of course not. Calling them 'activist judges' is a much better spin to their 'agenda' than calling them 'the judges our own party appointed but who are now telling us we're violating the Constitution'.
Further, the implication is that somehow these judges are overstepping their authority. This is pretty clearly illustrated by Hulkein's reference to 'rogue judges'. I'm sure he's not the only one with that view, considering the rhetoric that's been spewed around. However, it is certainly a fact that these judges are doing nothing more than their jobs. A little lesson on checks and balances and the separation of powers: the things written into our Constitution that every official swears to defend.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional.
While it is very true that the legislative branch of our government makes law, one of the jobs of the judicial branch is to review those laws and make certain they do not deviate from the tenets set forth in the US Constitution. The judicial branch has the duty and the authority to strike down any law passed by the legislature that is deemed in violation of the precepts of our country. This is to protect the citizenry in general from the dangers of legislative tyranny and, specifically, the minorities from the tyranny of majority rule. This is how our government works. Each branch has checks on the other two branches and to imply that these judges are somehow violating their duties is nothing but a blatant lie.
Agree or disagree with their decision as you want but at least know the truth behind the spin.
Raven
Originally posted by The Edine
Raven, republican does not mean conservitive, especialy in a state like Mass.
If you are not making up in the first place.
Unlike some people, I try not to talk out of my ass and make shit up to agree with my point of view. Especially when it's something so easily verifiable by anyone who wanted to check. But I'll be glad to document my facts since they were called into question. Unlike some people, I have no problem with proving my case.
Re: Massachusetts decision
http://www.csubak.edu/~lle/macourt.html
All but one of the justices were appointed by Republican governors. They are not, for the most part, considered ideologues, and their views are often difficult to pigeonhole, experts say.
Re: Lawrence vs. Texas
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33277
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the White House should take notice that four of the six justices making the decision were appointed by Republican presidents.
So. Does Republican mean conservative? No, it certainly doesn't have to. But when a Republican evangelical President, speaking to the country about an issue that is of great concern specifically to conservative Christians, denounces so-called 'activist judges' you can be certain that the majority of people will be assuming they are horribly liberal judges appointed by the most left-wing Democrats. As is certainly NOT the case. However, that little fact is never mentioned. Of course not. Calling them 'activist judges' is a much better spin to their 'agenda' than calling them 'the judges our own party appointed but who are now telling us we're violating the Constitution'.
Further, the implication is that somehow these judges are overstepping their authority. This is pretty clearly illustrated by Hulkein's reference to 'rogue judges'. I'm sure he's not the only one with that view, considering the rhetoric that's been spewed around. However, it is certainly a fact that these judges are doing nothing more than their jobs. A little lesson on checks and balances and the separation of powers: the things written into our Constitution that every official swears to defend.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional.
While it is very true that the legislative branch of our government makes law, one of the jobs of the judicial branch is to review those laws and make certain they do not deviate from the tenets set forth in the US Constitution. The judicial branch has the duty and the authority to strike down any law passed by the legislature that is deemed in violation of the precepts of our country. This is to protect the citizenry in general from the dangers of legislative tyranny and, specifically, the minorities from the tyranny of majority rule. This is how our government works. Each branch has checks on the other two branches and to imply that these judges are somehow violating their duties is nothing but a blatant lie.
Agree or disagree with their decision as you want but at least know the truth behind the spin.
Raven