The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[nvxplorer]

It was settled by activist judges. It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitution

I guess Roberts is one of those activist judges, then. Are you sure you support the Roberts Court?

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I've said, excuses can always be made to oppress a group with whom there is disagreement

The"excuse" being that the activity in question has never resulted in violent or illegal action.

Not at all. But the ACLU may not experience as much success as we see fewer activists on the bench

Who says there are fewer activists on the Bench?

Many states have done so. It's odd that people on the left can find a right to privacy that allows a woman to legally kill her own child, but they can't find a right to privacy to allow families to peacefully bury their dead

Still looking for something besides emotional rhetoric from you -- but I won't hold my breath.

Not self serving at all, constructionist would better describe it

"Better" for you, but not more accurate.

And I'm sure when the Supreme court finds for the state of Missouri, you'll accept the law as Constitutional, right?

Of course I will. I may not necessarily agree with the law, but if they say it's Constitutional, that settles it, and the rest of us just have to suck it up and accept it.

Were you expecting a different answer?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I guess Roberts is one of those activist judges, then. Are you sure you support the Roberts Court?

Of course he does, because as we all know, the only way to "correctly" interpret the Constitution is the MachZero way.

We can only imagine the heartbreak if Roberts decides to vote contrary to the "correct" way.

But this is all moot, since this case is nowhere near SCOTUS,and most likely will never get there. A lower court will make a ruling one way or another, and SCOTUS will decline to hear it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It was settled by activist judges. It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitution

And by Roberts' own words, he is not the man to do it.

 

[MachZer0]

It was settled by Supreme Court justices. 'Activist' just means 'someone who rules in a way I don't like'.

While that may be your definition for activist, it is not what it is generally understood to mean

It can be overruled by those who interpret the constitution differently.

Exactly, interpreted as written rather than as one wishes it was as in the case of abortion. If that is the way justices ruled, double standards would be far more difficult to enforce

 

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly, interpreted as written rather than as one wishes it was as in the case of abortion. If that is the way justices ruled, double standards would be far more difficult to enforce

And if pigs had wings, bacon would be more expensive.

Different standards for different situations. So sorry that life can't be a single monolithic block of circumstance.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

While that may be your definition for activist, it is not what it is generally understood to mean

No, it is indeed what it's generally understood to mean. It's how everyone - including you - uses it. And it's completely wrong according to the dictionary. According to the dictionary, it 'activist' means, basically, a proponent of activism. And activism means 'The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause', or 'a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal'. Now I doubt you're suggesting that these judges are taking 'direct and militant' action - so you're using the word wrongly. What you ARE using it to mean is 'judges with whom I disagree'.

Exactly, interpreted as written rather than as one wishes it was as in the case of abortion. If that is the way justices ruled, double standards would be far more difficult to enforce

No, interpreted as YOU think it should be interpreted. EVERYONE thinks they interpret it the right way, of course. Your way is yoru way, but that doesn't make it the RIGHT way.

And you haven't demonstrated any double standard at all.

 

[MachZer0]

Different standards for different situations. So sorry that life can't be a single monolithic block of circumstance.

That's what the ACLU would have us believe while pushing their agenda. I have to admit that they have successfully sold the American public a bill of goods. Next they'll be selling bridges on the moon

 

[MachZer0]

No, it is indeed what it's generally understood to mean. It's how everyone - including you - uses it. And it's completely wrong according to the dictionary. According to the dictionary, it 'activist' means, basically, a proponent of activism. And activism means 'The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause', or 'a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal'. Now I doubt you're suggesting that these judges are taking 'direct and militant' action - so you're using the word wrongly. What you ARE using it to mean is 'judges with whom I disagree'.

Here is the definition, from Webster's, of activism:

a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
That accurately describes the way I've used the term as it apllies to justices.

No, interpreted as YOU think it should be interpreted. EVERYONE thinks they interpret it the right way, of course. Your way is yoru way, but that doesn't make it the RIGHT way.

In a way, you're correct in that I think the Constitution should be interpreted as written, not based on personal phiolosophy or foreign laws

And you haven't demonstrated any double standard at all.

I don't expect ACLU supporters to actually recognize the double standard, at least not immediately. It may take time

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That's what the ACLU would have us believe while pushing their agenda. I have to admit that they have successfully sold the American public a bill of goods. Next they'll be selling bridges on the moon

It's what is obviously true. The ACLU's only agenda is protecting people - ALL people - 's civil rights. Nothing you've shown even remotely contradicts that.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Here is the definition, from Webster's, of activist:
a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
That accurately describes the way I've used the term as it apllies to justices.

No, that might be the definition of activisM, but not activist. Activists are people, not doctrines or practices. And I'm sorry, but making a judicial ruling is NOT 'direct vigorous action'.

However, let's assume it is. That means that ANY judge who rules on (for example) abortion, no matter which way they rule, is activist - because they would be taking 'direct vigorous action in suport or opposition to one side of a controversial issue'. So if - hypothetically - the SCOTUS one day rules against abortion (overturning itself), will you be calling the judges that do so 'activist'? Of course not. You only use 'activist' to mean judges you DON'T agree with.

In a way, you're correct in that I think the Constitution should be interpreted as written, not based on personal phiolosophy or foreign laws

It's impossible to interpret anything 'as written'. Personal philosohpy ALWAYS comes into it.

I don't expect ACLU supporters to actually recognize the double standard, at least not immediately. It may take time

That's an exceptionally week retort. All it says is that you admit you weren't able to demonstrate any double standard. It's been repeatedly explained to you why there is no double standard, but you just ignore that. How about I say that I've proven there is no god, and when you say that I haven't, I just reply that "I don't expect Christians to actually recognise that their god has been disproven, at least not immediately. It may take time." Does that add anything to my argument?

 

[JoyJuice]

I perused this whole thread.

I really don't know how one equates the ACLU as "the Left" (unless they equate insuring constitutional rights strictly a "left" value) when Fred Phelps is far as I'm concerned is far to the Religious Right, and Rush Limbaugh is the champion of the "Right's" school of thought.

But yet they fought for the rights, not the views, of both.

I find the logic of the argument pretty perplexing.

 

[MachZer0]

It's what is obviously true. The ACLU's only agenda is protecting people - ALL people - 's civil rights. Nothing you've shown even remotely contradicts that.

They're not protecting the families of our dead service men and women. Oops, Phelps is pushing an anti-war, ant-Bush agenda, so he deserves more protection than the grieving families. What a coincidence

 

[nvxplorer]

They're not protecting the families of our dead service men and women. Oops, Phelps is pushing an anti-war, ant-Bush agenda, so he deserves more protection than the grieving families. What a coincidence

No one has a right to be free from protest. Therefore, there's nothing to protect. Oops, you're preaching an anti-ACLU agenda. Coincidence?

 

[MachZer0]

No one has a right to be free from protest.

Not even abortion clinics.

 

[nvxplorer]

Not even abortion clinics.

Nope, not even abortion clinics.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

They're not protecting the families of our dead service men and women.

They're not preventing the families of our dead servicemen and women from being offended, no. Nobody has the right to be not offended.

Oops, Phelps is pushing an anti-war, ant-Bush agenda, so he deserves more protection than the grieving families. What a coincidence

This is just paranoia. Phelps deserves - and gets - exactly as much protection as the grieving families.

Not even abortion clinics.

That's right, which is why protests at them are legal.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not even abortion clinics.

And they're not.

However, they do have a right to be free from violence, and after a disturbing number of protests turned violently ugly, many states decided that certain steps had to be taken.

Public safety, as well as the right to have access to health care, was determined to be important enough to justify limited restrictions on the First Amendment right to protest.

Perhaps at some point in the future, funeral protests will warrant a similar limited restriction. But that time has not yet come, and it is not the job of state legislatures to curtail civil rights in order to "protect" us from threats that do not exist...

... that's the White House's job. (Sorry, couldn't resist! )

Now, you are clearly an educated person, and can no doubt see the logic at work here, even though you may not agree with the conclusion. But if you still insist that this is some sort of vague "Leftist" conspiracy in which their activist judges can only be stopped by your activist judges, then we are at an impasse.

So feel free to believe in any conspiracy theory you want -- no doubt the ACLU is part of some sinister plan to topple the very foundations of this once-great nation -- I'm just thankful you haven't used the term "Illuminati."

 

[MachZer0]

And they're not.

However, they do have a right to be free from violence, and after a disturbing number of protests turned violently ugly, many states decided that certain steps had to be taken.

Public safety, as well as the right to have access to health care, was determined to be important enough to justify limited restrictions on the First Amendment right to protest.

Perhaps at some point in the future, funeral protests will warrant a similar limited restriction. But that time has not yet come, and it is not the job of state legislatures to curtail civil rights in order to "protect" us from threats that do not exist...

... that's the White House's job. (Sorry, couldn't resist! )

Now, you are clearly an educated person, and can no doubt see the logic at work here, even though you may not agree with the conclusion.

I clearly see the logic. It's called rationalization

But if you still insist that this is some sort of vague "Leftist" conspiracy in which their activist judges can only be stopped by your activist judges, then we are at an impasse.

I don't support activist judges of any kind. That is a ploy that is common on the left

So feel free to believe in any conspiracy theory you want

I think the conspiracy is quite clear, except to those who "can't see the forest for the trees"

-- no doubt the ACLU is part of some sinister plan to topple the very foundations of this once-great nation --

Some day, most will recognize that

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I clearly see the logic. It's called rationalization

No, you don't, or you wo0uldn't call it rationalisation.

I don't support activist judges of any kind. That is a ploy that is common on the left

Of course you do, as I outlined above:

ANY judge who rules on (for example) abortion, no matter which way they rule, is activist - because they would be taking 'direct vigorous action in suport or opposition to one side of a controversial issue'. So if - hypothetically - the SCOTUS one day rules against abortion (overturning itself), will you be calling the judges that do so 'activist'? Of course not. You only use 'activist' to mean judges you DON'T agree with.

I think the conspiracy is quite clear, except to those who "can't see the forest for the trees"

And people who think the conspiracy to stop us learning about the aliens who are monitoring our thoughts think it's quite clear, too. Sorry, but somebody thinking a conspiracy is quite clear doesn't make that conspiracy real. The key to separating real conspiracies from fantasy ones is that people can support the existence of real ones. You can't (or, rather, haven't).

Some day, most will recognize that

That is just rampant paranoia. You haven't shown a single thing to support it.