The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

No, you have not. The dictionary definition clearly shows that a person acting regarding a controversial issue is an activist, regardless of which side they act on. A judge ruling either for or against abortion rights would be an activist - but you would only call the judge ruling FOR them an activist. Because you don't use the term correctly - you use it to mean merely 'judges i disagree with'.

A judge who creates a new law is taking direct vigorous action om a controversial issue. A judge who rules based on the existing law is just doing his job. Big difference.

There is no double standard at all. Violence has occurred at some protests at funerals for completely unrelated reasons to those Phelps and his group are protesting. THAT is why no bubble zone should be imposed on him.

What you are citing is as if, prior to the violence at abortion clinics by anti-abortionists, there had been violent protests for unrelated reasons at other medical clinics. By your 'logic', imposing a bubble zone on anti-abortionists because of violence not by them, but by others at similar sites in unrelated protests, would have been reasonable. It's not, and that's why the ACLU is against buble zones for Phelps and his crew.

Your argument could be used the same way regarding abortion clinics. One group is violent, another is not. Why not impose a bubble zone only on the violent ones? The reason is that abortion is the sacred cow for many leftists. It must be protected at all costs, even at the cost of the freedom of speech.

 

[MachZer0]

A tricky matter, and one which, in this case, has little to do with the First Amendment.

The fact that the funeral in this case was of someone wrongly shot by the police certainly doesn't make for a simple decision -- On the one hand, it's easy to predict that people would appear to protest the circumstances of the death, but on the other, probably the last thing anyone wantedto see at this particular funeral were the NYPD.

Catch-22, wouldn't you agree?

In fact, it should be noted that in the Dorismond funeral, the violence was targeted towards the police in attendance. It would appear that the "bubble zone" here caused violence rather than prevented it.

Catch 22 indeed. If we follow your own logic, your whole argument gets blown out of the water. Bubble zones either apply to both or neither or else we have a double standard

 

[Nathan Poe]

Catch 22 indeed. If we follow your own logic, your whole argument gets blown out of the water. Bubble zones either apply to both or neither or else we have a double standard

You're not even paying attention to the conversation anymore, are you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

A judge who creates a new law is taking direct vigorous action om a controversial issue. A judge who rules based on the existing law is just doing his job. Big difference.

And when an appropriate law does not exist?

 

[MachZer0]

And when an appropriate law does not exist?

Then the judge should not rule.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then the judge should not rule.

And the case is left unresolved, in legal limbo, until... Doomsday?

 

[MachZer0]

And the case is left unresolved, in legal limbo, until... Doomsday?

If there is no law, there is no case.

 

[nvxplorer]

A judge who rules based on the existing law is just doing his job. Big difference.

Now you're catching on. I'm happy to see you acknowledge that judicial rulings are based on mountains of settled case law, not just the wording of the Constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

Now you're catching on. I'm happy to see you acknowledge that judicial rulings are based on mountains of settled case law, not just the wording of the Constitution.

Of course, settled case law can be overturned based on the wording of the Constitution

 

[Nathan Poe]

If there is no law, there is no case.

Unfortnuately, the law must grow and expand to catch up with real life, not vice versa.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course, settled case law can be overturned based on the wording of the Constitution

And when it is, you accuse judges of being "activists."

 

[MachZer0]

Unfortnuately, the law must grow and expand to catch up with real life, not vice versa.

Not at the hands of judges

 

[MachZer0]

And when it is, you accuse judges of being "activists."

Provide an example where I've done that

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not at the hands of judges

But the legislature moves at a glacial pace. If our only option is to wait for them, the courts grind to a halt. Judges have a responsibility to look at existing law and precident and apply it as best they can to the case at hand.

 

[nvxplorer]

Not at the hands of judges

Legislatures create law, not judges.

 

[MachZer0]

But the legislature moves at a glacial pace.

That's fine

If our only option is to wait for them, the courts grind to a halt.

Not so, they go about their business making judgements based on existing law. When no law applies, they just toss the case out, no standing.

Judges have a responsibility to look at existing law and precident and apply it as best they can to the case at hand.

Yes, without making new law in the process

 

[MachZer0]

Legislatures create law, not judges.

Exactly my point

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's fine

Except that we are constitutally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial -- Not justice whenever the legislature decides to come back from vacation and actaully do something.

Not so, they go about their business making judgements based on existing law. When no law applies, they just toss the case out, no standing.

And no rights. The world moves faster than the legislature does.

Yes, without making new law in the process

Think for a moment what the results would be.

 

[MachZer0]

Except that we are constitutally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial -- Not justice whenever the legislature decides to come back from vacation and actaully do something.

Sspeedy trial for violating a law that doesn't yet exist? If there is no law, you can't be on trial for violating it. The proper response from the judge would be dismissal of the case

And no rights. The world moves faster than the legislature does.

What rights? Are you suggesting that the courts should invent new rights, like they did with abortion?

Think for a moment what the results would be.

The result would be judges following the law and, more specifically, the Constitution

 

[nvxplorer]

Exactly my point

No, your point was that judges are creating law. Please show me evidence of the judiciary drafting and passing legislation.