The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

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

Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wade

 

[Nathan Poe]

Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wade

So... Judges shouldn't make rulings?

And Roe v Wade did not "create" a new law, but extended one -- In this case, extended the "Right to Privacy" (Which may not be explicity mentioned in the Constitution, but could be reasonably inferrered from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments) expressed in Griswold v Conneticut (1965), and determined that the decision to terminate a pregnancy also fell under this right.

 

[MachZer0]

So... Judges shouldn't make rulings?

As long as they stick to the Constitution and existing law

And Roe v Wade did not "create" a new law, but extended one -- In this case, extended the "Right to Privacy"

That would be creating new law

(Which may not be explicity mentioned in the Constitution, but could be reasonably inferrered from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments) expressed in Griswold v Conneticut (1965), and determined that the decision to terminate a pregnancy also fell under this right.

That's quite a stretch to reasonably infer such a right to privacy. Wasn't it referred to as penumbra? Inferring something to extend new rights is the activist deed of creating new law

 

[Gracchus]

Well, judges don't write law it is true. But judges interpret the law, just as religious folks interpret scripture and for the same reasons: In order to be "politically correct", "In order to make it say what it doesn't say.", in order to bring it into some semblance of correspondence to modern reality, and sometimes, though this is very rare indeed, to make it actually serve justice. By the time the lawyers and judges get throught with it the statutes as written usually count only as much as they serve the special (monied) interests.

 

[tulc]

MachZero, would you have a problem with "bubble zones" if Phelps and the prolifers both had to abide by them?
tulc(back from the wilds of Michigan!)

 

[MachZer0]

Well, judges don't write law it is true. But judges interpret the law...In order to make it say what it doesn't say

That's an activist judge

 

[MachZer0]

MachZero, would you have a problem with "bubble zones" if Phelps and the prolifers both had to abide by them?
tulc(back from the wilds of Michigan!)

It's not about me tulc. I told you that before

 

[tulc]

It's not about me tulc. I told you that before

Ahh! My mistake. So is it wrong for prolifers to have to obey a "bubble zone" at clinics?
tulc(plugging away at trying to understand)

 

[Nathan Poe]

That would be creating new law

No, it's deciding that an existing law applies to a certain situation. Not making a law, but deciding how it should be enforced.

Again, the laws grow to keep up with real life -- not vice versa.

That's quite a stretch to reasonably infer such a right to privacy. Wasn't it referred to as penumbra? Inferring something to extend new rights is the activist deed of creating new law

In 1965, 7 out of 9 Reasonable SCOTUS judges inferred just that. Or do you disagree with Griswold v Connecticut?

As long as you're railing against Judicial activism, it should be noted that Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a more blantant example of what you would call "Making new law." Is Miranda a Leftist tool as well?

 

[MachZer0]

No, it's deciding that an existing law applies to a certain situation. Not making a law, but deciding how it should be enforced.

Again, the laws grow to keep up with real life -- not vice versa.


In 1965, 7 out of 9 Reasonable SCOTUS judges inferred just that. Or do you disagree with Griswold v Connecticut?

Laws don't grow naturally. The problem of inferring by judges is that their inferences may not be correct. That's why they should stick to what the law actually says.

As long as you're railing against Judicial activism, it should be noted that Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a more blantant example of what you would call "Making new law." Is Miranda a Leftist tool as well?

Agreed. Miranda is an example of leftist judicial activism

 

[nvxplorer]

Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wade

Nonsense. The judiciary struck down an existing Texas law in Roe v. Wade.

You've repeatedly made this "creating law" erroneous claim for as long as I can remember. I ask you for evidence, and you spout "Roe v. Wade" as though this supports your claim. You're wrong. Courts do not and cannot make law. That's a fact. Please get over it and stop repeating false claims.

 

[MezzaMorta]

The ACLU defends the constitution and civil liberties of Americas. They do not do so for any political ideology, they do so for anyone in the USA that is subject to actions that violate our constitution or individuals civil liberties.

 

[MachZer0]

Nonsense. The judiciary struck down an existing Texas law in Roe v. Wade.

You've repeatedly made this "creating law" erroneous claim for as long as I can remember. I ask you for evidence, and you spout "Roe v. Wade" as though this supports your claim. You're wrong. Courts do not and cannot make law. That's a fact. Please get over it and stop repeating false claims.

When existing laws are struck down, new laws are essentiallu created, based on the political ideology of the court making the ruling. When courts make decisions based on pemumbra or on international laws, they are acting outside the Constitution in an activist mode

 

[MachZer0]

The ACLU defends the constitution and civil liberties of Americas. They do not do so for any political ideology, they do so for anyone in the USA that is subject to actions that violate our constitution or individuals civil liberties.

The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology. As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights? Yhey are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.

 

[tulc]

The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology. As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights?

uhmmm when did the NRA defend someones right to peacefully protest outside an abortion clinic?

Yhey are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.

Example?
tulc(doesn't remember the NRA defending any street preachers in Las Vegas)

 

[MachZer0]

uhmmm when did the NRA defend someones right to peacefully protest outside an abortion clinic?

The NRA doesn't defend people or groups in lawsuits. They are not a law organization

Example?

Plenty. This one is recent with the ACLU is objecting to a Katrina memorial which will be placed on private land

 

[tulc]

The NRA doesn't defend people or groups in lawsuits. They are not a law organization

You mean that isn't what they do? Oh kind of like ACLU will defend your right to talk about gun? Guns, taxes, and a myriad of other things aren't what the ACLU is about, they are about your right of free speech. It's that simple.
tulc(drinking some more good coffee!)

 

[tulc]

Plenty. This one is recent with the ACLU is objecting to a Katrina memorial which will be placed on private land

I think you forgot the link for this one?
tulc(how's your day so far?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Laws don't grow naturally. The problem of inferring by judges is that their inferences may not be correct. That's why they should stick to what the law actually says.

So who decides which inferrences are correct and which are not? You?

Agreed. Miranda is an example of leftist judicial activism

Because nowhere in the Constitution is the right for people to know what their rights are -- therefore, it doesn't exist, right?

 

[tulc]

I'm confused: have we refuted the idea about the ACLU "supporting Fred Phelps" yet?
Because I'm pretty sure that myth was laid to rest on the first page.
tulc(just trying to understand)