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 Wadenvxplorer said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps
- Thread starter MachZer0
- Start date
- Status
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
MachZer0 said:
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.
Upvote
0
As long as they stick to the Constitution and existing lawNathan Poe said:
That would be creating new law
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
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Upvote
0
It's not about me tulc. I told you that beforetulc said: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!)
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
MachZer0 said:
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?
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?
Upvote
0
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.Nathan Poe said:
Agreed. Miranda is an example of leftist judicial activism
Upvote
0
Nonsense. The judiciary struck down an existing Texas law in Roe v. Wade.MachZer0 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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 modenvxplorer said:
Upvote
0
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.MezzaMorta said:
Upvote
0
The NRA doesn't defend people or groups in lawsuits. They are not a law organizationtulc said:
Plenty. This one is recent with the ACLU is objecting to a Katrina memorial which will be placed on private land
Upvote
0
tulc
loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
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!)
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
MachZer0 said:
So who decides which inferrences are correct and which are not? You?
Because nowhere in the Constitution is the right for people to know what their rights are -- therefore, it doesn't exist, right?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
