The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

To repeat myself, would you want a judge with my political ideology striking down laws baswd on inference and penumbra?

If a particular judgement is that far gone, well then, isn't that why we have an appeals process?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the references to international law as regarding sodomy which were used to strike down the Texas laws

And what exactly were the legal grounds for that law in the first place?

That is a catcall phrase that justifies the judicial activism. Which part of the Constitution is not clear to you?

The parts that deal with scenarios which haven't arisen yet.

This my come as something of a shock to you, but neither the Constitution nor the penal code are 100% comprehensive. Situations will arise that our Founding Fathers hadn't counted on.

In a perfect world, the legislature will write new laws as needed. But this world (not to mention the legislature) is far from perfect. That's why judges rely on the circumstances of the case, precident, and even (gasp! say it ain't so!) their own good judgement to make fair rulings.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It bothers me that the courts have been so duped by their agenda, yes

And not by yours. Jealous much?

So why aren't they called the Amercian [Some] Civul Liberties Union, since they don't defend gun rights.

Because those rights don't need defending. Nobody's trying to take away your guns, are they?

It would be nice if that were true. As a matter of fact, the ACLU promotes its agenda at taxpayer expense

It's called "going to court." And I'd rather have my taxes pay for that than for the establishment of a religion, wouldn't you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's easy enough to find

I don't think anyone has even attempted to refute it. The efforts here have been more along of justifying the ACLU's support for Phelps

You mean the ACLU's support for the First Amendment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The question was, why doesn't the ACLU defend gun ownership rights. Did you miss that?

No, you asked about the rights of Christians -- did you miss that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Birds of a feather?

Well, give yourself some credit, Mach -- you showed me how important it is to fight for our civil liberties.

 

[MachZer0]

If a particular judgement is that far gone, well then, isn't that why we have an appeals process?

But my ideology may be held by the Supreme Court Justices (hopefully) some day

And what exactly were the legal grounds for that law in the first place?

The Constitution

The parts that deal with scenarios which haven't arisen yet.

This my come as something of a shock to you, but neither the Constitution nor the penal code are 100% comprehensive. Situations will arise that our Founding Fathers hadn't counted on.

In a perfect world, the legislature will write new laws as needed. But this world (not to mention the legislature) is far from perfect. That's why judges rely on the circumstances of the case, precident, and even (gasp! say it ain't so!) their own good judgement to make fair rulings.

Those things that have not yet arisen necessarily belong to the states to decide. if the Constitution doesn't address them, they cannot be unconstitutional regardless of how the states individually decide to address them

 

[MachZer0]

No, you asked about the rights of Christians -- did you miss that?

Here was my question

when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights?

which was never addressed

 

[MachZer0]

And not by yours. Jealous much?

The problem is that if one espouses your philosophy of interpreting the Constitution based on inference and penumbra, then one must necessarily accept those interpretations made by justices who hold political ideologies similar to mine. That could some day include allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in court rooms, allowing prayer by valedictorians and school coaches, etc. Are you prepared to accept that?

Because those rights don't need defending. Nobody's trying to take away your guns, are they?

Do you have any idea what it takes to own a gun legally in New York City. If that isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms, I don't know what is. San Francisco just recently passed a ban on handguns which was thrown out in court

It's called "going to court." And I'd rather have my taxes pay for that than for the establishment of a religion, wouldn't you?

I disapprove of the payments of taxpayer funds to the ACLU and no government entity in America is attempting to establish a religion as far as I know.

 

[MachZer0]

You mean the ACLU's support for the First Amendment.

I said, and I meant, the ACLU's support for Phelps. And I don't see anybody disproving that, but rahter trying to justify it

 

[MachZer0]

Well, give yourself some credit, Mach -- you showed me how important it is to fight for our civil liberties.

Some of our civil liberties based on a leftist ideology, in my view

 

[MezzaMorta]

I said, and I meant, the ACLU's support for Phelps. And I don't see anybody disproving that, but rahter trying to justify it

How is that even a rational statement. They support the first amendment and the right of all Americans to use and be protected by it.

I support the right of Republicans to lawfully assemble and protest. But I do not support Republicans by any stretch of the imagination.

Supporting the constitution means you support it for all Americans, not just the ones you agree with.

 

[MachZer0]

How is that even a rational statement. They support the first amendment and the right of all Americans to use and be protected by it.

I support the right of Republicans to lawfully assemble and protest. But I do not support Republicans by any stretch of the imagination.

Supporting the constitution means you support it for all Americans, not just the ones you agree with.

The ACLU didn't support the right to free speech of a valedictorian recently. As a matter of fact, they took the lead in making sure that she was censored.

 

[MezzaMorta]

The ACLU didn't support the right to free speech of a valedictorian recently. As a matter of fact, they took the lead in making sure that she was censored.

Well provide some information on this situation, I know nothing of it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But my ideology may be held by the Supreme Court Justices (hopefully) some day

You'd want that? Activist judges who are on your side?

The Constitution

I don't seem to recall anything in the Constitution which prohibits sodomy. Refresh my memory?

Those things that have not yet arisen necessarily belong to the states to decide. if the Constitution doesn't address them, they cannot be unconstitutional regardless of how the states individually decide to address them

And when states address issues which, one way or another, run afoul of the Constitution -- Remember the 14th Amendment -- then it becomes a federal issue.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Here was my question

which was never addressed

I addressed it -- You ignored my answer.

 

[tulc]

They have done so countless times, they have defended the rights of Christians.

If they've done so countless times, could you point some out?

The question was, why doesn't the ACLU defend gun ownership rights. Did you miss that?

Uhmm no the question appeard to be: did the ACLU defend Christians.
tulc(who thought post #583 answered that other question)

 

[Nathan Poe]

The problem is that if one espouses your philosophy of interpreting the Constitution based on inference and penumbra, then one must necessarily accept those interpretations made by justices who hold political ideologies similar to mine.

As well as justices who hold political ideologies similar to mine.

Justices are human, and until the scientists at MIT design and implement the Compu-Judge 9000, we're just going to have to deal with that.

That could some day include allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in court rooms, allowing prayer by valedictorians and school coaches, etc. Are you prepared to accept that?

If it ever comes to that, I'll have to accept it, won't I? I may not necessarily like it, but eventually, justices who hold views I agree with will be appointed, and sanity will be restored -- until the cycle starts again.

Not a perfect system, but it's the best we got.

Do you have any idea what it takes to own a gun legally in New York City. If that isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms, I don't know what is.

I'm sure it involves a screening process that insures that the applicant is not a raving psychopath. Is that too restrictive? And besides, what exactly does the second Amendment say?

San Francisco just recently passed a ban on handguns which was thrown out in court

Well, there you go. The Second Amendment is alive and well. Problem solved.

I disapprove of the payments of taxpayer funds to the ACLU and no government entity in America is attempting to establish a religion as far as I know.

The ACLU does not operate on taxpayer funds, they work on the donations of its members -- I should know, I sent them a payment of $50 just today -- And it's not even tax-deductible.

And the reason no government entity is trying to establish a religion is because certain organizations work tireless to prevent our public lands from being turned into cathedrals.

 

[MachZer0]

I addressed it -- You ignored my answer.

And nothing demonstrated that the ACLU defends gun ownership rights. The closest mention was that they are neutral. Would that they were equally neutral on other rights.

 

[MachZer0]

You'd want that? Activist judges who are on your side?

I've clearly stated that justices should decide cases based opn the Constitution, not on ieology

I don't seem to recall anything in the Constitution which prohibits sodomy. Refresh my memory?

Does the Constitution address sodomy? If so, could you elaborate?

And when states address issues which, one way or another, run afoul of the Constitution -- Remember the 14th Amendment -- then it becomes a federal issue.

Ah yes, the 14th amendment as misinterpreted by activists

 

[MachZer0]

I addressed it -- You ignored my answer.

There was am attempt by soemone to change my question. You may wish to reread the sequence for clarification