Activist liberal SC judge whines about criticism

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread

Google and 15 seconds of your time.... Doesn't take long to find this. Breyer openly advocates using foreign law to set precident.

So...

Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Oh you said legislation.... missed that. Well... If our congress passes a piece of legislation, it doesn't matter where the idea came from. Once it's passed by congress it's United States law, deliberated and passed by representitives duly elected by the people.

If a court judgement is rendered based on foreign legislation or court cases then the entire process and point of representative government kind of flies out the window.

I must have been sleeping in my civics class...but my understanding is that the Supreme Court is not subordinate to Congress or the people. They have their function, which can include striking down legislation made by "representitives duly elected by the people". We don't live in an unlimited democracy, remember? I get the feeling a lot of criticism of the court comes from a misunderstanding of this idea.

Now, as far as foreign law goes, I still have seen no proof that the decision was made because of a foreign law or case. I see evidence to suggest such a case or ruling was mentioned in the SC ruling, but that is not the same thing.

You're right in your first statement. Almost.... Congress does have the power to impeach justices, redraw and eliminate court districts etc. But for the most part we do expect our judges to act independently of our elected officals. And yes, they have the power to strike down legislation that is in conflict with the constitution. What they don't have the power to do, but have assigned to themselves anyway, is to use foreign law and precident to decide the validity of US Laws in place of the constitution.

Some issues in our country are totally outside the jurisdiction of the courts altogether. Immigration in the consitution is left solely to the pervue of the congress. That hasn't stopped the courts from butting in... but it's wrong all the same.

This case is a perfect example where foreign law and common practice was cited. It was not the sole basis of the decision but it still had no place in the opinion.

Scalia ? joined once again by Rehnquist and Thomas ? wrote that "the court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

 

[BoberFett]

Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Republicans bitch and moan about Roe v Wade, but when's the last time they truly tried to legislate abortion themselves? They tiptoe around the issue and talk about late-term abortions and other fringe issues like that, but in the end they're too afraid of losing their beloved positions to actually do something about it. They should put their money where their mouths are, or shut up.

Edit: That was in response to the thread title of "Activist judge". I'm not sure where that came from, as this has little to with judicial activism and is more about the other two branches using the judiciary as a pawn in their little election games.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Republicans bitch and moan about Roe v Wade, but when's the last time they truly tried to legislate abortion themselves? They tiptoe around the issue and talk about late-term abortions and other fringe issues like that, but in the end they're too afraid of losing their beloved positions to actually do something about it. They should put their money where their mouths are, or shut up.

Edit: That was in response to the thread title of "Activist judge". I'm not sure where that came from, as this has little to with judicial activism and is more about the other two branches using the judiciary as a pawn in their little election games.

Amen. There's too much political gamesmanship in Washington. The republicans, have the votes and they have the 2 branches neccesary to pass and enforce laws. Time to start delivering on the promises and the rhetoric.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Hmmmm . . .

On the one hand, we have a man who has a Stanford BA, attended Oxford for Econ on a Marshall Scholarship, and went on to edit the Harvard Law Review during his tenure at that law school, before clerking for a Supreme Court justice. He went on to work in the anti-trust division of DoJ, then taught at Harvard Law School. He then worked as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by the United States Sentencing Commission. Nominated by a Democratic President to the Supreme Court, he was quickly confirmed by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee, with the only meaningful skepticism coming from a senior Democrat who questioned his pro-business stance. He has served as a Supreme Court justice for 11 years.

On the other, we have a teenager who believes the aforementioned man has the legal knowledge of a dairy dessert.

I'll side with the former, but thanks for playing!

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

Shall we believe you are going to go to Zendari for your brain tumor operation?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Republicans bitch and moan about Roe v Wade, but when's the last time they truly tried to legislate abortion themselves? They tiptoe around the issue and talk about late-term abortions and other fringe issues like that, but in the end they're too afraid of losing their beloved positions to actually do something about it. They should put their money where their mouths are, or shut up.

Edit: That was in response to the thread title of "Activist judge". I'm not sure where that came from, as this has little to with judicial activism and is more about the other two branches using the judiciary as a pawn in their little election games.

The day abortion ACTUALLY becomes illegal the Republican party goes out of business. They will get a huge backlash from the thinking public and the moron one issue people will cease to vote. They aren't cowards, they are phonies.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Republicans bitch and moan about Roe v Wade, but when's the last time they truly tried to legislate abortion themselves? They tiptoe around the issue and talk about late-term abortions and other fringe issues like that, but in the end they're too afraid of losing their beloved positions to actually do something about it. They should put their money where their mouths are, or shut up.

Edit: That was in response to the thread title of "Activist judge". I'm not sure where that came from, as this has little to with judicial activism and is more about the other two branches using the judiciary as a pawn in their little election games.

The day abortion ACTUALLY becomes illegal the Republican party goes out of business. They will get a huge backlash from the thinking public and the moron one issue people will cease to vote. They aren't cowards, they are phonies.

I'm not going to call anyone cowards or phonies, but I do agree with the premise of your statement. The "One" big issue goes out the door and so do the voters.

 

[Zebo]

He.. maybe your liars that you elect should clarify the law and actually do what they said they were going to do but never seem to get around to while they milk your arse

-Gays
-Affirmative Action
-Immigration
-Abortion
-pornography
Etc etc etc

Why get no play once the lairs in office?

Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Astute man.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

zendari, a teenager, specifically attacked Justice Breyer's alleged lack of legal knowledge. His own complete lack of legal training is directly relevant, in that he's completely unqualified to judge an attorney's qualifications, particularly one with a career as estimable as Justice Breyer's.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

zendari, a teenager, specifically attacked Justice Breyer's alleged lack of legal knowledge. His own complete lack of legal training is directly relevant, in that he's completely unqualified to judge an attorney's qualifications, particularly one with a career as estimable as Justice Breyer's.

Ignore him, Chicken's just sniping at you; knee-jerk noise to defend someone on "his side". We all know your comment was exactly on target, nailing zendari squarely in his youthful arrogance. It was masterful.

:beer:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Activist liberal SC judge whines about criticism

zendari -- Don't you have anything better to do than cry about "activist" this and "liberal" that in everything you post? You're a freaking bore. :roll:

 

[PatboyX]

can we please reserve use of the term "hack" for when it actually applies or can be applied to a specific profession.
dont be lazy! look up a more appropriate word!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: zendari
Activist liberal SC judge whines about criticism

zendari -- Don't you have anything better to do than cry about "activist" this and "liberal" that in everything you post? You're a freaking bore. :roll:

He's no more boring than those who post about "neocon" this and "conservative" that. You don't seem to mind those posts though. I wonder why? :roll:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sometimes I feel that judges are unfairly put in the position where they must "legislate from the bench" because spineless legislators who are scared of losing votes fail to do their duty and pass legislation themselves.

Republicans bitch and moan about Roe v Wade, but when's the last time they truly tried to legislate abortion themselves? They tiptoe around the issue and talk about late-term abortions and other fringe issues like that, but in the end they're too afraid of losing their beloved positions to actually do something about it. They should put their money where their mouths are, or shut up.

Edit: That was in response to the thread title of "Activist judge". I'm not sure where that came from, as this has little to with judicial activism and is more about the other two branches using the judiciary as a pawn in their little election games.

Take a look at mississippi abortion laws and how abortions have been cut in the past few years.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Zebo
He.. maybe your liars that you elect should clarify the law and actually do what they said they were going to do but never seem to get around to while they milk your arse

-Gays
-Affirmative Action
-Immigration
-Abortion
-pornography
Etc etc etc

Why get no play once the lairs in office?

Astute man.

No play? You mean things like the Federal Marraige Amendment Though Bush is probably a bit more progay than he could be.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Which legislation was passed or voted for based on "overseas legal opinions" and not following the US Constitution?

Btw, I only see one hack in this thread

Wait, we've got a second one!

 

[CaptnKirk]

Take a look at Mississippi abortion laws and how abortions have been cut in the past few years

I'm really suprised that you're not in favor of making it mandatory for minorities, with your GOP shill mentality.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
He's no more boring than those who post about "neocon" this and "conservative" that. You don't seem to mind those posts though. I wonder why? :roll:

Are you defending him? Do you think this thread, and zendari's posts herein, are worthwhile?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BoberFett
He's no more boring than those who post about "neocon" this and "conservative" that. You don't seem to mind those posts though. I wonder why? :roll:

Are you defending him? Do you think this thread, and zendari's posts therein, are worthwhile?

Yes, they bring in some good discusions.

As for Zendrai himself... Thats a different issuse

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Take a look at Mississippi abortion laws and how abortions have been cut in the past few years

I'm really suprised that you're not in favor of making it mandatory for minorities, with your GOP shill mentality.

We can't force the blue states to modify their laws. I guess liberals will continue to abort themselves out of existence.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Zebo
He.. maybe your liars that you elect should clarify the law and actually do what they said they were going to do but never seem to get around to while they milk your arse

-Gays
-Affirmative Action
-Immigration
-Abortion
-pornography
Etc etc etc

Why get no play once the lairs in office?

Astute man.

No play? You mean things like the Federal Marraige Amendment Though Bush is probably a bit more progay than he could be.

Where is it? No where to be found. And you're wrong about activist judges like you're worng about abortions. Judges job is to interpret the law, and decide consititutionality of law, who else can can do it? And abortions have skyrocketed under republican leadership, nationwide and every state.

BTW you forgot thier outlawing Affimitaive Action or actually enforceing immigration which always get pissed off whitey to the ballot box with nothing being done once they "win". Courts have zero say here.

 

[Jhhnn]

From zendari-

"You missed the part where he started citing overseas legal opinions. What a hack. "

He did, in Roper vs Simmons, which banned the execution of minors... Other than the US, the only other countries that allowed the practice were Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Very enlightened and enviable company indeed... No wonder Christian Fundies hate Islamic Fundies- they're cut from the same twisted cloth...

http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1165b-1.html

Red state morality- can't vote, drink, sign a contract, get married or do a lot of things because you're too young to make an informed decision, but you're old enough to fry for your crimes... and to snivel about activist liberal judges, of course...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Bush graduated from Yale and was governor of Texas.

Shall we all believe that anyone in here without those same or better credentials is making useless, unknowledgeable posts?

zendari, a teenager, specifically attacked Justice Breyer's alleged lack of legal knowledge.

It sure sounds like Zendari attacked his knowledge in general, not specifically legally. He critcized some of Breyers decisions in a general manner as well.

zendari wrote:

Maybe he should quit legislating from the bench if he doesn't want to be criticized like a legislator. Or maybe he should uphold the US constitution instead of some foreign law. Or maybe he should resign because he has the knowledge of a quart of ice cream.

Considering zendari is speaking of Breyer's complaint about criticsm, I don't see where the "legal knowledge" distinction comes in here. Care to point it out?

His own complete lack of legal training is directly relevant, in that he's completely unqualified to judge an attorney's qualifications, particularly one with a career as estimable as Justice Breyer's.

Well how many people in here are qualified to judge Bush's qualifications, or the qualifications of pretty much any politician?

Being qualified is not a qualification in this forum. The only qualification in here is the willingness to discuss a subject.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Where is it? No where to be found. And you're wrong about activist judges like you're worng about abortions. Judges job is to interpret the law, and decide consititutionality of law, who else can can do it? And abortions have skyrocketed under republican leadership, nationwide and every state.

It didn't pass because of the Democrats and RINOs. You should also google mississippi abortion laws. Truly exemplary.

Even lefties agree that RvW was screwed up legal reasoning.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Take a look at Mississippi abortion laws and how abortions have been cut in the past few years

I'm really suprised that you're not in favor of making it mandatory for minorities, with your GOP shill mentality.

We can't force the blue states to modify their laws. I guess liberals will continue to abort themselves out of existence.

We shall, sounds like a better plan than overpopulating the red states with bible thumping high school dropouts that suck away tax money.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: zendariTake a look at mississippi abortion laws and how abortions have been cut in the past few years.

How do the actions of Mississippi legislators relate to a USSC judge?