Gay Marriage a Symptom, Not a Disease

[Mariner]

strategy for the November elections--and 2008--then I think they're going to be sadly disappointed.

Over the past five years, opposition to gay marriage has fallen from 63% to 51%, according to a Pew poll in March.

It's a nice hot-button issue to try to bring out the base--but the base alone won't win elections. Moderates and independents have deserted Bush wholesale--witness the fact that in only two states in the entire country (Utah and Wyoming) do more than half the voters still approve of the job he's doing. Even at Clinton's nadir, he never fell that low.

Focusing on hot-button base issues is likely to make independents and moderates thing you're out of touch--and that's the risk the Republicans take with this 100% politically maneuver in Congress--everyone knows the votes aren't there to amend the constitution on gay marriage.

In any case, who's doing more harm to family values--a gay couple that marries for life in Massachusetts and raises two adopted children from China, or Rush Limbaugh, who fulminates against drug users, saying they belong in jail--and then plea bargains his way out of drug charges--and who has been divorced 3 times... ?

Mariner.

P.S. Along the lines of Jillian's comment--a nice study by two legal scholars reported in an Op Ed piece in the New York Times a few months ago showed that conservative judges have actually overturned more settled precedents in recent decades than liberal ones. So the true "activist judges" are conservatives, not liberals. The "activist liberal" judge is a conservative bogey-person similar to the flag-burner.

P.P.S. So when is the dissolution of Massachusetts society going to hit us? Most recently, we were found to be so prosperous that 1 in 20 of us are millionaires. How come low tax, traditional-value states aren't kicking our asses? Could it be that investing in people and education, maintaining a high level of public services, and supporting diversity are actually good for a state's economy?? And we still have the lowest divorce rate in the country...

 

[007]

Flash in the pan... yesterday's cold cuts... Know who we need? James Carville should be running this Party. I think Howard Dean is an apologist pussy. He lets Republicans run roughshod all over him...

Bring me the Ragin' Cajun Now!

Oh please, PUUULLLEEEEEZZEE put that raging MORON in charge of your party... :rotflmao:

Us conservatives could run on "better rubber for tires" and win hands down... LMFAO!!!!!

 

[musicman]

Along the lines of Jillian's comment--a nice study by two legal scholars reported in an Op Ed piece in the New York Times a few months ago showed that conservative judges have actually overturned more settled precedents in recent decades than liberal ones. So the true "activist judges" are conservatives, not liberals. The "activist liberal" judge is a conservative bogey-person similar to the flag-burner.

Yes - I remember that article. I believe both you and jillian posted it. It was a naked attempt to blur the meaning of the term "judicial activism". The term is actually quite concrete and definable.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
RECONSIDERED



Like many catchwords, "judicial activism" has acquired so many different meanings as to obscure more than it reveals. Yet it is not a term that can simply be ignored as intellectually "void for vagueness," for at the heart of it are concerns about the very meaning and survival of law. Abandonment of the term not being a viable option, clarification becomes imperative.

"Judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" raise logically obvious but often ignored questions: Activism toward what? Restraint toward what?

...It is not mere activity or passivity that is at issue, but the basis of that activity or passivity...n a constitutional government, a jurist is said to be activist - in the sense objected to - to the extent that he settles cases on grounds extrinsic to the Constitution (author's emphasis)...[t]he controversies which rage over judicial activism are controversies as to the extent to which jurists decide cases on grounds extrinsic to the Constitution...".

http://www.tsowell.com/judicial.htm

So - yeah, Mariner - it was a nice little study. No basis in reality, though - sorry.

"What is necessary is to rectify names. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things". - Confucius

"Words mean things". - Rush Limbaugh

 

[musicman]

I'm actually a world-renowned author, if we define "world-renowned author" as one who types on a message board in the middle of the bloody night. Wow - this is fun! Can I be a billionaire, too?

 

[musicman]

An absolutely scrumptious study - done by some really creative and knowledgeable baseball fans - has unearthed the fact that no player in major league history has ever actually RUN around the bases after hitting the ball out of the park. Rather, they trot, saunter, or amble. Thus, the term "home run" must be re-examined.

In the absence of any definitive clarification, we cannot assume that "home run" means running TO HOME, since - clearly - nobody does that. We must assume, then, that the term refers to a run FROM HOME.

Since he played in the majors for 26 years, holds the record for most hits, and was known to go to first base, after drawing a base on balls, in a dead run, we have clear evidence that Pete Rose ran FROM HOME more than anyone in the history of the game. Clearly, then, the "home run king" is not Hank Aaron, but Pete Rose.

 

[musicman]

Odd, isn't it - that the only ones trying to obscure and bastardize the term "judicial activism" are proponents and defenders of the practice, as it has been defined and understood for the last sixty years?

I think it's because they understand that the only means they have of inflicting their social agenda on America is constitutionally indefensible. If they can muddy up the definition, and sow confusion, their dream may yet survive.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh please, PUUULLLEEEEEZZEE put that raging MORON in charge of your party... :rotflmao:

Us conservatives could run on "better rubber for tires" and win hands down... LMFAO!!!!!

Ya gotta admit though, Carville is funny.

 

[CockySOB]

Jillian, please refer back to my post and identify where I used the word "liberal" or "librull." If you are going to make a claim that I said something, be ready to cite exactly where I said it, otherwise, quit blowing smoke. M'kay pumpkin?

Hell, for that matter go back to my first post in this thread (page one if you'd actually care to follow along with the adult discussions). Care to tell me how my opinions are "right wing?" Or do you feel it necessary to read stuff into my posts to satisfy the pathetically weak stance of your own commentary?

Step up honey, and show me the money, or shut up.

(For the record I'm betting that Jillie-poo read my signature quotes from Thomas Sowell and felt inclined to add her liberal rhetoric to try to distract from the fact she has no relevant contribution to the topic.)

 

[jillian]

Jillian, please refer back to my post and identify where I used the word "liberal" or "librull." If you are going to make a claim that I said something, be ready to cite exactly where I said it, otherwise, quit blowing smoke. M'kay pumpkin?

Hell, for that matter go back to my first post in this thread (page one if you'd actually care to follow along with the adult discussions). Care to tell me how my opinions are "right wing?" Or do you feel it necessary to read stuff into my posts to satisfy the pathetically weak stance of your own commentary?

Step up honey, and show me the money, or shut up.

(For the record I'm betting that Jillie-poo read my signature quotes from Thomas Sowell and felt inclined to add her liberal rhetoric to try to distract from the fact she has no relevant contribution to the topic.)

Oh riiiiiiiiiight....you just used the term "activist" as a generic term. That's the whine of the right every time they don't like a Justice's decision.

And you can patronize or we can have a discussion, cause there are many conservatives for whom I have a great deal of respect. But I always figure that when someone starts with playing games with my name that it's THEY who have nothing to contribute and have no real response to something I said. And while you may have some knowledge on this subject, I have a bit of my own. So, you can give me your OWN definition of what you think an activist judge is and we can move on, or, if you prefer you can continue to choose to act like a pompose ass and make yourself look silly.

 

[jillian]

Odd, isn't it - that the only ones trying to obscure and bastardize the term "judicial activism" are proponents and defenders of the practice, as it has been defined and understood for the last sixty years?

I think it's because they understand that the only means they have of inflicting their social agenda on America is constitutionally indefensible. If they can muddy up the definition, and sow confusion, their dream may yet survive.

I'm not sure who "they" are, but as I said, the right is at least equally guilty of trying to impose a social agenda via Court decisions. That's been the case throughout the history of this country. You have Dred Scott, then Plessy, then Plessy gets overturned for Brown v Bd of Ed, and so on and so on.

As for bastardizing the term "judicial activism", while I understand your point, perhaps if you took an honest look at the use of the term, you'll see that it's been misused by the right as a means of obscuring the its desire to use the Constitution to limit individual freedom and impose a moral agenda on the country. Seems the left is only responding to the propaganda that goes along with the right's use of the term.

But if you don't like seeing a fair application of the term, perhaps you can tell me what you think "activist" means. And saying it's "reading in" to the Constitution doesn't count, because since Marbury v Madison, that's EXACTLY what the Court has done.

Laterz! Work time!

 

[jasendorf]

You failed to respond the last time I provided you instruction, so perhaps you'll avoid this instance as well.

The judiciary does NOT have the final say. Are you that frellin' daft? The judiciary has the authority to decide cases based on existing law, or in the case of SCOTUS, to determine the Constitutionality of a law. That does NOT make the the final say. When a law fails the Constitutionality test, Congress has every right to go back and revisit the wording of the legislation, and the executive branch gets a chance to approve the revision. then the judiciary gets its chance to provide input on the law. It's a never-ending cycle you pea-brained twit.

What you call "revisit[ing] the wording of the legislation"... I call NEW friggin' legislation. Once the USSC declares a law unconstitutional, the law in question is dead. Now, the legislature may desire to pass a DIFFERENT law and test the NEW law's consitutionality... whether with different wording, different scope, different SOMETHING... but it isn't the same law. End of story. Maybe you need some School House Rocks?

The three branches should be separate but equal in power, and when they each exercise their power and authority properly, the system works. However, we have seen judicial activists whose rulings exceed the scope of judicial power and intrude on the exercise of Congressional power by effectively writing legislation from the bench.

In no way, shape or form has the judiciary written law. It has upheld its duty as defined by the Constitution. If the legislature doesn't want to write laws which are in accordance with our Constitution... then they're not going to get their way. I've already proven that Roe v. Wade does preclude a state from passing a law banning abortion, South Dakota and Louisiana just recently have. What more proof do you need?

BTW, the "separate but equal" part precludes any one branch from having the "final say" in case you were needing it spelled out, and my money says you do....

They have the final say on any single particular piece of legislation in deciding its Constitutionality when challenged by the citizenry. I'm sorry if things need to be spelled out to you because you're too slow to understand that... but if the legislature brings an identical piece of legislation the USSC has already deemed unconstitutional, it will still be unconstitutional.

Here's a chart for you:

legislature proposes legislation --> legislature approves legislation --> executive signs legislation --> citizens challenge legislation --> judiciary determines the merits of the challenge --> if found unconstitutional, legislation goes bye-bye. At that point the legislature can write new (or in your euphemism, "revisit the wording of the legislation") legislation or decide that they can't agree on legislation that won't be unconstitutional. If they write new legislation, to me that's another "start" to the judiciary's "end" in determining the constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation.

If they can't agree on legislation that won't be unconstitutional they can attempt to amend the Constitution... two-thirds votes... send to the States to ratify also requiring three-quarters of the States (who will decide their vote usually through a vote by their citizenry if I'm not mistaken)... at this point the process is now changed and the judiciary is newly bound by that amendment and futher legislation will be judged in the light of that amendment.

 

[CockySOB]

Oh riiiiiiiiiight....you just used the term "activist" as a generic term. That's the whine of the right every time they don't like a Justice's decision.

And you can patronize or we can have a discussion, cause there are many conservatives for whom I have a great deal of respect. But I always figure that when someone starts with playing games with my name that it's THEY who have nothing to contribute and have no real response to something I said. And while you may have some knowledge on this subject, I have a bit of my own. So, you can give me your OWN definition of what you think an activist judge is and we can move on, or, if you prefer you can continue to choose to act like a pompose ass and make yourself look silly.

So you still cannot admit that it is YOUR prejudice that assumed I was speaking of "liberal" activism when I mention the phrase "judicial activism?" Why am I not surprised? I don't go for activists of either stripe as evidenced by my very first post in this thread. If you want me to treat you as an adult and not patronize you, then act like a friggin' adult and don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

You want my definition of "activist judge?" Gee, why didn't you ask that first before putting words in my mouth based on an unfounded assumption? An activist judge is a judge whose ruling is not based on the Constitutionality of a law, but on their own interpretation of whether that law is "right." An activist judge is a judge who sets aside the will of the people for any reason other than Constitutional reasons. And they come from both sides of the aisle. Let me help you Jillian, THEY COME FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. I can't say it any plainer than that, so if you still don't get it, then you're a lost cause. For example, if this ammendment somehow passed through Congress and was signed by POTUS, as soon as a challenge was brought to SCOTUS, I would expect the ammendment to be struck down as a violation of Federal authority under the Constitution (as an usupration of States rights).

Ball's in your court honey. Don't grovel or anything, but if you're even partially the adult you seem to think you are, you'll proffer an apology for your incorrect assumption of me.

 

[CockySOB]

What you call "revisit[ing] the wording of the legislation"... I call NEW friggin' legislation. Once the USSC declares a law unconstitutional, the law in question is dead. Now, the legislature may desire to pass a DIFFERENT law and test the NEW law's consitutionality... whether with different wording, different scope, different SOMETHING... but it isn't the same law. End of story.

Not gonna argue with you there. Both sets of terminology have been used to discuss the cyclical build of legislation. And both are correct. And yes, when SCOTUS strikes down a particular law, THAT law is null and void. But similar legislation, often based on only minor changes to the original text, is usually introduced and eventually comes before the courts sometime.

BTW, arguing semantics such as this is the sign of lack of facts to support an argument. Is that all the more you've got? Oh wait, this is jasen isn't it? Never mind, I figured the answer out on my own.

In no way, shape or form has the judiciary written law. It has upheld its duty as defined by the Constitution. If the legislature doesn't want to write laws which are in accordance with our Constitution... then they're not going to get their way. I've already proven that Roe v. Wade does preclude a state from passing a law banning abortion, South Dakota and Louisiana just recently have. What more proof do you need?

Actually you've proven nothing. We can enter into the Roe vs. Wade debate if you want, but you might want to revisit the dissenting opinions before thinking you've proven anything. Stare decisis prevents a new SCOTUS from simply overturning the ruling, however should hte case come back to SCOTUS as a matter of legal illegitimacy with the ruling, then SCOTUS can revisit the ruling as a matter of law and most likely would overturn the ruling returning the decision to the States where it rightly belongs. The only Federal aspect of Roe vs. Wade would be the determination of when the unborn gains protections of the Fourteenth ammendment (Equal Protection, for the illiterate), whereas the States would retain the right to determine hte medical licensing and procedures allowed within their jurisdiction. Talk about an activist court, the Roe vs. Wade decision smacks of activism and the usurpation of States rights by the Federal government.

The remainder of your diatribe revolves around the semantics of the legislative cycle. I already answered that issue above, and I am disinclined to repeat myself.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ball's in your court honey. Don't grovel or anything, but if you're even partially the adult you seem to think you are, you'll proffer an apology for your incorrect assumption of me.

Yeah, apologise Jillian...this guy deserves an apology...after all, he ain't gloating or anything is he? He's being humble and all...

 

[jillian]

Yeah, apologise Jillian...this guy deserves an apology...after all, he ain't gloating or anything is he? He's being humble and all...

 

[musicman]

More from Dr. Sowell's link:

"While judicial activism is in principle adaptable to any ideological program-- and in practice likely to be adopted by its current ideological enemies if it proves to be politically unstoppable-- it is nevertheless "no accident" that the principled argument for judicial activism has been made largely by those with a particular social vision(Emphasis mine). The assumptions of that vision make judicial activism both feasible and desirable, in a way in which it is not desirable to those with different assumptions about the nature of man and of social causation. While people with all sorts of philosophies may practice judicial activism surreptitiously, an explicit advocacy or justification for judicial activism is not compatible with all assumptions or social visions.

The kind of man conceived by those who have historically advocated judicial restraint is a very different creature from the kind of man envisioned by those who urge judicial activism. The kinds of societies and institutions appropriate to these two kinds of creatures, called by the same name, necessarily differ-- just as an ideal society for whales would differ from an ideal society for ants or eagles.

Those with a highly constrained vision of man's capabilities-- both mental and moral-- seek institutions and institutional roles which confine the discretion of each individual to a small circle, within which he may be competent, rather than let his decisions roam over vast reaches, where all are certain to be incompetent. Blackstone's vision of man was that "his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error"... [g]iven "the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason,"119 Blackstone's desire to keep judges on a short leash was understandable. All institutional roles are confined in this vision, the boundaries of specialties (morality and law, for example) respected, and the specialist deferred to within his realm...

In short, man's competence does not extend far enough for him to be trusted with other than limited responsibilities, according to the constrained vision. Judicial restraint is only a special application of this general principle."

http://www.tsowell.com/judicial.htm

I think Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense here. A worldview which accepts human frailty as a fundamental truth is apt to favor judicial restraint. Judges are only human, and will therefore - left unchecked - pursue a tyrannical course, even if with the best of intentions. It was with an enlightened understanding of man's inherently flawed nature that our founders wrote the Constitution; judicial restraint is, then, absolutely in line with constitutional principle.

Those who believe that man is somehow perfectible would favor judicial activism - giving a judge free reign to enforce his own (necessarily subjective) notions of "fairness", "equality", and "what's best for society" - rather than constraining him to the specific, process-oriented powers granted him in the Constitution.

 

[CockySOB]

Yeah, apologise Jillian...this guy deserves an apology...after all, he ain't gloating or anything is he? He's being humble and all...

Well, if you missed the obvious, I AM the CockySOB....

But in all seriousness, Jillian made a major assumption about my post and my position based on nothing solid. The fact she cannot bring herself to acknowledge that fact speaks volumes as to her lack of integrity and her own lack of moral fiber.

What's funny is that I actually don't have a problem with homosexual marriage as long as the decision is left up to the individual states to determine whether they wish to facilitate such legal unions or not. The fact of the matter is that proper change takes time and cannot be foisted upon the population at large without major repercussions. When liberal activists (note to Jillikins, I prefaced "liberal" to "activists" so that there wouldn't be another opportunity for you to make an ass of yourself. AGAIN. You're welcome.) try to push homosexual unions across state lines using FF&C or through Federal law, you naturally get a backlash against the change in status quo. But when left to the states to decide, we get a chance to demonstrate that homosexual unions are not the end of existence and not the excessively sexual and promiscuous relations they are generally stereotyped as. Then, the process of migrating the acceptance to other states becomes less threatening to the status quo, and easier for the general public to accept. Likewise, when liberal activists have fought to push homosexual marriage on the populace of all the states at once, you create a backlash from the conservative activists who fight back with crap legislation like this ammendment.

Learn to "be like water" and you'll effect more change than you will if you "be as rock."

But hey Jillie-poo, go right ahead and confirm my belief that most liberals don't give a shit for the people involved, only for massaging their own egos and pride.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, if you missed the obvious, I AM the CockySOB....

But in all seriousness, Jillian made a major assumption about my post and my position based on nothing solid. The fact she cannot bring herself to acknowledge that fact speaks volumes as to her lack of integrity and her own lack of moral fiber.

What's funny is that I actually don't have a problem with homosexual marriage as long as the decision is left up to the individual states to determine whether they wish to facilitate such legal unions or not. The fact of the matter is that proper change takes time and cannot be foisted upon the population at large without major repercussions. When liberal activists (note to Jillikins, I prefaced "liberal" to "activists" so that there wouldn't be another opportunity for you to make an ass of yourself. AGAIN. You're welcome.) try to push homosexual unions across state lines using FF&C or through Federal law, you naturally get a backlash against the change in status quo. But when left to the states to decide, we get a chance to demonstrate that homosexual unions are not the end of existence and not the excessively sexual and promiscuous relations they are generally stereotyped as. Then, the process of migrating the acceptance to other states becomes less threatening to the status quo, and easier for the general public to accept. Likewise, when liberal activists have fought to push homosexual marriage on the populace of all the states at once, you create a backlash from the conservative activists who fight back with crap legislation like this ammendment.

Learn to "be like water" and you'll effect more change than you will if you "be as rock."

But hey Jillie-poo, go right ahead and confirm my belief that most liberals don't give a shit for the people involved, only for massaging their own egos and pride.

You know, you can say all the above without the attitude and people might be more willing to engage. Until then, all the good stuff you say is lost in the trolling and patronising attitude. Jillian only made a slight assumption. The way you are posting, you think she has accused you of child molestation. You seem to be one of these folks that love setting little traps and then calling people on them to make you look morally superior. As you get older, those types of posts get boring real quick. Your other problem is you believe you are intellectually superior to everybody else on these boards. You (over)rate yourself. Anyway, good luck trying to find somebody to debate you.

 

[CockySOB]

You know, you can say all the above without the attitude and people might be more willing to engage. Until then, all the good stuff you say is lost in the trolling and patronising attitude. Jillian only made a slight assumption. The way you are posting, you think she has accused you of child molestation. You seem to be one of these folks that love setting little traps and then calling people on them to make you look morally superior. As you get older, those types of posts get boring real quick. Your other problem is you believe you are intellectually superior to everybody else on these boards. You (over)rate yourself. Anyway, good luck trying to find somebody to debate you.

Yeah, an assumption she never retracted, and indeed seems more interested in revelling in. Frankly bubba, I'm not here seeking the approval of others. So whether anyone wishes to engage me in debate or not is immaterial. I have no problem simply lending commentary to threads and if anyone deems the posts worthy of comment or debate, so be it.

I understand the need of some to jump to the aid of a regular, but it shows more of a herd mentality than objective and independant thought processes. No problem.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, an assumption she never retracted, and indeed seems more interested in revelling in. Frankly bubba, I'm not here seeking the approval of others. So whether anyone wishes to engage me in debate or not is immaterial. I have no problem simply lending commentary to threads and if anyone deems the posts worthy of comment or debate, so be it.

I understand the need of some to jump to the aid of a regular, but it shows more of a herd mentality than objective and independant thought processes. No problem.