dmp
Senior Member
musicman said:Give me one example.
You need to be sure you ask what you want...
Ask for a 'Good, relavent example' otherwise you'll get some bs situation taken out of context.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
musicman said:Give me one example.
-=d=- said:You need to be sure you ask what you want...
Ask for a 'Good, relavent example' otherwise you'll get some bs situation taken out of context.
musicman said:What has religion to do with a due process issue?
Bullypulpit said:The religious right applied pressure to the Florida legislature and Congress.
Bullypulpit said:When the 11th circuit failed to deliver the decision they wanted...they began pressuring the Republican leadership in Congress, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, to begin seeking ways to make changes in the federal judiciary.
Bullypulpit said:These steps included cutting funding to federal courts that didn't pass the religious litmus test the religious right was insisting on.
musicman said:You don't mean to tell me that citizens of a self-governing nation attempted to participate in the political process, do you??!! Those BASTARDS!!
musicman said:Which is precisely the job the American people elected them to do; I wish they'd wring out their knickers and DO it. A significant portion of the federal judiciary make their living standing directly athwart the will of the American people - acting as unelected, unaccountable feudal lords, and perverting the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. I think some changes in the federal judiciary are long overdue, don't you? Aw, hell - look who I'm asking....
musicman said:Just how are federal courts funded, anyhow - and by whom?
Bullypulpit said:If they had been acting for the good of all, it might have been a different story. Instead, they chose to try and interfere in the private tragedy of the Schiavo family by having their own interpretation of religious doctrine given the status of law.
Bullypulpit said:Unfortunately you seem to want a judiciary that simply rubberstamps any right-wing agenda that comes down the pike.
Bullypulpit said:An independent judiciary protects the freedoms of us all. This means protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority when the majority is wrong.
Bullypulpit said:Without the courts, you would not be free to make a fool of yourself in a public forum.
Bullypulpit said:An independent judiciary does not exist to support the views of the left or the right. Where those views run contrary to the Constitution, they are to be struck down. Where they uphold the Constitution, they are to be retained.
Bullypulpit said:Funding for federal courts is part of the federal budget. <a href=http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/feb05ttb/budget/>Here</a> is a breakdown of the 2005 budget.
Bullypulpit said:In March, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council and James Dobson from Focus on the Family, met with supporters in Washington. There they proposed stripping the courts of judges who don't meet their religious muster of funding, thereby shutting down that court. What they won't admit, however, is that many of the judges they stand opposed to are bedrock Republicans.
Now, just because these fringe elements of the religious right have a persecution complex is no reason to change the federal judiciary. Simply because these extremist elements feel that they are being dissed by the federal judiciary is no reason to change the judiciary. By that logic, any group thwt felt unduly put upon could demand the judiciary be stripped of its power.
For a detailed look at this, go <a href=http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363&abbr=cs_>HERE</a>
musicman said:The only part of the "judiciary's" power America wants to strip is that part which has been usurped from the people. And, we will.
no1tovote4 said:Jefferson and Hamilton both feared the Judiciary would take over the Government, the distrust of the Judiciary was paramount, it seems they were prognosticators.
This is why the forefathers limited the Judiciary's powers, however the Checks and Balances that are supposed to be applied by the Senate and Executive branch are being called "unconstitutional" by some and being directly thwarted by others for personal and political reasons and not for the "good of the nation".
The Senate sets the Jurisdiction of the courts per the constitution, they do have the constitutional authority to expand jurisdiction, therefore arguing that the law that gave them the authority to hear the Schiavo case was unconstitutional is disingenuous. That it was ill advised can be argued, but it is only an opinion (one that I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless).
Bullypulpit said:Be careful what you wish for...You may get it.
musicman said:No - I want a judiciary that stays within its constitutionally assigned parameters.
musicman said:That would be a groove. Perhaps the voters need to elect a supermajority of Republicans to Congress. Then, we might actually have a shot at an INDEPENDENT judiciary.
musicman said:Give me one example.
Bullypulpit said:Which is fine...So long as the Executive and Legislative branches remain within their own constitutionally assigned parameters
Bullypulpit said:Given the current Republican leadership in Congress, as embodied by Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, that would likely cause more harm than good to the Republic.
Bullypulpit said:Single party rule always tends towards oppression and tyranny.
IControlThePast said:I don't understand why you people are really objecting to this guy. Yeah, there are some bad people in the Christian Religion, but do you think that you'd want anyone in there who would actuallybe deterred by what this guy says in the first place?
Bonnie said:And what exactly is the value or constructive outcome of this so called teachers beliefs or material??? He is clearly attempting to take young kids who barely know who they are and what they think and influence them into thinking religious people are missing chromosomes. How about then the college offers a course on how non religious people are evil devil worshipers, how's that for critical thinking and balance, or how about all minorities are just plain lazy??? He's not teaching anything that prepares students to think in an intelligent manner or use what they have learned to make a living and be productive. He's essentially saying that about 60 percent of the earth's population is stupid because they believe in something higher than themselves spiritually.
Bullypulpit said:The religious right applied pressure to the Florida legislature and Congress. When the 11th circuit failed to deliver the decision they wanted...they began pressuring the Republican leadership in Congress, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, to begin seeking ways to make changes in the federal judiciary.
These steps included cutting funding to federal courts that didn't pass the religious litmus test the religious right was insisting on. And, as we all know, Article VI, para 3 of the US Constitution states:
<blockquote>The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; <b><i>but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States</i></b>.</blockquote>
musicman said:I don't see where Congress has overstepped its boundaries in the slightest - particularly in the Schiavo case. My God - have we become so numbed by judicial activism that we bristle at public servants legislating from...THE LEGISLATURE???!!!
musicman said:You may be right; there's not a full set of balls between them.
musicman said:Right again - look what it's done to our judiciary. And on it goes; it seems we still have single-party rule, even when that oppressive, tyrannical, constitution-perverting party is in the minority.
Colleges are entitled to do whatever they wish.