Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[Freedom Lover]

I stick by it!! Just because you did not get a name you like you do not have to pout about it.

Plame? Everyone in Washington knows she worked for the CIA before Novak published her name. Undercover? Hardly!

The things you mentioned are just a ruse because Democrats cannot win at the polls they can only try and destroy people's reputations. Do they think they are going to get our vote over this? Never!!!!! There is no room for socialists in the governement of the United States. Some day maybe we will be able to rid ourselves of the ones who are there now, Democrat or Republican!

 

[musicman]

Yeah, anything not specified in the Fed. Constitution would be determined by the states. But the fourteenth amendment, section one, does not allow states to make laws abridging any citizen's Constitutional rights. Abortion is a privacy rights issue. Gay rights are freedom of speech issues. Prayer in schools is a freedom of religion issue. Assisted Suicide is a privacy rights issue. Freedom of religion and speech are asserted in the First Amendment and privacy rights are implied in the Fourth Amendment. Is demanding that rights be honored activism in a country that is supposed to provide freedom and equality for all?

Either you are blind to the true meaning of "judicial activism", or you're hoping WE are.

It is through the magic of judicial activism that:

The implied "privacy rights" of the IV Amendment = a national policy on abortion - courtesy of judicial fiat, and utterly irrespective of the wishes of the states, the community, or the individual. In a word: tyranny.

Freedom of speech, guaranteed in the First Amendment, = the legitimization - indeed - the PROTECTION - of sexually perverse behavior - again, courtesy of the judiciary, and - again - the will of the people be damned. Tyranny.

The guarantee of Constitutional protection provided by the XIV Amendment = no one - from the U.S. Congress to the director of a lemonade stand - shall as much as mention God's name in public. Tyranny.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I stick by it!! Just because you did not get a name you like you do not have to pout about it.

Plame? Everyone in Washington knows she worked for the CIA before Novak published her name. Undercover? Hardly!

The things you mentioned are just a ruse because Democrats cannot win at the polls they can only try and destroy people's reputations. Do they think they are going to get our vote over this? Never!!!!! There is no room for socialists in the governement of the United States. Some day maybe we will be able to rid ourselves of the ones who are there now, Democrat or Republican!

Would you consider Michael Brown a quality appointment?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yeah, anti-Constitutional, anti-Americans like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.




I think all those things would be looked upon as unfair by liberals who are intent upon changing things, including our Constitution. When our Constitution was written there was nothing to provide for abortion "rights", gay marriages, or any form of suicide. The intent was to leave those kinds of decisions to the voters of the states. Since liberals can't win the vote they become Constitutional activists.

Exactly right, Eagle. Anyone who doesn't get this is either being deliberately obtuse, or is in need of more schooling than we can provide on a MB.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Would you mind explaining what you mean here? What rights of yours have been "limited irrationally" or "shrunken" or "stretched" by evil liberals?

Privacy rights have been stretched to irrational limits by liberals.
For example, the "privacy right" stretched to include the killing of babies in the womb.

Freedom of religion has been shrunken to minimalist forms by liberals.
For example, community locations are restricted on displaying the cross, the Commandments, Christmas trees (only "Winter Holiday" trees allowed), etc.

Freedom of speech has been both stretched and shrunken depending on the agenda of liberals.
For example, it's OK to use foul language/art forms as a form of "free expression" but it is NOT OK to use the word God/religious forms.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Yes, but some people don't believe the constitution should be taken word for word for all of eternity.

And the founding fathers prepared for it. That is why amendments can be made to the Constitution, and that is the way it should be handled, not by legislating from the bench.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The implied "privacy rights" of the IV Amendment = a national policy on abortion - courtesy of judicial fiat, and utterly irrespective of the wishes of the states, the community, or the individual. In a word: tyranny.

Unfortunately, many, many women disagree with you on this. For some strange reason they would prefer to make their own personal decision on whether or not they want to have kids. Go figure! I think the phrase is "Stay out of my uterus!"

Freedom of speech, guaranteed in the First Amendment, = the legitimization - indeed - the PROTECTION - of sexually perverse behavior - again, courtesy of the judiciary, and - again - the will of the people be damned. Tyranny.

Uh, nobody's asking you to marry another man here so don't rush out and do it! I seem to recall the First Amendment saying something about "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Well a pretty large group of people we all like to call "homos" who pay taxes and live as citizens of the US would like to have sex the way they want to and marry each other as an expression of their love for each other.Who the hell are you to tell them they can't? They aren't telling you what you have to do.

The guarantee of Constitutional protection provided by the XIV Amendment = no one - from the U.S. Congress to the director of a lemonade stand - shall as much as mention God's name in public. Tyranny.

Okay, this is just a blatant over-exaggeration. I think you may have misinterpreted something along the way because we still have a fully functioning First Amendment in this country, which gives people the freedom to practice whatever religion they want to wherever they want to. Try it. Go outside your house and say "God." If I'm right, nothing will happen. If I'm wrong, a Homeland Security swat team will fly in on ropes and arrest you. It's a fifty fifty chance, but I think you'll be okay.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I'm not even going to get into some of the arguments that are in this thread. Most of them are the same old arguments from the same people, and frankly it's like talking to a rock in most cases.

I don't care what someone thinks in their living room. If the are conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian... Hell, I don't care if they are a communist. If that person goes to the Supreme Court, I want them to look at the Consitution, read it, and make their legal decisions based on it. I don't want them adding words to it, or coming up with broad definitions (like lap dancing being a freedom of speech issue), and I certainly don't want them blantently ignoring the law or the Constitution because things aren't going the way they think they should.

Ideology has no place on the Supreme Court. It is not a place for liberal thinking or conservative thinking, it is a place for Constitutional thinking.

 

[musicman]

Wow, Hagbard - I haven't seen THAT many words - signifying nothing - since awjps haunted the USMB! Y'all wouldn't be related, would you?

You've missed my point entirely. The essence of judicial activism vs. strict constitutionalism is this question:

In a given matter, who gets the say-so - the federal government or the people?

Hint: Read Amendment X. In all but a few very specific cases, the answer is, "the people".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Wow, Hagbard - I haven't seen THAT many words - signifying nothing - since awjps haunted the USMB! Y'all wouldn't be related, would you?

You've missed my point entirely. The essence of judicial activism vs. strict constitutionalism is this question:

In a given matter, who gets the say-so - the federal government or the people?

Hint: Read Amendment X. In all but a few very specific cases, the answer is, "the people".

If the "will" of the people wanted slavery, would you think we should re-institute it?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Privacy rights have been stretched to irrational limits by liberals.
For example, the "privacy right" stretched to include the killing of babies in the womb.

See the thing is is that you aren't being forced to have an abortion. It's a choice that has to be left available to women if they want it because some women do. Not everybody has the same religious or ideological beliefs you do and not everybody wants kids. So the choice has to be available. You don't have to take it if you don't want to. But not wanting to doesn't give you or others the right to restrict someone who does from making that choice.

Freedom of religion has been shrunken to minimalist forms by liberals.
For example, community locations are restricted on displaying the cross, the Commandments, Christmas trees (only "Winter Holiday" trees allowed), etc.

I've explained this a thousand times already. The government is secular and it has to be because the Constitution grants religious freedom to all citizens and disallows the government from making laws that respect any establishment of religion. The US is too diverse now to have religious iconography on public property that is paid for by everyone. You can still practice your religion, so what are you complaining about other than the fact that maybe the law is starting to look at Christianity as being equal with all other religions? You don't ever see statues of the Buddha on public property do you? Or of Shiva or Ahura Mazda? So why aren't the Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians sh*tting a brick like the Christians are?

Freedom of speech has been both stretched and shrunken depending on the agenda of liberals.
For example, it's OK to use foul language/art forms as a form of "free expression" but it is NOT OK to use the word God/religious forms.

This isn't true. It's a lie. You can't say "God" on tv because it's considered a blasphemy by Christians, not by liberals. And obviously teachers can't teach Bible lessons in public schools because not all kids are Christians. But you can talk about God anywhere else. Who's stopping you?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wow, Hagbard - I haven't seen THAT many words - signifying nothing - since awjps haunted the USMB! Y'all wouldn't be related, would you?

You've missed my point entirely. The essence of judicial activism vs. strict constitutionalism is this question:

In a given matter, who gets the say-so - the federal government or the people?

Hint: Read Amendment X. In all but a few very specific cases, the answer is, "the people".

Ditto. He keeps avoiding the crux of the argument.
Like most liberals, he thinks 5 or 6 justices should hold all the power in the United States - as long as those liberal judges agree with him.

 

[musicman]

The essence of judicial activism vs. strict constitutionalism is this question:

In a given matter, who gets the say-so - the federal government or the people?

Hint: Read Amendment X. In all but a few very specific cases, the answer is, "the people".

To complete my thought:

The fact that the answer, according to the U.S. Constitution, is, "the people" is unsatisfactory to liberal socialists. Hence, judicial activism.

 

[musicman]

If the "will" of the people wanted slavery, would you think we should re-institute it?

It wouldn't fly. The Constitution protects ALL Americans (see XIV Amendment).

 

[Hagbard Celine]

like lap dancing being a freedom of speech issue

In certain circumstances, lap dancing could definately be a form of speech or expression.

You've missed my point entirely. The essence of judicial activism vs. strict constitutionalism is this question:

In a given matter, who gets the say-so - the federal government or the people?

See, I think you've missed the point. The purpose of the Judiciary is to act as a check (you know, checks and balances?) on the legislature. The judiciary interprets the law and decides on its constitutionality. You guys are just pissed that "constitutionality" doesn't mean "honor the Christian God."

 

[musicman]

See the thing is is that you aren't being forced to have an abortion. It's a choice that has to be left available to women if they want it because some women do. Not everybody has the same religious or ideological beliefs you do and not everybody wants kids. So the choice has to be available. You don't have to take it if you don't want to. But not wanting to doesn't give you or others the right to restrict someone who does from making that choice.


I've explained this a thousand times already. The government is secular and it has to be because the Constitution grants religious freedom to all citizens and disallows the government from making laws that respect any establishment of religion. The US is too diverse now to have religious iconography on public property that is paid for by everyone. You can still practice your religion, so what are you complaining about other than the fact that maybe the law is starting to look at Christianity as being equal with all other religions? You don't ever see statues of the Buddha on public property do you? Or of Shiva or Ahura Mazda? So why aren't the Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians sh*tting a brick like the Christians are?


This isn't true. It's a lie. You can't say "God" on tv because it's considered a blasphemy by Christians, not by liberals. And obviously teachers can't teach Bible lessons in public schools because not all kids are Christians. But you can talk about God anywhere else. Who's stopping you?

You're making my head hurt.

WHOSE CALL SHOULD IT BE???!!!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It wouldn't fly. The Constitution protects ALL Americans (see XIV Amendment).

Yeah, but the slaves weren't Americans, and they weren't considered as Americans, so the constitution wouldn't apply to them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You're making my head hurt.

WHOSE CALL SHOULD IT BE???!!!

Ditto, stop screwing around with the piddly arguments Celine. Get down to brass tacks.

 

[musicman]

The judiciary interprets the law

Too bloody true, and, all too often, according to ITS worldview, irrespective of the people - under whose purview all but a few VERY SPECIFIC matters are constituionally designed to fall.

The judiciary's constitutional duty is to...

... [decide] on [a law's] constitutionality.

You guys are just pissed that "constitutionality" doesn't mean "honor the Christian God."

"Constitionality" means that the matter of religion is out of the federal government's hands. It is none of their business. The whole essence of constituional government is that the power over personal decisions devolves from central government to the states, the people, and - ultimately - to the individual:

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Judicial activism is the enemy of constitutional government.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

"Constitionality" means that the matter of religion is out of the federal government's hands. It is none of their business. The whole essence of constituional government is that the power over personal decisions devolves from central government to the states, the people, and - ultimately - to the individual:

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Judicial activism is the enemy of constitutional government.

Amendment 14, section one, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The issues we have been talking about are all Constitutionally protected freedoms, so the states can't make laws abridging them. Check. You're right about judiciary making laws. It's not their job. But I never said it was. I said it was their job to determine the constitutionality of laws and strike them down or uphold them as they see fit.