The concept of 'activist judges'

Let's see, Ebrown, I do think the war is going as well as any war goes in Iraq, I am in no way convinced that there is any credible scientific evidence proving global warming, Bush isn't a terrorist threat, not quite sure about Cat Stevens.

For instance, Kerry has already said he won't appoint a judge who doesn't support Roe v Wade. That is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter what the judge's personal opinions are re abortion. It only matters that the judge will uphold the letter and intent of the law as it is written

For those with the intellectual integrity to view this question in an honest and unbiased manner check out Yale Law professor Jack Balkin's blog entry on Antonin Scalia's warped version of original intent. . . .

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/10/scalia-blowing-smoke-again.html

Again I really hope Scalia was misquoted here, because this is the sort of originalist argument that gives originalism a bad name. I don't have problems with making arguments about original understanding. They are as legitimate as any other form of constitutional argument. What I have a problem with is people like Scalia insisting that their views are justified by originalism (and their opponents lack fidelity to the Constitution) when they haven't a clue about the actual history or are just making the history up. When people like Scalia do this, they are using originalism as a mantra to rationalize their own political values. They are doing exactly what they accuse those who disagree with them of doing.

Foxy wrote

Quote:

For instance, Kerry has already said he won't appoint a judge who doesn't support Roe v Wade. That is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter what the judge's personal opinions are re abortion. It only matters that the judge will uphold the letter and intent of the law as it is written

.

Sorry to say but that is a load of crap. What letter and intent of what law are they supposed to uphold. Constitutional law? Where in the constitution will you find the passage on homosexuality or abortion or the myriad of modern day problems and situations. Of course judges decisions oft times establish the law. And they always have. And what do they use to make it, their beliefs, religious, moral and intellectual.
If everything was spelled out in the constitution the supreme court would always end up voting 9 to 0
Bush keeps saying as you did he would appoint judges that will uphold the letter and intent of the law as it is written. What I can't understand is why someone does not call the imbecile on it. Do you think he will appoint judges who were in favor of abortion? Of course not. The man is as full of $hit as a Christmas turkey and as dumb.

. . . Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. . . .

Scalia is promoting unconstitutional discrimination. He apparently thinks it's acceptable for the "moral majority" to impose their moral views upon homosexuals in mob rule (pure democratic) fashion. If Scalia is going to sit on the highest bench in the nation, he needs to learn the BASICS. Our government is a REPUBLIC and, as such, it protects individual rights from being eviscerated through mob rule.

Baldimo
And you are of the opinion that Judges decisions do not establish laws. Wake up and smell the roses. Roe v Wade's passage made abortion legal. And if Bush can stack the court with his conservative jurors they will in all likelihood overturn that decision. That is just one example where laws are made by the judiciary, based on their decisions.

Bush has never said he would only select judges who believed in God. Kerry has stated that he wouldn't select judges that didn't believe in abortion. Kerry has clearly called for a litmus test on judges and won't select judges who would use evidence to make judgments.

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

Why didn't the people of Texas create a new law or even over turn the law as it was written? Times do change and laws should change with them, to force change from the bench is undemocratic and is not the way our nation would be run. What good is it to have a registration if judges can over turn the will of the people?

You are wrong about Bush and Kerry.

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

So, according to Baldimo, the 9-0 decision of Brown v. Kansas Board of Education "is not the way our nation should be run."

I do not think you have any understanding of what the Constitution was attmpting to do. Its intent was not merely to set up a political system where the majority ruled. More important was that it set up guidelines where the minority was protected from the majority.

Here's what you said Bush said: : We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

Here is what Bush really said in the second debate and nowhere in his response did he mention God.

He has said that he wouldn't allow someone to come in and change abortion that would mean he would not allow a judge on the SC who didn't support abortion. If a new case came up on the issue, then he would want a judge that wouldn't consider the issue and just rule against it based on how that judge already feels. If all he ever has in the SC were pro-abortion judges then how would a new case be fair?

Can you please tell me where it says this in the constitution?

It does mention voting in the constitution and what it takes for something to win a vote and what it takes to pass a law, and it is majority rule.