John Roberts Jr for Supreme Court opening

College Confidential Community
21

<p>Scalia is not an activist - he actually tends to hold a hard line on the Constitution. Sometimes, it's good - i.e. Kelo dissent - other times, it's not - i.e. no abortion in the Constitution. The lack of abortion in the Constitution merely implies that people don't have a Constitutional right to abortion - much in the same way that we don't have a Constitutional right to public schooling. Doesn't mean that it isn't a right and it doesn't mean that it can't be one.</p>

<p>The toad thing is a good stance - if followed through on all like cases, such as medical marijuana (i.e. federal drug enforcement of m.m. is too broad a reading of interstate commerce). Don't think it'll happen.</p>

<p>White, male, age 50 - it's a sick attempt to change the court for years to come. Not a fan - not at all. He might be bright, but he's been on the bench for two years. He is in no way qualified as a jurist to be on the highest court. </p>

<p>Re: right/left - y'all are wrong. Judges are supposed to (by their oaths) renounce politics. In theory, they should decide cases on precedent, not on what they feel like. They should decide cases a certain way even if the outcome is not desirable to them. There are times when it is the right thing to let off an armed robber - because the errors at trial, if committed against another person, would guarantee a miscarriage of justice. Judges are messing up the system when they try to feel their way through each case - because what they do in that case becomes precedent for 10 other cases. </p>

<p>Grrr.</p>

22

<p>Just because somebody can say something does not make it right. The right to speak rudely is not in dispute; it is the propriety of the actual comment that is questioned. The media's message is designed to speak to the lowest common denominator, and if I were you, I would not side with it so hastily. If you don't understand completely WHY they believe what they do, don't criticize it. It's rude. I understand the motivations of atheists and moslems, but I don't agree with them. I don't knock them off as idiots or "Bible-thumpers" as many people of any faith are highly intelligent.</p>

<p>Of course this all stems from the Golden Rule :D.</p>

23

<p>And it stems from this rule. If the person says everything is in the bible and changes the bible and changes the interpretation of it to fit their agenda, their a bible thumper. If you take for what it is you are not. It is the great book. If you change it and mould it to fit a political agenda, you are a bible thumper. The bible is not made to be twisted for politics. Its too good for that. Thats why I feel that anybody who intertwines it in politics is a bible thumper, because they change what it says to fit their political belief. They aren't being religious by doing this they are being extremist just like extremist Muslims who change what the Quaran says to fit their agenda. You complain about them, call them all sorts of names, yet someone who does the same thing with the Bible doesn't deserve this same treatment?</p>

24

<p>I'm on a tight time schedule so my post will not be proof-read.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The notion of "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" is utterly meaningless unless examples can be cited from both the left and the right. If not, it is silly, useless rhetoric, partisanship masking as high-mindedness.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Re-read my second post please.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What I am afraid of is that Roberts is a true hard line conservative and fairly activist (like Scalia and Thomas).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ROFFLMFAO! Scalia and Thomas are the only judges that AREN'T ACTIVISTS! I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous political comment I've read in quite a while. I must be missing something...tell me I'm missing something....</p>

<p>Originalists aren't "activists" buddy, they interpret the constitution and other law documents as they were meant to be interpreted upon creation. Their personal opinion plays no role whatsoever, thus, they are, by definition, NOT ACTIVISTS. </p>

<p>PLEASE DO NOT SPIN THIS ISSUE.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a great way for the Bush administration to get a vote to overturn Roe v Wade (which would be a sad day for America) as well as get two activist judges on the Court once Rehnquist retires.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not your fault if you've been brought up this way, but I'm going to go ahead and ask you a question that will display the utter ludicrous nature of this horrid statement: </p>

<p>QUESTION: HOW, if NOT by activism, was Roe v. Wade even established the way it was some 40 years ago? In other words, HOW could judges interpret the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES as arrogating to women the right to destroy the rights of others? </p>

<p>ANSWER AHEAD OF TIME: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! The constitution would never have been interpreted like that in 1790, as you would of course know, and that is exactly why we have a constitution to begin with: to protect the natural rights of the weak from the mob-majority whims of the government. Who would of thought...abortion legalized not by the ballot box, but by a few elitist judges in the court system.</p>

<p>Understand I'm not arguing against abortion for abortion's sake right now, I'm arguing against JUDGES LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Abortion would be a totally different story if it was ACTUALLY PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS, but it wasn't!</p>

<p>It was passed by abhorrent JUDICIAL LEGISLATION.</p>

25

<p>Calm down there, buddy. :p</p>

<p>Scalia sided with the majority in saying that flag-burning is protected speech under the Constitution. Telling ya, that isn't activism. His wife was humming "The Star Spangled Banner" the next morning to him - obviously, there's a guy who would probably love it if people were forbidden to burn flags, but that personal opinion didn't play into his decision on how to interpret the Constitution.</p>

<p>Roberts doesn't seem like an originalist. There are a few things which are - spotted toad being one of them - but mostly he seems like a conservative. </p>

<p>Theoretically, if all judges were originalists (i.e. interpeting the Constitution as written in 1790, with minor modifications for things that just don't make sense anymore - more on this later), there would not be a political melee over nominations. Once abortion becomes a part of the Constitution (or not), you get a mess over nominations.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
if all judges were originalists (i.e. interpeting the Constitution as written in 1790, with minor modifications for things that just don't make sense anymore - more on this later)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You mean like it being a viable punishment to hack off portions of the ear on criminals convicted of high crimes? Yes, that was a viable punishment in 1790, and, yes, there are certainly "outdated" procedures that we would not want in the year 2005. </p>

<p>BUT YOU DON'T LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! </p>

<p>It is up to the LEGISLATORS to overturn and void outdated punishments like ear-hacking, NOT JUDGES! For, if you give judges the power to legislate into law what THEY think are the "evolving standards of decency" (quoted from Breyer again), you get JUDGES WITH AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF UNCHECKED POWER!</p>

<p>We have the constitution as the FINAL CHECK on mob-rule democracy; it is ultimately the FINAL CHECK on the protection of individual rights, and because the activist judges in the Supreme Court are beginning to interpret the constitution in the ways THEY SEE FIT, they are DESTROYING that final check on our LIBERTIES.</p>

<p>Do you really think Justice Breyer would be in accordance with our founding fathers on allowing big hotel chains to seize PRIVATE PROPERTY for their (the big hotel chains) usage? OF COURSE NOT. But that is yet another example of a judge going crazy with his power to reject his principled function and interpret the constitution in however HE sees fit.</p>

<p>It must be stopped, and the only way to do it is to stop nominating ACTIVISTS and start nominating ORIGINALISTS into our (until recently) highly esteemed court system.</p>

27

<p>Chill. Please. </p>

<p>The few, highly limited times in which I would advocate going against the original intent of the Constitution is when we are absolutely certain that the rationale could not hold up today - i.e. when such rational is based on technology. If you interpret crim. law cases from 150 years ago, they will all say that it's not murder to beat a pregnant woman until she miscarries. Why? Because, quite simply, when 30% of babies die within a year of being born, when women died in childbirth routinely, and when a child born at 5 months would not survive, you just can't justify saying that beating a woman into a miscarriage is murder. (California v. Kneeland, I believe). Now, that's changed. The original rationale has no basis in our society - not from a touchy-feely social perspective, but from the perspective of an extremely low infant mortality rate, an extremely low rate of women dying in childbirth, and a changing time for infant viability. Implicit in the old law was that we don't charge people for murder on something so speculative - i.e. that this pregnancy would end up resulting in a child (not a baby - a child). </p>

<p>Activism can go both ways - see the Terri Schiavo case. The judges did exactly what they were supposed to do but were slammed for it. Very sad.</p>

<p>I see that as a very narrow exception - very, very narrow, very limited.</p>

<p>Again, please chill.</p>

28

<p>Also - get some good arguments. Yes, the legislature should overturn ear-hacking as being outdated - because evolving standards of decency can go both ways. We might decide that ear-hacking is now a good way to deal with all criminals, even those who are arrested on probable cause and haven't been convicted. The Constitution guarantees base rights, and the legislature can expand upon those. </p>

<p>See above for the very limited but appropriate exceptions. Also, again, please relax - because you are a walking advertisement for the other way of thinking.</p>

29

<p>
[QUOTE]
And it stems from this rule. If the person says everything is in the bible and changes the bible and changes the interpretation of it to fit their agenda, their a bible thumper.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>No, the derogatory term "Bible thumper" generally refers to a person who imposes the morals of the Bible on others. It is derogatory because people of that nature are often hypocritical, violating the very things that they preach. Also, people who dislike being judged by people resent ignorant imposition of morals upon them from others. This is a good thing, and in fact, a Biblically-based allusion. You can interpret the Bible without twisting it to your own beliefs, but if you don't practice what you preach, you are at fault. This brings two Biblical passages to mind -</p>

<ol>
<li> The hypocrisy of the Pharisees and</li>
<li> Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone </li>
</ol>

<p>
[QUOTE]
If you take for what it is you are not. It is the great book. If you change it and mould it to fit a political agenda, you are a bible thumper. The bible is not made to be twisted for politics. Its too good for that. Thats why I feel that anybody who intertwines it in politics is a bible thumper, because they change what it says to fit their political belief.

[/QUOTE]

The value of an individual's political beliefs lay in his ability to influence government. How one chooses to influence government should depend on own's view of how government should affect society. Religion affects society. Therefore, one's views on religion's effects can play a role in one's view on government's effects, in turn affecting corresponding political beliefs .</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
They aren't being religious by doing this they are being extremist just like extremist Muslims who change what the Quaran says to fit their agenda. You complain about them, call them all sorts of names, yet someone who does the same thing with the Bible doesn't deserve this same treatment?

[/QUOTE]

Of course they do. Foremost, we are commanded to love. Is blowing up an abortion clinic love? Is it turning the other cheek? I can justify righteous behavior when it comes to lawmaking, or even killing in times of war, but the intentional taking of innocent life I cannot cannot excuse. They ARE being religious; they are not following the religion that they claim, and certainly are not moral.</p>

<p>Again on "Bible thumpers," it is perfectly okay to use the Bible as a basis for your views on lawmaking, as long as you understand what it is you are using. Ignorance and misunderstanding lead to corrupt people, not a corrupt Bible. If you respond by saying "but isn't that still imposition," know that the nature of law is itself imposition. It ultimately rests on principles, and established procedures, and it seems to me that if those principles are fundamentally love and moral behavior, a solid foundation indeed has been built.</p>

30

<p>bigndude,</p>

<p>Just because a term is widely used doesn't mean that it isn't rude. Your following your comments with "no offense" indicates that you knew some would find them to be rude. For instance, if I were to say:</p>

<p>"But his views on church/state and abortion don't agree with mine, and I think they don't agree with the vast majority of people who aren't depraved sickos (no offense to anyone)" it would be rude and not facilitate reasonable discussion.</p>

31

<p>Re-read my third post ariesathena. It is not up to the judges to decide "evolving standards of decency". Even though your intentions are pure, you are a tyrant if you think that is the case (read up on the why the founding fathers created the judicial branch). </p>

<p>I give you credit for brining up the Terri Schiavo incident. Alan Keyes does a better job of explaining my position than I do:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43472%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43472&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

32

<p>I am not a tyrant. I do not think it is the judge's job to decide what is an evolving standard of decency - I merely stated that there is a very narrow, limited exception to originalism - i.e. when very specific assumptions are assuredly invalid. If, 100 years from now, we could cure almost everyone in Terri's position, it would be ridiculous to use her case as precedent - the facts simply do not fit. I guess this is more of a judge deciding what is precedential and what is not.</p>

<p>Again, I am not a tyrant. Unless you know me, you have no place calling me that. Unless you can discuss this subject without flipping out or calling people names, you have no business discussing it. Clear?</p>

33

<p>His reasoning is so horribly flawed... I'm sorry that you think that way.</p>

<p>For example - he stated that the Florida courts said that "Terri's Law" is unconsitutional because of its encroachment on judicial powers. That's a flat-out lie. It's unconsitutional because it is a law made specifically for one person, which is not right. </p>

<p>The judiciary did its job - the LAW said that the husband gets decision-making power. So the courts gave him that power. Usually, these things happen without a fight. FL legislature doens't like that - so they changed the law - but only with respect to her! That's unconstitutional. Those judges were federalist to the hilt - but it was just sick with the legislature did.</p>