Are u proud to b a liberal?

[Bob Fechter]

I'm still waiting.........

You can lasik a horse, but you can't make him see. With all of your unlinked, photoshopped pictures, unlinked, out of date charts, and nebulous collectivist ties, I'm afraid the only way I can help you now is to tell you to "go towards the light, Jim, shun the darkness." I'll leave a light out for you, son.

 

[Bob Fechter]

This is so spot on, I don't want Craik burying it!

Huh???
Case law is not an independent body of law decreed by judges. It is the compiled reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make case relevant interpretations of the existing law and can be cited as precedents in other similar situations. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law" which is the basic statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies and "regulatory law" which is regulations required by executive branch agencies based on legislated statutes. Judges can also determine if an act is inconsistent with previous law (or unconstitutional).
The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood by the founders that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution. That includes the judiciary. Making law is the province of the legislative branch. It seems that I read someplace that...All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (Note that it does not say the judiciary and the operant term is "all")
I think I read in that same place "...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...” not the European Union or United Nations.
For example, the end of slavery and the rights of former slaves and women to vote wasn't legislated by a judge, they are amendments passed by congress and ratified by the states. There is no "abortion right" specified in the constitution, it has been an interpreted portion of the right of privacy that has in turn been interpreted from the 9th amendment of constitution. That amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The “privacy right” has been judicially interpreted as applying to abortion but doesn’t apply to one’s private internet communications or what data one may maintain on their computer hard drive. They might someday soon. Contrast the clear prohibition on slavery which is clearly defined in the 13th amendment.
The founders intended that if subsequent generations wanted new laws or to change old ones, it would be done by elected representatives, not judges who have no accountability to the people. Take the examples of the Supreme Court deciding in 1973 to protect an interpreted woman's right to privacy in the first trimester of pregnancy and thirty years later to protect the privacy of gay couples from state sodomy laws. Regardless of how you may value these interpretations, they could be eroded, changed or overturned by a future court with a different view of what is "indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man." This is one of the core flaws in “judicial activism”. What one judge gives, another can take away. A later judge may see that life begins at conception and the right to life of a fetus trumps the privacy rights of a mother. A hundred and fifty years from now, abortion may be popularly viewed as abhorrent as slavery is today (I hope so). That’s why you pass laws and don't rule by judicial fiat.
Following the example, the founders provided we could amend the Constitution to create a right of privacy that would be beyond the reach of any future court or Congress. Our system is supposed to be based on laws, not men. The founders provided that if you didn't like the constitution, change it. "...The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution..." And that's certainly happened. Those of us that believe in the constitution contend that it has orderly processes for change and history would indicate that’s happened and what should happen. I personally don’t support one judicial activist, left or right, to establish law over the process of the legislative or executive branches and I think that is the “conservative” position that many of us have. Just as conservatives believe in self-determination and wanting the government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible while still maintaining an orderly society.
The government has no business in my bedroom, spending my granddaughter’s taxes, spying in her lunchbox or telling my church which beliefs they must disregard. Nobody is better equipped to run my life than I am and certainly not some idiot in Washington.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.” Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

 

[Jim Craik]

Bob, I told you over and over and over not to rudely use my last name while hiding behind a handle. I told you over and over, it's Mr. Craik to you, you continued to do it. A few days ago I sent you a private message telling you that if you continue to call me Craik, I would use your last name. Since then you have done it four more times, You asked for it!

Listen, Fechter,

You started this thread. I posted a list of reasons why I am proud of being a liberal, you attacked the person who wrote the list and you attacked me. I asked if any part of the list was untrue, you did not answer.

I asked you several times to post a list of consevative accomplishments, why you are proud to be a consevative, you could think of none.

I posted a group of recent Fox News outright lies, mislabeled photos and doctored charts. You said "ABC, CBS and NBC" all do it to. I asked for an example, you could find none!.

You said that Obamas administration was rife with communists, I asked you name any, you could not name one.

Now, you say that conservatives are in "defensive mode", trying to stop "activist Judges", from making law, bypassing the Constitution. I again asked for an example, it's been two days, you could find none.


You know, MR. Fechter, you are full of it. No thinking person should believe anything you say, and quite frankly no thinking person could believe anything you say.

 

[Cliff Beer]

Jim, why do you bother engaging with lonesome boob? He's just looking for attention, and no matter what you say it's not going to change his divisive behavior.

Can't we just get back to the fun car stuff?

 

[Bob Fechter]

Yeah, Jim, back off, you're so much more amusing when you talk about "dancing" with your car!

Matthew 7:6

 

[Jim Craik]

Mr Fechter,

You tell me to back off......

You start thread after thread like this one, trying to degrade liberals. Then you ask me to back off?

Listen, you stop this crap and I promise I will stop answering! I have no problem pointing out your failings, quite frankly it is not hard.

It's up to you.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Veek, I don't disagree with you. My point was that we have statute law and case law in our country, and that case law is essentially made up of judicial decisions and their history. I agree with you that judges should not attempt to legislate from the bench- the idea of how our laws change is that they are changed by and only by orderly process of representative democracy (at least in theory)

The problem comes when you try to define a difference between what judges do in the ordinary course of their day, deciding cases and handing down those decisions, and legislating from the bench. All judicial decisions have the potential to become case law, don't they? How do you decide the difference between deciding cases and legislating from the bench? And is there a difference?

What I see occurring is that judges are now nominated by people of similar political beliefs with the chief criteria seeming to be their political agenda. This seems to be done both by the Democrats and the Republicans. Judges of all sorts are selected by the party in power to further their ideological agenda, which is a corruption of the judiciary. Judges are supposed to be selected for their ability to know the law, and interpret it to decide cases in front of them, not to further a political agenda.

This sort of corruption of the judiciary is contagious, in the sense that when one side does it, the other does likewise. It doesn't matter who began it; it is now a feature of the selection process for judges, and does no one any good. How to bring it to a stop is quit another question.

What I observe is that when a judge hands down a decision that someone agrees with, they see that decision as just a fair and accurate application of the law. Someone who doesn't agree with that decision sees it as legislating from the bench.

Here's an example: I happen to disagree with a recent Supreme Court decision which essentially held that for purposes of freedom of speech, corporations are considered identical to people and can spend unlimited funds on political advertising. Some of my political bedfellows consider that legislating from the bench. I don't. Judicial decisions, especially by the Supreme Court, have enormous influence and power but they are not law. That decision seems to be to be the predictable result of having the case heard by a very conservative court dominated by business-friendly justices. It is not an attempt to devise new law; it is an attempt to interpret existing law, albeit an attempt that I don't agree with. To me, it points up the need for a new law about campaign financing and contributions.

 

[Jeff Young]

In my 18 years of practice, I don't think I've ever encountered a judge who wanted to or claimed to "legislate from the bench." Rather, that phrase tends to be used as a perjorative by one side against another any time the other side's interpretation "wins."

In a very real sense of the word, the conservative justices who intervened in Florida's election laws in 2000, or who found an individual right to own a gun in the very convoluted words and history of the 2nd Amendment, were "legislating from the bench" just as much as the author of Roe or the Court's opinion in Miranda.

All judges interpret. They have to.

And it's not really accurate to say judges don't make law. They do. We are a common law system. We have a Constitution, and state constitutions, and statutes and regulations, but by their very design they were never intended to cover all legal situations.

Almost all of our tort law, much of our contract law (non-UCC), much of our conflict of laws, much of our jurisdictional jurisprudence, and all of our laws regarding constitutional interpretation were very much "made" by judges. It is the nature of the common law system that this is so.

 

[Mike]

Old people smell funny