A Reminder

[Moonsabie]

Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

 

[KidViciou$]

i'm trying!

 

[johnnobts]

-Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

like the right to property? thanks souter, ginsberg, and the rest of you activist judges... this ruling may go down as the most absurd of all time, second perhaps only to roe v. wade. i don't know many republicans or democrats who are actual students of the constitution who like the r v. w verdict. talk about stretching the constitution to include the right of privacy...

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
-Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

like the right to property? thanks souter, ginsberg, and the rest of you activist judges... this ruling may go down as the most absurd of all time, second perhaps only to roe v. wade. i don't know many republicans or democrats who are actual students of the constitution who like the r v. w verdict. talk about stretching the constitution to include the right of privacy...

"Privacy" during the time period in which the constitution was written referred to using the restroom, or the "privy." Of course they wouldn't put the right to "privacy" in the constitution; it was a given.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Moonsabie
Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

To protect the first, fourth and fifth amendments in the Bill of Rights, you need to oppose the Patriot Act renewal by contacting your representatives:
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=147

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
-Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

like the right to property? thanks souter, ginsberg, and the rest of you activist judges...

If you're talking about the recent eminent domain case, that was a terrible decision, but it's worth pointing out that Ginsberg and Souter are two of the least activist judges. Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia are the ones with the highest rates of striking down laws.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: johnnobts
-Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

like the right to property? thanks souter, ginsberg, and the rest of you activist judges...

If you're talking about the recent eminent domain case, that was a terrible decision, but it's worth pointing out that Ginsberg and Souter are two of the least activist judges. Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia are the ones with the highest rates of striking down laws.

uh, whu? "striking down laws" is not what makes a judge an "activist".

 

[johnnobts]

i think that you and i have a different definition for "Activist"

i don't define an activist judge as being someone who strikes down laws, or even reverses a previous court decision. an activist judge (imo) is someone who is actively seeking to reinterpret constitutional law (primarily, other laws secondary) to suit their own personal ideology. on the flip side, a constitutionalist judge, is one who seeks to apply the original intent of the law to modern situations as they come up.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
i think that you and i have a different definition for "Activist"

i don't define an activist judge as being someone who strikes down laws, or even reverses a previous court decision. an activist judge (imo) is someone who is actively seeking to reinterpret constitutional law (primarily, other laws secondary) to suit their own personal ideology. on the flip side, a constitutionalist judge, is one who seeks to apply the original intent of the law to modern situations as they come up.

you couldn't have expressed my opinion better! - nice one :beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
-Just a reminder don't let your rights be ursurped with out a fight.. to much as been taken already.

like the right to property? thanks souter, ginsberg, and the rest of you activist judges... this ruling may go down as the most absurd of all time, second perhaps only to roe v. wade. i don't know many republicans or democrats who are actual students of the constitution who like the r v. w verdict. talk about stretching the constitution to include the right of privacy...

Originally posted by: johnnobts
i think that you and i have a different definition for "Activist"

i don't define an activist judge as being someone who strikes down laws, or even reverses a previous court decision. an activist judge (imo) is someone who is actively seeking to reinterpret constitutional law (primarily, other laws secondary) to suit their own personal ideology. on the flip side, a constitutionalist judge, is one who seeks to apply the original intent of the law to modern situations as they come up.

And were you a judge on the bench, you would most certainly qualify as an "activist" under your own definition.

You can't protect one half while you attack the other. Freedom comes as a whole. The destruction of one freedom leads to the destruction of them all.

 

[johnnobts]

And were you a judge on the bench, you would most certainly qualify as an "activist" under your own definition.

You can't protect one half while you attack the other. Freedom comes as a whole. The destruction of one freedom leads to the destruction of them all.

i'm assuming that by "protecting one half" you're referring to republicans (or conservatives maybe?) vs. democrats (liberals)? I'm not saying that at all, i'm saying that a judges sacred duty is to uphold the constitution, not to help it "evolve." if the constitution needs to evolve, if it needs to be amended (which it very well may need to be, from time to time), it is not the court's responsibility to do that. its the congress' job and the state congress' job, as outlined by the constitution. judicial activism is not about right v. left, as some may have you think. its about chipping away at the powers of the legislative branch, and undermining the will of the people (which is represented by the republic).