Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Don't play all naive on me.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
"Many people," eh? Who are these "many people?" Others who can't be bothered to articulate a better reason?
You're compounding one lazy argument with another. And then you wonder why you lose.
Let me ask this, not that I expect an answer. How many judges have to agree before you would change your mind about a lone decision being from an "activist" to acknowledging that the law isn't what you think it is and the judge actually got it right? Two? Five (a majority of SCOTUS, for instance)? Nine?
"Many people," eh? Who are these "many people?" Others who can't be bothered to articulate a better reason?
You're compounding one lazy argument with another. And then you wonder why you lose.
Let me ask this, not that I expect an answer. How many judges have to agree before you would change your mind about a lone decision being from an "activist" to acknowledging that the law isn't what you think it is and the judge actually got it right? Two? Five (a majority of SCOTUS, for instance)? Nine?
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Um...I think perhaps you and I might be talking past each other here. It is not unusual for the Constitution to provide "bare bones" guidance which is later "fleshed out" through legislation and the accumulation of precedent. Neither is it unusual for different laws passed by different legislatures at different times under different conditions to have passages which, when set side to side, contradict each other. For another example, when you think of a discipline like philosophy, different people can read the same text and come up with different interpretations of said text based on the words it contains. There is plenty of subtlety and room for honest disagreements of opinion within this realm. You shrug off its importance far too glibly for the seriousness it deserves.
Many people are uncomfortable with judges finding things that aren't even there. Using the terms "emanations" and "penumbras" as rationales for anything judicial is absurd: if you want to find justification outside the text itself, you reference precedent or a widely-recognized and accepted superseding text (e.g., Constitution > law > administrative ruling). I've seen opinions that reference "common law standards" for example. Basically, the arguments I've seen that support an "activist" judiciary can be construed to be logically equivalent to saying "common law trumps all" in situations in which "common law" has a flexible definition to include standards and beliefs common in the time.
Thus beneath the surface the argument in favor or against "activist" judges comes down to two key points: is "common law" the "original source of authority"? and "what constitutes 'common law'?".
My hunch is that many more people would agree to the first point than to the second, as the second seems to derogate too much authority to the judiciary vis-a-vis Congress. If Congress can't trust the courts to read words as written, what happens to "separate but equal"?
Um...I think perhaps you and I might be talking past each other here. It is not unusual for the Constitution to provide "bare bones" guidance which is later "fleshed out" through legislation and the accumulation of precedent. Neither is it unusual for different laws passed by different legislatures at different times under different conditions to have passages which, when set side to side, contradict each other. For another example, when you think of a discipline like philosophy, different people can read the same text and come up with different interpretations of said text based on the words it contains. There is plenty of subtlety and room for honest disagreements of opinion within this realm. You shrug off its importance far too glibly for the seriousness it deserves.
Many people are uncomfortable with judges finding things that aren't even there. Using the terms "emanations" and "penumbras" as rationales for anything judicial is absurd: if you want to find justification outside the text itself, you reference precedent or a widely-recognized and accepted superseding text (e.g., Constitution > law > administrative ruling). I've seen opinions that reference "common law standards" for example. Basically, the arguments I've seen that support an "activist" judiciary can be construed to be logically equivalent to saying "common law trumps all" in situations in which "common law" has a flexible definition to include standards and beliefs common in the time.
Thus beneath the surface the argument in favor or against "activist" judges comes down to two key points: is "common law" the "original source of authority"? and "what constitutes 'common law'?".
My hunch is that many more people would agree to the first point than to the second, as the second seems to derogate too much authority to the judiciary vis-a-vis Congress. If Congress can't trust the courts to read words as written, what happens to "separate but equal"?
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
If you don't even know what common law is, then how can you presume to understand whether or not a given ruling is "activist"?
That's a bit like trying to argue about sports while knowing only half of the rulebook.
If you don't even know what common law is, then how can you presume to understand whether or not a given ruling is "activist"?
That's a bit like trying to argue about sports while knowing only half of the rulebook.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Then we really must be talking past each other. I really thought you were saying that in cases where there is subtlety, honest disagreement, or room for interpretation, judges (and especially an individual judge) ought not even try - his default should be to send it back to the legislature for clarification instead of doing any interpreting himself.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but my hunch tells me that you're confusing "common law" with something else - "common sense," perhaps, or "natural law" instead?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
I found it. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision yesterday, it appears. I understand you might disagree with the outcome (which may be temporary), but why do you believe it is an example of judicial activism?
I found it. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision yesterday, it appears. I understand you might disagree with the outcome (which may be temporary), but why do you believe it is an example of judicial activism?
Foxton
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Does he agree with it?
Then it's not judicial activism.
Does he disagree with it?
Then it is judicial activism.
There's a very simple test for that.
Does he agree with it?
Then it's not judicial activism.
Does he disagree with it?
Then it is judicial activism.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Hmm.. you bolded:
"supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea...biased in support of a party, group, or cause"
That certainly does apply to those who reflexively defend everything Obama says or does.
However, your complaint is NOT that I am a "proponent" nor "biased in support.' You complain because I criticize certain ideas in a very specific way, and support my criticism with evidence and data.
You and I may disagree, but you cannot seriously cite a definition that says one thing and then say it applies to me because I do the opposite!
I support neither political party. I think government today is controlled by two factions each of which vies to reward its supporters with different forms of corporate welfare. Government is dominated by factions of special-interest groups who use the public purse to reward favored constituencies at the expense of the common good.
That sounds pretty non-partisan to me; I criticize both parties; I support neither. I'm most critical of what was done between 2008 and 2010 because those are the most damaging to our long-term economic well-being.
and I use data and evidence to support what I say.
By your own definition, Obama supporters are far more partisan than I am. they defend everything he does, while I only criticize some of the things he does.
I am very much more critical of Harry Reid than any other politician. That man has done more damage than anyone else in recent memory that I can think of.
If you say that my belief that government exercises too much control and influence over everything we say and do is partisan, then I freely agree with you. Government overreach and government intrusion from both parties is too much. If that makes me "partisan" then so be it. If a belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility makes me "partisan" then so be it. When I was younger that made me "patriotic" and a "believer in the American Dream."
Someone who reminds us of our better nature and how much better we can do things is now "partisan"? Wow, times have really changed. I thought it was "idealistic."
Hmm.. you bolded:
"supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea...biased in support of a party, group, or cause"
That certainly does apply to those who reflexively defend everything Obama says or does.
However, your complaint is NOT that I am a "proponent" nor "biased in support.' You complain because I criticize certain ideas in a very specific way, and support my criticism with evidence and data.
You and I may disagree, but you cannot seriously cite a definition that says one thing and then say it applies to me because I do the opposite!
I support neither political party. I think government today is controlled by two factions each of which vies to reward its supporters with different forms of corporate welfare. Government is dominated by factions of special-interest groups who use the public purse to reward favored constituencies at the expense of the common good.
That sounds pretty non-partisan to me; I criticize both parties; I support neither. I'm most critical of what was done between 2008 and 2010 because those are the most damaging to our long-term economic well-being.
and I use data and evidence to support what I say.
By your own definition, Obama supporters are far more partisan than I am. they defend everything he does, while I only criticize some of the things he does.
I am very much more critical of Harry Reid than any other politician. That man has done more damage than anyone else in recent memory that I can think of.
If you say that my belief that government exercises too much control and influence over everything we say and do is partisan, then I freely agree with you. Government overreach and government intrusion from both parties is too much. If that makes me "partisan" then so be it. If a belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility makes me "partisan" then so be it. When I was younger that made me "patriotic" and a "believer in the American Dream."
Someone who reminds us of our better nature and how much better we can do things is now "partisan"? Wow, times have really changed. I thought it was "idealistic."
Last edited:
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Time to put you on ignore...which is too bad given that I enjoy your insight surrounding sports.
Time to put you on ignore...which is too bad given that I enjoy your insight surrounding sports.
unofan
Well-known member
Oh wait. You're serious, let me laugh even harder.
What's even better is you name two democrats and name 2008-2010 as the worst time in history without commenting on a single republican in the same freaking post
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Step 1: Click on Settings in the upper right hand corner
Step 2: Click on "Edit Ignore List" under My account on the left hand side
Step 3: Enter "FreshFish" in the search box, click on name when it pops down, then click "okay"
Enjoy
Step 1: Click on Settings in the upper right hand corner
Step 2: Click on "Edit Ignore List" under My account on the left hand side
Step 3: Enter "FreshFish" in the search box, click on name when it pops down, then click "okay"
Enjoy
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Step 1: Click on Settings in the upper right hand corner
Step 2: Click on "Edit Ignore List" under My account on the left hand side
Step 3: Enter "FreshFish" in the search box, click on name when it pops down, then click "okay"
Enjoy
I would do that but I already ingore Bob Gray and Old Pio...if I add Fresh Fish I will lose whole pages in political threads
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
That would be a shame, I don't how any of us would live without political threads.I would do that but I already ingore Bob Gray and Old Pio...if I add Fresh Fish I will lose whole pages in political threads
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
C'mon I LOVE Fishy's posts. He's a perfect example of the absolute lunacy that's taken over the Republican party and conservative thought. Wait until Rand Paul or Ted Cruz becomes the GOP nominee in 2016 spouting the exact same platitudes and unworkable theology that the Fish preaches out here. Should be a real fun campaign.
C'mon I LOVE Fishy's posts. He's a perfect example of the absolute lunacy that's taken over the Republican party and conservative thought. Wait until Rand Paul or Ted Cruz becomes the GOP nominee in 2016 spouting the exact same platitudes and unworkable theology that the Fish preaches out here. Should be a real fun campaign.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Apparently, there are quite a few people who cannot even recognize satire these days.
To paraphrase George Carlin* :
"My views are always thoughtful, reasonable, and well-considered.
However, anyone to the left of me is a dangerous totalitarian, and anyone to the right of me is an irresponsible anarchist."
* a famous comedian.
Apparently, there are quite a few people who cannot even recognize satire these days.
To paraphrase George Carlin* :
"My views are always thoughtful, reasonable, and well-considered.
However, anyone to the left of me is a dangerous totalitarian, and anyone to the right of me is an irresponsible anarchist."
* a famous comedian.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
Oh right. Satire. Uh huh.
Oh right. Satire. Uh huh.
unofan
Well-known member
Apparently, there are quite a few people who cannot even recognize satire these days.
To paraphrase George Carlin* :
"My views are always thoughtful, reasonable, and well-considered.
However, anyone to the left of me is a dangerous totalitarian, and anyone to the right of me is an irresponsible anarchist."
* a famous comedian.
Nice try, fishy. But you're no Andy Kauffman.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Apparently, there are quite a few people who cannot even recognize satire these days.
To paraphrase George Carlin* :
"My views are always thoughtful, reasonable, and well-considered.
However, anyone to the left of me is a dangerous totalitarian, and anyone to the right of me is an irresponsible anarchist."
* a famous comedian.
If you have to explain it you are doing it wrong
And fishy you are no George Carlin
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
That's fine with me, I enjoy being alive.
You're not exactly Lloyd Bentsen yourself.
That's fine with me, I enjoy being alive.
You're not exactly Lloyd Bentsen yourself.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!
This isn't a SCOTUS ruling, so it's a bit off-topic (and certainly off-topic from the flame war that seems to be going on), but: can someone explain to me why the recent appellate decision (effectively) doing away with the FCC's net neutrality policy is being billed as "the end of the Internet as we know it"?
This isn't a SCOTUS ruling, so it's a bit off-topic (and certainly off-topic from the flame war that seems to be going on), but: can someone explain to me why the recent appellate decision (effectively) doing away with the FCC's net neutrality policy is being billed as "the end of the Internet as we know it"?
- Status