ThreadKiller
Member
I really don't care what title the Left prefers. The Left wants my guns and the current home of the most rabid anti gunners is the DNC.
What else do ya need to know?
Tim
What else do ya need to know?
Tim
What Liberals Want - the Constitution in 2020
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
thorn726
Member
same here.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
Unfortunately, the "liberals" of today are nothing like the Democrats of the past like Franklin Roosevelt and JFK. "Liberal" used to mean just what it sounds like (wanting to liberate). Now, they eek closer to Marxism.
2nd Amendment
member
Good in theory. Too bad it has, as all lefty control methods do, come to the point of preventing kids from working when they want and thus furthered the dependence mentality.
The Dem Party fell apart over this and conservatives made it happen.
Not a conservative/leftist issue as we would apply the terms today.
And so we all get to pay for it, further lessening our own ability to provide for our own individual futures.
Another "nice idea" turned into a multi-billion dollar bureaucratic boondoggle.
My personal favorite. As a small business person wanna know what happens when the gooberment ups this minimum? The percentage of business income available for payroll doesn't magically increase, so I fire people and shift the burden to the remainder. If lucky someone quits and I simply don't replace them(the McDonald's Strategy). When they are let go I make certain they understand they can thank a Dem for their (almost always lengthy)unemployed status.
The list is the best that leftism has to offer over the past century and even then it comes with a load of negative repercussions, Spin and unexpected consequences.
Kaylee
Member
It seems to me there are few tests quite so good for a failed ideology than how often it must change names to escape its past failures. Bolsheviks became Progressives bacame (modern) Liberals. There was quite the row (in the New York Times of all places) when they hijacked that last label in the early 20th century, actually. 
And no, (modern) Liberals are NOT maligned by many here simply "because alot of them have ideas about gun control that we ... disagree with."
Rather, the gun issue is but a symptom of a larger worldview. To wit -- the concept that the good of the community justifies the mass disarmament, extortion, and indoctrination of the members of that community, through force if necessary. (As opposed to the judicial process and punishment for those individuals actively hurting other members of the community, which Classical Liberalism also accepts as a necessary function of gov't)
Heck, I've been burned out on gun politics for ages now, and can't remember the last time I touched my M4. That doesn't change the fact that I find the fundamental assumptions of the modern American left ethically repugnant and out of touch with the realities of the world and human nature.
Finally, any political philosophy that is fundamentally based on changing human nature ("The New Man") rather than accomodating human nature as it exists is doomed to failure. The US of the 20th century was the perfect testbed of collectivist ideals. Free from any coercive dictator, free citizens willingly entered into collective partnerships across the country in the 1960's.
The fact that very few if any of those communes remain in anything like their original collectivist vision -- if they exist at all -- should be ample proof to any archair legislator that collectivism as a philosophy is as intellectually bankrupt as the economies of the nations that practiced it.
[/soapbox]
And no, (modern) Liberals are NOT maligned by many here simply "because alot of them have ideas about gun control that we ... disagree with."
Rather, the gun issue is but a symptom of a larger worldview. To wit -- the concept that the good of the community justifies the mass disarmament, extortion, and indoctrination of the members of that community, through force if necessary. (As opposed to the judicial process and punishment for those individuals actively hurting other members of the community, which Classical Liberalism also accepts as a necessary function of gov't)
Heck, I've been burned out on gun politics for ages now, and can't remember the last time I touched my M4. That doesn't change the fact that I find the fundamental assumptions of the modern American left ethically repugnant and out of touch with the realities of the world and human nature.
Finally, any political philosophy that is fundamentally based on changing human nature ("The New Man") rather than accomodating human nature as it exists is doomed to failure. The US of the 20th century was the perfect testbed of collectivist ideals. Free from any coercive dictator, free citizens willingly entered into collective partnerships across the country in the 1960's.
The fact that very few if any of those communes remain in anything like their original collectivist vision -- if they exist at all -- should be ample proof to any archair legislator that collectivism as a philosophy is as intellectually bankrupt as the economies of the nations that practiced it.
[/soapbox]
publius
Member
Why would leftists want to bother changing the Constitution? Seems to me they can get pretty much whatever they want through the power to tax and the power to regulate commerce.
ThreadKiller
Member
Now THERE'S a dang good post!
Tim
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Thorn, is was that well-known liberal, Richard Nixon, who signed the NEPA of '69 which gave us the EPA.
Social Security? That was a platform plank of the Socialist Workers' Party in 1932. Norman Thomas was their candidate for the presidency...
From the trivia department, it was a Democrat on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives who gave us the term "jack-booted thugs". 1968, IIRC.
Please learn a bit of the history of who done what to whom, regarding US laws and social programs and suchlike...
, Art
Social Security? That was a platform plank of the Socialist Workers' Party in 1932. Norman Thomas was their candidate for the presidency...
From the trivia department, it was a Democrat on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives who gave us the term "jack-booted thugs". 1968, IIRC.
Please learn a bit of the history of who done what to whom, regarding US laws and social programs and suchlike...
, Art
ravinraven
Member
Ah...Progressives!
Here's a quote...well, almost, by Jefferson. "In the natural course of things, Liberty recedes and tyranny PROGRESSES." OK, class. Any question as to where the Libs got the title "progressives?"
rr
Here's a quote...well, almost, by Jefferson. "In the natural course of things, Liberty recedes and tyranny PROGRESSES." OK, class. Any question as to where the Libs got the title "progressives?"
rr
jobu07
Contributing Member
$80,000 citizenship inheritance from the rich? Yeah right. 
As a 21 year old college student I can definatly see the merit in it. However, I think it is definatly going against everything our free-nation was founded on by taking money away from anyone that earned it. I imagine I could definatly use that $80,000 wiser than many many MANY of my peers, but I don't want it. You couldn't give me that $80,000. The only money I want is the money I worked hard to earn. Hell, I'd feel funny about winning a couple million in the lotto. Kinda of like it takes the fun out of life...
Liberals are just so damn lazy. Pick yourselves up by your bootstraps and make something out of yourselves like my Italian ancestors did when they came to this great land. No one should have a comfortable life handed to them on a silver platter...
As a 21 year old college student I can definatly see the merit in it. However, I think it is definatly going against everything our free-nation was founded on by taking money away from anyone that earned it. I imagine I could definatly use that $80,000 wiser than many many MANY of my peers, but I don't want it. You couldn't give me that $80,000. The only money I want is the money I worked hard to earn. Hell, I'd feel funny about winning a couple million in the lotto. Kinda of like it takes the fun out of life...Liberals are just so damn lazy. Pick yourselves up by your bootstraps and make something out of yourselves like my Italian ancestors did when they came to this great land. No one should have a comfortable life handed to them on a silver platter...
2nd Amendment
member
One of those interesting bits of Spin that keeps floating around. The Dems gave us the Civil Rights Act...except that it actually exists today solely because of Republican efforts...so all the racist Dems then went and became Repubs because...well, the Repubs were obviously the party of racism...so the Dems still get credit for the Civil Rights Act because...uhhh...well...they're Dems and facts aren't really that important anyway...
Please learn a bit of the history of who done what to whom, regarding US laws and social programs and suchlike...
I have personally listend to the audiotapes of LBJ's telephone calls during which he lobbied the Senate to get the votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act.
RE: The EPA, ask any policitical science professor: Was Nixon a liberal on any issues? And did he act alone in founding the EPA? Was its founding a part of a conservative or liberal movement? (BTW, which political party do you think would like to abolish the EPA today?).
Liberal does not necessarily mean Democrat. Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt both were Republican, but were definately liberal in some policy areas. (Roosevelt busted the trusts, you may recall).
I have personally listend to the audiotapes of LBJ's telephone calls during which he lobbied the Senate to get the votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act.
RE: The EPA, ask any policitical science professor: Was Nixon a liberal on any issues? And did he act alone in founding the EPA? Was its founding a part of a conservative or liberal movement? (BTW, which political party do you think would like to abolish the EPA today?).
Liberal does not necessarily mean Democrat. Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt both were Republican, but were definately liberal in some policy areas. (Roosevelt busted the trusts, you may recall).
2nd Amendment
member
"Liberal" almost never means Dem these days. Again, use the words correctly. Dem means, almost exclusively, Leftist. Favoring Socialist and humanist policies.
Why the desire to take credit for the EPA? It was passed under a Repub Admin with Repub assistance but if you want it you can have it. Hopefully both parties, who have members who would like to dismantle the intrusive boondoggle, will be successful.
So Teddy and Tricky Dick(whom you can also have and welcome to him) had some socialist tendencies? Big deal. Tough to avoid that character flaw then, almost impossible now(if one has journeyed through the government indoctrination camps euphemistically referred to as "Public Schools").
And lastly, so you have inflicted the potential long-term brain damage of listening to Johnson whine and weedle for what he hoped would be his "Legacy" and the crown of his "Great Society"? And this changes the actual votes and how it truly came about how?
Why the desire to take credit for the EPA? It was passed under a Repub Admin with Repub assistance but if you want it you can have it. Hopefully both parties, who have members who would like to dismantle the intrusive boondoggle, will be successful.
So Teddy and Tricky Dick(whom you can also have and welcome to him) had some socialist tendencies? Big deal. Tough to avoid that character flaw then, almost impossible now(if one has journeyed through the government indoctrination camps euphemistically referred to as "Public Schools").
And lastly, so you have inflicted the potential long-term brain damage of listening to Johnson whine and weedle for what he hoped would be his "Legacy" and the crown of his "Great Society"? And this changes the actual votes and how it truly came about how?
By swjr :
liberal activist judges are ruining our country this is the only way liberals can get there agenda forced upon us. Until we clean up the Judicial system our freeedoms are going to slowly fade away.
By cookekdjr:
Name one.
Until then, I'll point out a conservative activist Judge: former Chief Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who defied the law (Constitutional, Statutory, and Professional Standards of Conduct) until he was removed from the Court.
This is the guy who insisted on displaying the 10 commandments at a public building.
Still waiting. Someone. Anyone. Name one liberal activist judge who is ruining our country. This is a favorite propoganda allegation of conservative talk radio and television (so it must be true, right? ).
Somebody name one. Then we'll do a google search of the judge's opinions and see if there is a leg to stand on.
Can't somebody name one?
liberal activist judges are ruining our country this is the only way liberals can get there agenda forced upon us. Until we clean up the Judicial system our freeedoms are going to slowly fade away.
By cookekdjr:
Name one.
Until then, I'll point out a conservative activist Judge: former Chief Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who defied the law (Constitutional, Statutory, and Professional Standards of Conduct) until he was removed from the Court.
This is the guy who insisted on displaying the 10 commandments at a public building.
Still waiting. Someone. Anyone. Name one liberal activist judge who is ruining our country. This is a favorite propoganda allegation of conservative talk radio and television (so it must be true, right?
). Somebody name one. Then we'll do a google search of the judge's opinions and see if there is a leg to stand on.
Can't somebody name one?
bjbarron
Member
I chose some on the moonbat side, although you can find just as many on the wingnut side...
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled 3-0 in 2003 that the California recall election should have been postponed because there was a likelihood that the American Civil Liberties Union could prove in a trial that the new touch-screen voting machines would be more accurate than the system California had used for decades.
Plenty other decisions by the 9th, the most reversed court in the country.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro ruled that Philadelphia’s jails were too full and started releasing more than 600 convicts per week back onto the streets. Dozens of them killed, and hundreds raped and assaulted all over again.
Federal judges appointed by President Clinton have blocked teen curfews and prohibited judges from requiring drunks to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.
And Rosemary Barkett, one of Clinton’s appointees for appeals court, has compared American police officers to Stalin’s thugs and has written that youth crime is caused by failure of the social welfare system.
Supreme Court's decision in Simmons, which struck down underaged executions based partly on foreign law.
The famous Roe V Wade
Here are a couple I picked out in Google in about 5 minutes. Whether or not you think the above examples are important is not germaine...it only takes one judge in one decision making law to cause us serious problems if it's the wrong decision on the wrong law. I'm sure we can find others on parental notification for abortion, etc.
I could pretty much live with a lot of this stuff if it is decided by the majority of people given the opportunity to vote on it. I don't much like judges of any stripe making my choices for me. One of the problems with Roe v Wade, is that it was never put up to the states to decide, and left us with decades of controversy.
We see that activist judges can be on the right as well as on the left...each as bad as the other. Limiting the power of judges on both sides of the moonbat/wingnut divide can only be good for us. Why is it so difficult to just follow the constitution?
Judges should interpret law, not make it...for example:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. I am scared to death that one of these days a 2A case is going to make it to SCOTUS and we're going to get smacked by a 5/4 ruling because of a comma.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled 3-0 in 2003 that the California recall election should have been postponed because there was a likelihood that the American Civil Liberties Union could prove in a trial that the new touch-screen voting machines would be more accurate than the system California had used for decades.
Plenty other decisions by the 9th, the most reversed court in the country.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro ruled that Philadelphia’s jails were too full and started releasing more than 600 convicts per week back onto the streets. Dozens of them killed, and hundreds raped and assaulted all over again.
Federal judges appointed by President Clinton have blocked teen curfews and prohibited judges from requiring drunks to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.
And Rosemary Barkett, one of Clinton’s appointees for appeals court, has compared American police officers to Stalin’s thugs and has written that youth crime is caused by failure of the social welfare system.
Supreme Court's decision in Simmons, which struck down underaged executions based partly on foreign law.
The famous Roe V Wade
Here are a couple I picked out in Google in about 5 minutes. Whether or not you think the above examples are important is not germaine...it only takes one judge in one decision making law to cause us serious problems if it's the wrong decision on the wrong law. I'm sure we can find others on parental notification for abortion, etc.
I could pretty much live with a lot of this stuff if it is decided by the majority of people given the opportunity to vote on it. I don't much like judges of any stripe making my choices for me. One of the problems with Roe v Wade, is that it was never put up to the states to decide, and left us with decades of controversy.
We see that activist judges can be on the right as well as on the left...each as bad as the other. Limiting the power of judges on both sides of the moonbat/wingnut divide can only be good for us. Why is it so difficult to just follow the constitution?
Judges should interpret law, not make it...for example:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. I am scared to death that one of these days a 2A case is going to make it to SCOTUS and we're going to get smacked by a 5/4 ruling because of a comma.
I'm sure we can find others on parental notification for abortion, etc.
Please explain to me why a pregnant girl should be required to get her daddy's permission to get an abortion when he is the one who raped her until she got pregnant to begin with (and mama, who knew what daddy was doing all along, refuses b/c daddy refuses).
BTW, this is not a hypothetical. This is a reality I have dealt with.
-David
Please explain to me why a pregnant girl should be required to get her daddy's permission to get an abortion when he is the one who raped her until she got pregnant to begin with (and mama, who knew what daddy was doing all along, refuses b/c daddy refuses).
BTW, this is not a hypothetical. This is a reality I have dealt with.
-David
The famous Roe V Wade
Please explain how this has eroded your freedom. BTW, have you read the opinion? What part of it did you disagree with?
And Rosemary Barkett, one of Clinton’s appointees for appeals court, has compared American police officers to Stalin’s thugs and has written that youth crime is caused by failure of the social welfare system
In what case and under what circumstances did she say this? Did our conservative Supreme Court affirm her opinion, reverse it, or did the loosing party realize they didn't have a leg to stand on and didn't bother to appeal?
Supreme Court's decision in Simmons, which struck down underaged executions based partly on foreign law.
Please explain how imprisoning children for life instead of executing them is eroding your freedom.
Please explain how this has eroded your freedom. BTW, have you read the opinion? What part of it did you disagree with?
And Rosemary Barkett, one of Clinton’s appointees for appeals court, has compared American police officers to Stalin’s thugs and has written that youth crime is caused by failure of the social welfare system
In what case and under what circumstances did she say this? Did our conservative Supreme Court affirm her opinion, reverse it, or did the loosing party realize they didn't have a leg to stand on and didn't bother to appeal?
Supreme Court's decision in Simmons, which struck down underaged executions based partly on foreign law.
Please explain how imprisoning children for life instead of executing them is eroding your freedom.
bjbarron
Member
Of course I gave you some examples, and admittedly they were poor after only a few minutes searching...but it wouldn't matter what I found would it? You'll always ask for more refs...and then ask for more.
(1) There are always exceptions to the rule. The exception you mentioned is covered by other law. I object to someone telling me I don't have the right to know that my 14 year old is getting an abortion.
(2) Rosemary Barkett on the 11th Circuit, has ruled for the defendant in every criminal-law opinion she has written. In Judge Barkett's case, this continues a pattern she established before her appointment. While on the Florida Supreme Court, she voted against the death penalty for reasons including "learning problems" or "emotional deprivation" suffered by murderers. In 1988, she blamed all youth crime on the social system, and in 1992 she said a heinous murder was caused by "discordant racial relations." In 1989, she wrote an opinion declaring unconstitutional police searches of interstate buses for drugs even with the passengers' permission. She compared police officers to Hitler's SS and to the agents of "white supremacist South Africa." The Supreme Court reversed her.
(3) Your argument on SCOTUS is not valid. My point is that dozens of states had laws on the books for years and years that were made invalid by Federal decision - without consideration of the people of those states. Premeditated murder should be punishable by death, barring extenuating circumstances, regardless of age. If you don't like the death penalty, get it changed in the court of public opinion, not by a choice of 5 of 9, or 2 of 3.
(4) I am personally in favor of Roe v. Wade. I object to the usurption of states rights in deciding the question for themselves.
You can argue all you want about how I should only be concerned if my personal freedoms being eroded by some case law that doesn't affect me personally, and have many fine points to make that these freedoms are not in jepardy. However, some things are just wrong...and yes, that is my decision to make for me and mine.
Debating by only asking questions and avoiding answers is an old trick of those with a weak argument. If you believe that minor age children should not be required to notify their parents when making major life decisions, then make an arguement for it. I expect we are from different tribes and would never agree.
There is an old saying...
"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." Don't tell me that these judges aren't streaching to find touchy-feely jurisprudence in current law, or making up their own.
You would be better arguing that the wingnuts do the same thing...which they do.
Here are a few more...
District Judge Harold Baer (S.D.N.Y.): In March 1996, District Judge Harold Baer ruled on a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Several men had dropped duffel bags into defendant's car and fled upon seeing the police. The police stopped defendant's car and found drugs in the bags. The question was whether those drugs had been seized in an "unreasonable" search, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Baer ruled in favor of defendant. In the neighborhood where the incident occurred, Judge Baer reasoned, people reasonably feared police; hence, running from the police did not furnish the officers with sufficient reason to believe that a crime had occurred to justify the search.15
Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett: In April 1992, then Florida Supreme Court Justice Rosemary Barkett concurred in a dissent written by fellow Justice Parker Lee McDonald, in Dougan v. Florida.18 Dougan had been convicted of a brutal, racially motivated murder, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence; the dissent, however, argued that the death penalty was excessive, given the circumstances leading up to the murder, which Justice McDonald described in the following terms:
[Dougan's] impatience for change, for understanding, for reconciliation matured into taking the illogical and drastic action of murder. His frustrations, his anger and his obsession of injustice overcame reason. The victim was a symbolic representative of the class causing the perceived injustices.19
(1) There are always exceptions to the rule. The exception you mentioned is covered by other law. I object to someone telling me I don't have the right to know that my 14 year old is getting an abortion.
(2) Rosemary Barkett on the 11th Circuit, has ruled for the defendant in every criminal-law opinion she has written. In Judge Barkett's case, this continues a pattern she established before her appointment. While on the Florida Supreme Court, she voted against the death penalty for reasons including "learning problems" or "emotional deprivation" suffered by murderers. In 1988, she blamed all youth crime on the social system, and in 1992 she said a heinous murder was caused by "discordant racial relations." In 1989, she wrote an opinion declaring unconstitutional police searches of interstate buses for drugs even with the passengers' permission. She compared police officers to Hitler's SS and to the agents of "white supremacist South Africa." The Supreme Court reversed her.
(3) Your argument on SCOTUS is not valid. My point is that dozens of states had laws on the books for years and years that were made invalid by Federal decision - without consideration of the people of those states. Premeditated murder should be punishable by death, barring extenuating circumstances, regardless of age. If you don't like the death penalty, get it changed in the court of public opinion, not by a choice of 5 of 9, or 2 of 3.
(4) I am personally in favor of Roe v. Wade. I object to the usurption of states rights in deciding the question for themselves.
You can argue all you want about how I should only be concerned if my personal freedoms being eroded by some case law that doesn't affect me personally, and have many fine points to make that these freedoms are not in jepardy. However, some things are just wrong...and yes, that is my decision to make for me and mine.
Debating by only asking questions and avoiding answers is an old trick of those with a weak argument. If you believe that minor age children should not be required to notify their parents when making major life decisions, then make an arguement for it. I expect we are from different tribes and would never agree.
There is an old saying...
"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." Don't tell me that these judges aren't streaching to find touchy-feely jurisprudence in current law, or making up their own.
You would be better arguing that the wingnuts do the same thing...which they do.
Here are a few more...
District Judge Harold Baer (S.D.N.Y.): In March 1996, District Judge Harold Baer ruled on a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Several men had dropped duffel bags into defendant's car and fled upon seeing the police. The police stopped defendant's car and found drugs in the bags. The question was whether those drugs had been seized in an "unreasonable" search, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Baer ruled in favor of defendant. In the neighborhood where the incident occurred, Judge Baer reasoned, people reasonably feared police; hence, running from the police did not furnish the officers with sufficient reason to believe that a crime had occurred to justify the search.15
Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett: In April 1992, then Florida Supreme Court Justice Rosemary Barkett concurred in a dissent written by fellow Justice Parker Lee McDonald, in Dougan v. Florida.18 Dougan had been convicted of a brutal, racially motivated murder, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence; the dissent, however, argued that the death penalty was excessive, given the circumstances leading up to the murder, which Justice McDonald described in the following terms:
[Dougan's] impatience for change, for understanding, for reconciliation matured into taking the illogical and drastic action of murder. His frustrations, his anger and his obsession of injustice overcame reason. The victim was a symbolic representative of the class causing the perceived injustices.19
bjbarron,
OK, you found a judge or two who is an idiot (remember, I am a homicide prosecutor who prosecutes death penalty cases, so I know an idiot in a robe when I see one ).
But I don't see a single case where a Liberal judge has taken away our freedom. I have seen some bad Judges make some poor decisions in criminal cases. But a foolish and misguided ruling does not necessarily take away our rights. And it does not mean its reasoning is "liberal".
BTW, read Roe sometimes. If it weren't for Roe (and the Griswold case that paved the way for it) we'd be alot less free than we are today.
OK, you found a judge or two who is an idiot (remember, I am a homicide prosecutor who prosecutes death penalty cases, so I know an idiot in a robe when I see one
).But I don't see a single case where a Liberal judge has taken away our freedom. I have seen some bad Judges make some poor decisions in criminal cases. But a foolish and misguided ruling does not necessarily take away our rights. And it does not mean its reasoning is "liberal".
BTW, read Roe sometimes. If it weren't for Roe (and the Griswold case that paved the way for it) we'd be alot less free than we are today.
JohnBT
Member
"5. EPA..."
The EPA was formed on 7/9/70 by President Richard Nixon.
John
The EPA was formed on 7/9/70 by President Richard Nixon.
John
2nd Amendment
member
So cook wants examples and, when given examples, changes the definitions. Typical.
Cook cites Roy Moore, who was entirely correct, unless one defines things from a leftist viewpoint. Typical.
When forced to note a judicially spawned atrocity cook creates a situation that cannot be shown to account for more than 1/10th of 1% of abortion instances to try and defend the absurd notion that children should not have to inform their parents before committing murder. Slick.
Roe has nothing to do with freedom. Roe is, or at least was at the time, the most unsupported and blatantly agenda driven piece of SCOTUS garbage existing. It pulls a "right" out of thin air to service an extremist opinion which could not be accomplished thru the ballot box. The biggest threat to Roe is not the legality/constitutionality of infanticide but the simple slip-shod job the SCOTUS did to serve the agenda at the time.
How has it eroded freedom? Ask the millions of children who never got to experience life. Ask the millions of would-have-been mothers who regret their decisions, often to the point of suicide. Or the fathers, whose freedom of choice was literally never considered. Or society in general, to which life itself has been cheapened overall by the absurd idea "life" can be measured by a few centimeters of location.
Let's turn this around and ask the question that should be asked: Show a conservative justice demonstrably guilty of any such activism that clearly violates any rational understanding of the Constitution or BoR.
Cook cites Roy Moore, who was entirely correct, unless one defines things from a leftist viewpoint. Typical.
When forced to note a judicially spawned atrocity cook creates a situation that cannot be shown to account for more than 1/10th of 1% of abortion instances to try and defend the absurd notion that children should not have to inform their parents before committing murder. Slick.
Roe has nothing to do with freedom. Roe is, or at least was at the time, the most unsupported and blatantly agenda driven piece of SCOTUS garbage existing. It pulls a "right" out of thin air to service an extremist opinion which could not be accomplished thru the ballot box. The biggest threat to Roe is not the legality/constitutionality of infanticide but the simple slip-shod job the SCOTUS did to serve the agenda at the time.
How has it eroded freedom? Ask the millions of children who never got to experience life. Ask the millions of would-have-been mothers who regret their decisions, often to the point of suicide. Or the fathers, whose freedom of choice was literally never considered. Or society in general, to which life itself has been cheapened overall by the absurd idea "life" can be measured by a few centimeters of location.
Let's turn this around and ask the question that should be asked: Show a conservative justice demonstrably guilty of any such activism that clearly violates any rational understanding of the Constitution or BoR.
So cook wants examples and, when given examples, changes the definitions. Typical.
Do what?
Here's the exchange:
By swjr :
liberal activist judges are ruining our country this is the only way liberals can get there agenda forced upon us. Until we clean up the Judicial system our freeedoms are going to slowly fade away.
By cookekdjr:
Name one.
Until then, I'll point out a conservative activist Judge: former Chief Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who defied the law (Constitutional, Statutory, and Professional Standards of Conduct) until he was removed from the Court.
This is the guy who insisted on displaying the 10 commandments at a public building.
No one has named an "activist" Liberal Judge who has "eroded freedom". That was the original charge.
In contrast, I named Judge Roy Moore as an activist conservative Judge, whose defiance of court orders, statutes, case law, and professional standards pf conduct were so outrageous that he was removed from his State's Supreme Court.
By the way, a very large percentage of abortions are sought by teenagers who have been sexually abused. I used to see it every week when I prosecuted sex crimes. We had an account with FedEx we used to have tissue samples from the fetus sent to a lab for DNA testing so that we could prove the Defendant was the father. This was commonplace.
Also by the way, the reason I suggested folks read the Roe opinion is for a history lesson. Abortion is a practice that is thousands of years old. It was not recognized as a sin under Jewish law, and if someone caused a pregnant woman to miscarry before the "quickening", the penalty was less severe than
that for murder. The Roman Catholic Church did not oppose abortion before the 18th century.
Its a very informative read.
Do what?
Here's the exchange:
By swjr :
liberal activist judges are ruining our country this is the only way liberals can get there agenda forced upon us. Until we clean up the Judicial system our freeedoms are going to slowly fade away.
By cookekdjr:
Name one.
Until then, I'll point out a conservative activist Judge: former Chief Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who defied the law (Constitutional, Statutory, and Professional Standards of Conduct) until he was removed from the Court.
This is the guy who insisted on displaying the 10 commandments at a public building.
No one has named an "activist" Liberal Judge who has "eroded freedom". That was the original charge.
In contrast, I named Judge Roy Moore as an activist conservative Judge, whose defiance of court orders, statutes, case law, and professional standards pf conduct were so outrageous that he was removed from his State's Supreme Court.
By the way, a very large percentage of abortions are sought by teenagers who have been sexually abused. I used to see it every week when I prosecuted sex crimes. We had an account with FedEx we used to have tissue samples from the fetus sent to a lab for DNA testing so that we could prove the Defendant was the father. This was commonplace.
Also by the way, the reason I suggested folks read the Roe opinion is for a history lesson. Abortion is a practice that is thousands of years old. It was not recognized as a sin under Jewish law, and if someone caused a pregnant woman to miscarry before the "quickening", the penalty was less severe than
that for murder. The Roman Catholic Church did not oppose abortion before the 18th century.
Its a very informative read.
- Status