PonyFans.com

SMU LB wrote:

smupony94 wrote:

SMU LB wrote: You are always welcome in my seats. I am a nonpartisan seat provider.

myrdel???? How do you change a screen name?

PM SmooPower. He can do it when he has time.

Thanks, there are too many people with similar names as mine

smupony94 wrote:

SMU LB wrote:

smupony94 wrote: myrdel???? How do you change a screen name?

PM SmooPower. He can do it when he has time.

Thanks, there are too many people with similar names as mine

As long as this persona is a witty as the old one, I'm happy.

abezontar wrote: To which party are you referring?
What is the law of which you speak?
What decision by the Supreme Court enacted such law?
Are you familiar with the concept of common law?
What means was used to to reach the goal of the party of which you speak?
What is the end that is desired?

Additionally, before you respond please consider whether your analysis can be applied to both parties or only one and explain why it can or cannot.

I am referring to the Democratic Party which has made a policy in the last several decades of packing the court with "activist" judges. As tempting as it is, let's hope the Republicans don't follow suit and that they continue to appoint judges who endorse judicial restraint and the respect of law.

I wasn't referring to any law in particular, but Roe v. Wade is a good enough example. The activist judges appointed by the left inserted into the Constitution a concept that those who created the law (the Founders) hadn't remotely intended -- a woman's right to choose -- in order to reach what to them was a valid result. I won't argue whether their decision was or wasn't a good idea, but the *making* of law isn't properly within the realm of the judicial branch. It's a legislative activity. Remember the separation of powers concept from elementary school civics? Legislators, being publicly elected officials, would never have attempted to pass such a law. Best to have the unelected philosopher kings of the bench simply *invent* the right and call it "interpretation" of the "living document" that is the Constitution.

Yes, I'm familiar with Common Law. It was one of the first targets of the philosopher kings of the bench.

Again, read Bork's "Tempting of America."

Roe is a bad example of what you speak. You, of course, believe that a woman has no right to choose, and that a state can freely take her choice, nay, has a moral obligation to take her choice away.

Notwithstanding your disagreement with Roe, can you name another instance?

You don't know what I think and don't pretend you do. You've gotta stop putting people in boxes like that. I expressed no opinion on whether I think Roe is good law or not. I *did* express the opinion that the Court has no business inventing whatever rights it feels *ought* to be there. Again, to echo Learned Hand, the judge's job is not to do justice. The judge's job is to apply the law as it comes to him from the hand of the legislator.

Read this: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/ ... /bork.html

[Griswold v. Connecticut found penumbras in the Constitution. Once that happened making things up afterward was a piece of cake.[/u]

EastStang wrote:[Griswold v. Connecticut found penumbras in the Constitution. Once that happened making things up afterward was a piece of cake.[/u]

Great point--the makeup of the Griswold court:

Majority:
Douglas-Dem appt
Warren-Rep appt
Clark-Dem appt
Brennan-Rep appt
Goldberg-Dem appt

Concurrance:
Harlan-rep appt
White-Dem appt

Dissent:
Stewart-rep appt
Black-Dem appt

Yeah, the Dem appointees wholly started the trend of "judicial activism" alright....

Earl Warren was one of those appointees like current Justice Souter that sort of surprised everyone. I don't think Ike quite knew what he was getting there. Brennan turned out to be very activist and ended up the most liberal member of the court when he retired. Of course the under Warren's watch many fourth amendment and due process cases were decided including the one that outlawed the death penalty.

What was it Forrest Gump said? "Federal judges are like a box of chocolates...."

ponyboy wrote:Again, to echo Learned Hand, the judge's job is not to do justice. The judge's job is to apply the law as it comes to him from the hand of the legislator.

Is Learned Hand the same person as Mr. Hand from Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

abezontar wrote:

smupony94 wrote:

SMU LB wrote: PM SmooPower. He can do it when he has time.

Thanks, there are too many people with similar names as mine

As long as this persona is a witty as the old one, I'm happy.

I am thinking KikitheDonkeySmuPony94

smupony94 wrote:

abezontar wrote:

smupony94 wrote: Thanks, there are too many people with similar names as mine

As long as this persona is a witty as the old one, I'm happy.

I am thinking KikitheDonkeySmuPony94

I like I like

jtstang wrote: Yeah, the Dem appointees wholly started the trend of "judicial activism" alright....

No one is saying that the Democratic appointees are *entirely* responsible for legislating from the bench or that Republicans are somehow immune to the same temptation. The lure of the forbidden fruit started early, probably in the 1798 opinion of Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull. But it's clear that liberals -- primarily through their biggest expositors in the faculty of the elite law schools whose disciples comprise a very big portion of the seats of legal power in this nation --have fully embraced the temptation to put politically desirable results above legitimate process.

A quote from Bork: "Some of [the constitutional law theorists] are quite explicit about their intention to convert the Constitution from law to politics, and judges from magistrates to politicians. Others have no such conscious intent, but their prescriptions would have the same effect. The politics and the robed politicians, it need hardly be added, in nine cases out of ten are to be of the left-wing variety."

Like I said, any means to the end. Well meaning Americans of all political stripes ought to be disgusted by this.

And of course Bork himself has no agenda, having been thoroughly rejected.

As unlikely as it might seem to some, integrity is one possible choice among the vast array of human choices.