a letter to those who voted for Bush

Page 8 of 10  
Angrie.Woman wrote:

I think you mean upscale shopping center. Lets not be like the liberals and get everything just a little bit wrong enough to suit our agenda.
To me, "liberal" means "misguided". A liberal judge is a scary, scary thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Liberal judges are the last thing standing between our current radical right-wing federal government and their goals of implementing a fascist state and eliminating social progress.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The liberal judges protect everyone right including the neo-con, and everyone in the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Jefford wrote:

I don't want or need them to protect me, but they insist on protecting me anyway.
A
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Angrie.Woman wrote:

That is because of the unconditional love they have for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G Hensley wrote:

Pish. It's my children they're wanting.
A
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

No, you're wrong. Our government is elected and they have limited powers as well as checks and balances. A liberal bench is very dangerous to everyone. The courts should be reasonably predictable; only as ambiguous as the laws they enforce. When judges go off ruling based on their own ideas they have the power to do tremendous damage on many levels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your understanding (?) of the American system of government is seriously screwed up. The judicial branch's main function is to resolve constitutional and legislative ambiguity, not maintain or support it. And the fact they are not accountable to the legislative and executive branches is the main check and balance on these other two branches.
When we have a case, as today, where the views of the majority of Americans are not being represented on many issues either in Congress or the White House, where much of the legislation passed by these two bodies is constitutionally questionable at best, and where no electoral alternatives exist for the people, the function of the judicial branch is especially critical. The radical right is now focusing their attack on the courts because it is the last obstacle to implemention of their horribly narrow and in many cases unconstitutional agenda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As opposed to the radical left's horribly narrow and in many cases unconstitutional agenda.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In what regard? E.g. 85% of the American people want abortion kept legal in some or all cases, and the left respects Roe v. Wade, while the right regards the decision as "judicial activism" and wants it overturned.
This same kind of disregard for the will of the majority holds true on a wide range of other issues, from same-sex civil unions to prayer in public schools to flag burning to 100 other things.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

What the american people want is not law. 85% of american people may want to commit adultery or be able to drive when they are hammered out of their minds or have sex in public places. You're making the opposite case you're trying to make. Judges are supposed to rule on law, not on sentiment. Thats exactly the point.
What you don't "get" is that the "right" considers Roe v Wade judicial activism because the bench is infering something (privacy) that isn't explictly in our constitution. You can argue that they made up "privacy" to suit their agenda, which was to legalize abortion. I don't want to get in a debate about the right of mothers vs the rights of the unborn; you can argue either and not be wrong. But there is no explicit right to privacy. Not all opponents of R vs W want to make abortion illegal, and what most liberals don't get is that repealing Roe V Wade won't make abortion illegal; it just makes it a State rather than a constitutional issue. Conservatives just want the constitution to be interpreted to the letter rather than as just a guidline. Technically constitutional law requires that, and decisions like Roe V Wade are arguably outside that level of interpretation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in

I strongly disagree.

First,just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution,that does NOT mean the right does not exist. Government CLEARLY should not be regulating every aspect of our lives. People seem to forget that the Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT,not the People.
IMO,a "right to privacy" DOES exist,it begins in the 4th Amendment;"the right to be secure in their persons",and in the 5th;"nor be deprived of life,liberty,or property without due process of law".
Finally,there's Amendment 9;"The enumeration in the Constitution,of certain rights,shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To drag this back into semi-relevence, since "HOME" appears in the same comma-separated list as your "PERSON", does that mean that building codes and zoning ordinaces are unconstitutional, too?
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually,the word "home" does NOT occur,the word is "houses".
I suspect building codes and zoning would be "due process of law".
I note you snipped out the 9th Amendment,and made no comment on the Constitution being a limit on -government-,not the people.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Close enough

You appear to have tossed that phrase out as a magic talisman, devoid of all semantic content or context. "due process of law" is a description of what is necessary to take something (a right and or a property) away from someone. It is not only NOT permission for the government to take or control something, it is a tacit admission that, under normal circumstances, the government HAS no such permission.
It's got nothing to do with regulating how people treat their properties. It just means that when the police force takes your guns away for "evidence", and then refuse to give them back even when no charges materialize, they are behaving unconstitutionally.

Because, while true, it's not particularly relevent to any of the topics under discussion.
In any case, still, since "houses" and "persons" appear to be treated more or less in parallel throughout the constitution, how is it that this mysterious "privacy" right means that no government agency ever can tell me what I'm allowed and not allowed to do with my "person" (body), but it doesn't mean that no government agency can ever tell me what I'm allowed and not allowed to do with my "house" (home)?
Clearly, one of three things must be true: (1) The protection for your "person" is *NOT* meant to be the same as the protection for your "house", (2) The protection for your "house" is absolute, and therefore building codes and zoning ordinances are unconstitutional, (3) The protection for your "person" is *NOT* absolute, and therefore the constitution does not bar anti-abortion laws, or (4) There is some qualitative distiction between a law saying I'm not allowed to rip walls out of my house without permission from the state, and a law that says I'm not allowed to rip a baby out of my womb without permission from the state.
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Due process of law" means that no right is absolute,that one can have their rights restricted or denied PROVIDED there is just cause;as provided by law.But there are limits on how far laws can go.

Sure it is;the claim that there is no "right to privacy",as if all rights MUST be listed in the Constitution.

Why should one's house get better protection from government than one's own body?
The entire concept of the Constitution is to limit or restrict the power government has over it's citizens. A "right to privacy" would be in concord with that concept.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is not the claim. The claim is that a right to privacy is not one of the rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Constitution does not grant rights.Rights pre-exist the Constitution. CERTAIN rights were given specific mention and specific limits *to government*. That does NOT mean they are the only rights of the People.
And I DID say: "as if all rights MUST be listed in the Constitution".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The function of the supreme court is not to protect your rights. The function of the supreme court is to protect/enforce the constitution. The question before the supreme court was not "do women have a right to an abortion", but "does the constitution prevent states from outlawing abortion".
And the answer to the first question may well be "yes". But the answer to the second question, to anyone who both believes in a rule of law, and knows what that means, is "no".
And so, in that decision, the SCOTUS gave a correct answer to the wrong question.. (What should be), and the wrong answer to the question that was before them, (what does the law require)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. The court said, correctly, that implicit privacy rights in certain areas (procreation, marriage, contraception etc) do exist in the Constitution, and have been recognized and protected by other federal and state courts since at least 1891.
Roe v. Wade was an incorrect decision, but for reasons that are probably entirely opposite to what you might think. The court erred by giving the state a foot in the door on this issue. Had they not done so, we likely would not be seeing the continuation of the radical right's agenda to outlaw all abortions under all circumstances (read the current platform of the Republican Party). Simply put, the state does not have unwanted pregnancies, it does not go through the pains of pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore they have no right to dictate to any woman (or family) that she will carry a pregnancy to term. Their error was making an artificial and completely arbitrary distinction between the state's supposed interest before fetal viability and after. The state HAS no interest in unwanted pregnancies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.