She’s saying that if conservatives cared about Constitutional rights, then we would still HAVE all the same Constututional rights that we had five years ago.
I’ve already given one. Roe v Wade.
Another good example is the MA decision that forces the legislature to pass a law allowing gay marriage. This is completely outside the scope of their authority.
I know. I can read. Really.
All I’m asking what rights she’s talking about.
Really, have you been living in a vacuum? Or are you going to try to tell me the Patriot Act is constitutional?
Campaign Finance Reform. It’s the worst thing to happen to the first ammendment in the last century.
Well, that’s 0 for 2.
Neither of those decisions created new laws but only struck down unconstitutional laws. Determining constitutionality is exactly what they’re supposed to do. If you’ve got a problem with those Constitutions (either the US or the MA State Constitution) then change them. Don’t start screaming “activist” at judges who uphold them.
I know, I know. I disagree with the shrieking liberal horde on the SDMB about the evils of the Patriot Act. I must be a moron. :rolleyes:
I know it’s tough, folks, but give it a shot. Use your words. You know, like grown ups! Explain what constitutional rights no longer exist because of the evil patriot act. (And special thanks to Maureen for actually putting a name to it.)
Remind me: What part of the constitution talks about abortion again?
No law was struck down by the MA court. They told the legislature they needed to pass a law to allow gay marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with this, you must at least realize that it’s legislating from the bench!
Yeah, those illegal search and seizure laws were outdated anyway…
Y’know, being sneering and condescending doesn’t add credence to your argument. I realize you disagree. What I don’t understand is how you view overturning illegal search and seizure as constitutional. So. Humor me. Explain.
Oh, and I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Or a dodge a dodge, for that matter.
I see you’re one of those people who thinks that bribery is a form of “speech.”
Seriously, you can’t think of a worse violation of the 1st Amendment in the last century? I’m sure you can think of something if you try.
I will let others with more experience contest the patriot act, and Roe v. Wade, but.
The MA decision was the only rational thing the courts could have done, considering the state’s constitution. When they see a law being passed, such as the one struck down, it is right for them to do so.
Can you give an example of a case that you objected to on those grounds?
Cite?
Cite?
I went back and forth (mostly forth, actually) with **Bricker **about this here.
Care to defend where **Bricker **abandoned?
You do realize that this was a state court opinion, right?
That was my impression as well. The talk of the “nuclear option” was drawing a lot of attention and the “truce/Extraordinary Circumstances” deal was meant to diffuse that in the short term. Neither side has actually changed their stance one bit. They’ve just decided that they didn’t need to fight about it until the actual bell rings. Beating hell out of each other and demeaning Hitler was costing them political capital. So the truce comes with terms neither side intends to keep and written so vaguely that they can be easily tossed aside. Then when a seat opens up on the SC, as it was almost certain to do, either O’Connor or Renquhist, it’s time to rumble.
An actual truce? An actual agreement between the parties where both agree to make a compromise which involves giving up some of their power? When was the last time they did that? The Republican part of the deal “consult before nominating” could be satisfied with a quickly dashed off email. This is hardly a binding constraint. Similarly the Democrats side was vague and just as Bricker predicts, can be weaseled with impunity. This was a farce from the beginning because the public was starting to get annoyed with those assholes in congress yelling at each other over the issue. So the battle was tabled to let them get on with more important stuff(like laying low and letting the headlines turn to Brad and Angelina or Affleck and Garner, thereby preventing further slides in the congressional approval polls) until it actually matters.
Enjoy,
Steven
The most important thing the Dems can do is to keep the GOP from running away with the “conservative=Constitutional, liberal=activist” line. Of course they don’t want impartial justices–they want activists who are active in their direction, who are also adept at finding Constitutional justifications for their activist stances.
Someone might ask, “Mr. President, you say that you want to appoint a Justice who will rule impartially, and who will not inject his or her personal political alignment into the process. If this is the case, why is everyone on your list of possibilities a demonstrable right-wing idealogue?”
I love these patriot act “arguments”.
LEFTISTS: It’s evil!!! OMFG teh HORROR!
DEBASER: What are you talking about?
LEFTISTS: OMFG!!! You don’t even know how terrible it is!!! Teh Patriot Act you fool!
DEBASER: Oh. :rolleyes: This again. What exactly isn’t constitutional about it?
LEFTISTS: OMG! You’re dodging! Why don’t you tell us how it isn’t evil?!
I’ve read the act. There’s nothing wrong with it. Democrat politicians have siezed on it as something to paint Bush as evil with and it seems that many on the SDMB think that through nothing but simple repitition they can make it fact.
It doesn’t matter how many posters repeat it over and over. There isn’t any constitutional problems with the patriot act. It’s a very reasonable piece of legislation and certainly nothing as bad as CFR, which takes a gut shot directly at the freedom of speech element of the first ammendment.
Right…
So, in other words, you cannot explain how bypassing illegal search and seizure is unconstitutional, or bypassing HIPAA legislation to protect medical records, but hey, look what you can blame the dems for with THIS hand? Well done.
Sure. Can you clarify, though. Do you want a case that I agree with the outcome, but not the process? Or disagree with the outcome but agree with the process, etc?
I’ve given several examples.
You want me to provide a cite that something does not exist? Are you new here?
It’s great that you want to help out the other posters in attacking me. It’s not often that somebody comes along such as myself to actually offer a conservative opinion, and you want to get some shots in before I’m overwhelmed by the mob. That’s cool. However, please try and put a little more substance into it than simply asking for “cite” over and over again. At least ask for cites of things that are possible, or that I haven’t already given.
Yep. Dtc asked for examples of liberals legislating from the bench. He didn’t say which court.
The part that guarantees a right to privacy. Try the 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments for instance (you have to check the penumbras).
The prohibition on gay marriage was struck down, and the legislature was told that it had to draft a law which conformed to equal protection…either that or they had to outlaw marriage for everybody. The point was that the law had to be the same for everybody. The MA Constitution did not permit the legislature to grant special rights of contract based solely on the genital configurations on the individuals involved.
Maureen, you made the claim that we don’t have as many constitutional rights as we did five years ago.
After some prodding you later elaborated that it’s the Patriot act that you are referring to.
After some more prodding you elaborated that it’s got something to do with search and seizure.
All along the while you’ve been accusing me of dodging and not explaining.
That’s not the way it works. You made the claim. It’s up to you to back it up. You’ve got almost 4,000 posts so I’m sure that you know this already. The onus isn’t on me to somehow prove the negative that there is nothing wrong the Patriot Act. It’s on you to prove that there is. In any case your reluctance to even admit what it is you are talking about makes it clear that you don’t have much in the way of actual substance.
Actually, there are plenty of posters here who offer conservative opinioins. Most of them have actual facts with which to back up those opinions. Climb down off your cross. You’re being jumped on because you’re not posting a whole lot other than “dems are teh dumb, neener!”
Bricker, I apologize for helping totally derail this train.
My main concern is that checks and balances will be totally thrown out with confirmation of a conservative to far right judge, and the whole concept of checks and balances is forgotten in a grab for power that will effectively put the electorate second to party politics. Yet again.