Much 'nam. So avoid. “I WUZ 2 YUNG”. Wow!
Judicial activism, in the sense of the Supremes making up laws, is a liberal position.
SSM is a good example. The 14th doesn’t refer to marriage, but to equal protection of the law. The law defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The liberals on the Supreme Court didn’t like that definition, so they made up a new one, where marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women. I think we may have discussed this once or twice in the past. 
If it does no harm for justices to make up the law, then it will do no harm if conservative justices make up the law. If it does do harm, to notions like the separation of powers and consensus democracy and limited government, then it does harm when liberal justices make up the law.
But conservatives labor under somewhat of a disadvantage. Liberals say it is OK for justices to make up laws, as long as the laws they make up further the liberal agenda. Conservatives say that justices shouldn’t make up the laws, period. Conservatives do say that justices should undo it when liberals make up the laws, which is the source of the sinking feeling liberals feel when they see the Supreme Court slipping out of their grasp.
Regards,
Shodan
Valor is often confused with idiocy, sometimes it is idiocy but it is still valor. Cowardice often tries to disguise itself as prudence, sometimes it is prudence but it is still cowardice. If someone dodges the draft, that means some other poor kid is going to have to go in their place. We didn’t send one less soldier to Vietnam because Clinton got his uncle to pull some strings, we didn’t send one less soldier to Vietnam because Bush dodged the draft and we didn’t send one less soldier to Vietnam because Trump got a doctor’s note.
Yeah, like those damn liberals who turned corporations into people.
That was a law, passed by Congress. Not a decision of the Supreme Court. Conservatives agree that laws passed by the legislature are the correct way to enact laws.
What do you think a cite is?
The cite offered doesn’t address the accuracy of the claim; it merely shows another person has the same opinion.
If, for example, I claimed that water contains hydrogen, oxygen, and potassium, and then provided a cite to a post on a “hilarious answers kids give on tests,” page in which the same information appears, that’s not a cite. A cite should not be simply a link to another opinion; it should be a citation to an authority.
Have to agree here.
In a volunteer army, whatever, you want to join up, probably for the perks, then you can join up, and maybe we’ll send you off to fight some other people.
In a drafted army, if you manage to get deferred, that means that someone else gets moved up. Someone else goes in your place.
It is a mark of cowardice to have someone else go and fight and maybe die in your place. It’s hard for me to judge Clinton on these merits, as when he was president, I was still a residual republican (living in a republican household) , and his draft dodging ways was a massive area of contention with my family (though my father didn’t serve). I was well moved out by the time Bush II came around, but I don’t remember anyone in my family complaining about his service during vietnam.
Though I am glad that Trump didn’t serve, he probably would have just gotten his fellow soldiers killed through his grandiose incompetence.
If you are talking about Citizen’s United, that was a law that prohibited the exact activity that Citizen’s United wanted to do.
The courts overturned that law, saying it was unconstitutional.
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise… yadda yadda” - that law? That law doesn’t make corporations people. That law means that corporations should be treated as people unless the context deems otherwise. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of that law seems to omit that context clause.
But go on, bend yourself into a pretzel trying to defend the position that judicial activism is solely a liberal hobby. Pretend that Citizens United wasn’t judicial activism, overturning two prior decisions. Stare decisis didn’t stop them from enshrining the result their corporate masters wanted.
Judicial restraint? In a pig’s eye.
What a nonsensical view. In that world, no one can be a conscientious objector in order to protest a war (if there is a draft). Refusing to participate in something you consider immoral is a duty. Would you say the same to a German in WWII who refused to run or participate in running a concentration camp? After all, if he doesn’t do it, some other German will just be tapped for the cause.
But I’m going to let you guys have the last word on this in this thread-- it’s really a hijack of the OP’s topic, and I don’t want to encourage an ongoing debate of a hijack.
No, it didn’t. It correctly ruled that the context didn’t show otherwise.
And how could they not? How could they possibly rule that the New York Times, a corporation, had such strong First Amendment rights but other corporations did not?
They’re not making up the laws - they overrule laws that don’t meet a constitutional standard of fairness.
We’ve examined the issue of draft dodging as regards to Trump. He didn’t dodge. His draft number was 356, simply too high. He did report for a physical in Sept 1968 but was DISQ.
It is true that he did not volunteer for service. Millions of men his age didn’t and we don’t call them draft dodgers.
Which, absent a page torn from Obama’s dairy for that day, is all that you can show. All that you can show is that various pundits state that their belief in the reason. Thus it is a valid cite.
How do you determine the length of the Emperor’s nose? Measuring the nose would be best, of course, but if you cannot, should you interview everyone, and take the average of their guesses? Or should you interview people close to the man who see him every day?
“Various pundits,” have no better authority than I, unless they are relying on some specific piece of evidence, and then the cite should be to the evidence as well as the opinion it birthed.
By you reckoning, another poster can cite to your belief, and it becomes a valid cite.
Is that true? Can I cite a Shodan post when asked for a valid cite here?
Can I cite my own prior posts?
Alternatively, don’t make assertions that can’t be backed up with factual cites. Otherwise, what you have is an opinion, which is fine as far as it goes. But then, we all have opinions, so they don’t go very far.
Here’s a great example of trying to use syllogism to prove a point and massively failing. The “law” defining marriage was found to contravene the idea of equal protection, regardless of whether or not marriage was mentioned in the 14th. You can’t go around defining certain people as second-class citizens and then hide behind “Well, that’s the way the word has always been defined!” It’s wrong, it’s unfair, and nothing personal, but it’s cowardly.
Does the idea of equal protection mandate that nine year olds can marry?
Why not?
For the same reason 17 year-olds can’t vote.