What Do We Do About Activist Judges?

[RightinNYC]

1. Clinton is responsible for terrorism in America, and for 9-11, despite not being in office when it happened. Question, the 1st WTC attack occurred 38 days after Clinton took office, but you find he's responsible, but Bush isn't responsible for 9-11 after being in office for 8 months? Is that what you're saying?

Clinton wasn't responsible for the 1st WTC attack, he was responsible for doing nothing about it. Bush on the other hand, did something about 9/11. That's the difference.

And if you look at our government, it takes a lot longer than 8 months to make changes in the way things are done.

2. Clinton is responsible for the recession in the USA despite not being in office when it occurred?

The only thing is, he WAS in office when the recession occurred.

First off, economic cycles are very independent things, based on many factors, so I am loath to attribute them to individual presidents.

But if it must be done, then look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/business/yourmoney/27hedge.html?

It's a NYTimes article about hedge funds. That isn't the important part, click on the graphic side bar that shows what percentage the economy increased each year.

In 1990, the stock market decreased 5%
In 1991, the stock market increased 30%, a 35% momentum gain from 90.
In 1992, the stock market increased 20%, a 10% momentum loss from 91.
In 1993, the stock market increased 30%, a 10% momentum gain from 92.
In 1994, the stock market increased 5%, a 25% momentum loss from 93.
In 1995, the stock market increased 20%, a 15% momentum gain from 94.
In 1996, the stock market increased 20%, a 0% momentum gain from 95.
In 1997, the stock market increased 15%, a 5% momentum loss from 96.
In 1998, the stock market increased 5%, a 10% momentum loss from 97.
In 1999, the stock market increased 30%, a 25% momentum gain from 98.
In 2000, the stock market decreased 10%, a 40% momentum loss from 99.
In 2001, the stock market decreased 10%, a 0% momentum loss from 00.
In 2002, the stock market decreased 20%, a 10% momentum loss from 01.
In 2003, the stock market increased 30%, a 50% momentum gain from 02.
In 2004, the stock market increased 10%, a 20% momentum loss from 03.

If you look at that, you see several things. Clinton entered in 93, after a slight momentum loss. That loss continured for a year, and then was turned around. The market began to increase after 94 (When the GOP took control of Congress), and held strong until 99. In 2000, while Clinton was still in office, the stock market lost 10% of its value, coming off a year of gaining 30%. That was the biggest shift in momentum seen throughout the decade, and it happened in the last year of Clinton's presidency. In 2001, when Bush took office, he had the same slight decrease in momentum that Clinton had, then had the biggest upsuge in momentum in the decade in 2003.

The most important thing to consider, rather than just the statistics, is where the market was headed. And the fact is that the market was heading down when Bush came into office. The estimated 1 Trillion dollar cost of 9/11 didn't help much either.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Clinton wasn't responsible for the 1st WTC attack, he was responsible for doing nothing about it. Bush on the other hand, did something about 9/11. That's the difference.

Maybe you missed it? The people responsible for WTC 1 were arrested and convicted? Can the same be said for 9-11? The spin that you're trying to perpertrate is too transparent, sorry. :spin:

And if you look at our government, it takes a lot longer than 8 months to make changes in the way things are done.

Not according to Fantasea!

The most important thing to consider, rather than just the statistics, is where the market was headed. And the fact is that the market was heading down when Bush came into office. The estimated 1 Trillion dollar cost of 9/11 didn't help much either.

None of that explains the current budget deficit. Who is responsible for that, exactly? Surely you're not going to try to give Bush a pass on this one? After all, Bush is in his second term now....is that long enough now for Bush to bear some or all of the responsibility? I would love to hear someone spin the deficit onto Clinton, it would be an excellent example of creative writing...

 

[Pacridge]

Maybe you missed it? The people responsible for WTC 1 were arrested and convicted? Can the same be said for 9-11? The spin that you're trying to perpertrate is too transparent, sorry. :spin:


Not according to Fantasea!


None of that explains the current budget deficit. Who is responsible for that, exactly? Surely you're not going to try to give Bush a pass on this one? After all, Bush is in his second term now....is that long enough now for Bush to bear some or all of the responsibility? I would love to hear someone spin the deficit onto Clinton, it would be an excellent example of creative writing...

Yes, and Clinton spent a good deal of time answering endless questions regarding his sex life. And then when he lied about one of those questions, under oath, he spent even more time defending himself from impeachment. Maybe if the GOP spent more time concerned about the country's security and less time focusing on his sex life we'd all be safer.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes, and Clinton spent a good deal of time answering endless questions regarding his sex life. And then when he lied about one of those questions, under oath, he spent even more time defending himself from impeachment. Maybe if the GOP spent more time concerned about the country's security and less time focusing on his sex life we'd all be safer.

Excellent point! The Repubs were like piranhas trying to feed on Clinton for lying about having an affair. I honestly believe it is NORMAL to lie about having an affair. It would be ABNORMAL to just admit it.

Sadly, the amount of time and money wasted by it all cannot be measured.

 

[Squawker]

Maybe if the GOP spent more time concerned about the country's security and less time focusing on his sex life we'd all be safer.

That's funny Pac. Clinton was preoccupied with having orgasms and it's the Republicans fault. That's a good one. :rofl

 

[Fantasea]

You really never do understand when someone writes an analogy, do you? Maybe the next time you stick your pen in your mouth you'll try to learn what an analogy is?

That would be unsanitary, to say the least.

However, by the tone and volume of your complaints, I think you understand me quite clearly.

 

[Squawker]

However, by the tone and volume of your complaints,

Well said Fantasea. I was trying to think of terms to describe Champs besides caustic. lol You nailed it, ty.

 

[Fantasea]

Excellent point! The Repubs were like piranhas trying to feed on Clinton for lying about having an affair. I honestly believe it is NORMAL to lie about having an affair. It would be ABNORMAL to just admit it.

Sadly, the amount of time and money wasted by it all cannot be measured.

So tell me. As commander-in-chief, how would W. J. Clinton have done at West Point, for instance. The code there, as you must know, is Duty, Honor, Country.

The code of honor at West Point states that a cadet will not lie, steal, or cheat; or tolerate anyone who does. Those who violate the code are expected to resign.

 

[Pacridge]

That's funny Pac. Clinton was preoccupied with having orgasms and it's the Republicans fault. That's a good one. :rofl

It certainly wasn't Clinton's idea to spend millions of tax dollars investigating his sex life.

 

[Pacridge]

So tell me. As commander-in-chief, how would W. J. Clinton have done at West Point, for instance. The code there, as you must know, is Duty, Honor, Country.

The code of honor at West Point states that a cadet will not lie, steal, or cheat; or tolerate anyone who does. Those who violate the code are expected to resign.

Yes and you're also expected to show up. Sober would be good too.

 

[Fantasea]

It certainly wasn't Clinton's idea to spend millions of tax dollars investigating his sex life.

Not that I would, but if one was tit-for-tatting, how much does one think the Democrats spent on their quest to oust Newt Gingrich and his two successors?

 

[Pacridge]

Not that I would, but if one was tit-for-tatting, how much does one think the Democrats spent on their quest to oust Newt Gingrich and his two successors?

I have no idea what was spent on either. But it's crap when either side does it as far as I'm concerned. And I certainly think both sides do it all the time. I think to some degree they're doing it to Delay right now. But in Clinton's case he wasn't accused of illegal activity until he lie under oath about the sexual activity. The GOP spent a ton of tax payer cash trying to prove he had sexual relations with an intern. That sexual conduct wasn't illegal. I have no idea what they accused Newt et el of but my guess is it was at least something illegal, wasn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

I have no idea what was spent on either. But it's crap when either side does it as far as I'm concerned. And I certainly think both sides do it all the time. I think to some degree they're doing it to Delay right now. But in Clinton's case he wasn't accused of illegal activity until he lie under oath about the sexual activity. The GOP spent a ton of tax payer cash trying to prove he had sexual relations with an intern. That sexual conduct wasn't illegal. I have no idea what they accused Newt et el of but my guess is it was at least something illegal, wasn't it?

Illegal conduct?

That's the kind of conduct the electorate should expect from the man they elected to head the greatest nation on earth. Right?

Nah. More like some high school teacher showing a failing student how she could improve her grades.

With respect to Gingrich:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/december96/gingrich_12-23.html

The incessant yapping at his heels by the Dems convinced Gingrich that his effectiveness as Speaker of the House was being diminished. He resigned.

 

[Pacridge]

Illegal conduct?

That's the kind of conduct the electorate should expect from the man they elected to head the greatest nation on earth. Right?

Nah. More like some high school teacher showing a failing student how she could improve her grades.

With respect to Gingrich:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/december96/gingrich_12-23.html

The incessant yapping at his heels by the Dems convinced Gingrich that his effectiveness as Speaker of the House was being diminished. He resigned.

That's the only thing Newt was accused of? This GOPAC thing? Seems odd.

I understand your position on Clinton's affair. But I disagree with the idea of spending million's of tax payer dollars on it. I think he was wrong when he did it. But I think they were out of line when they put it on my TV everyday- day in and day out. And I believe it was the GOP that made it a such a huge issue. If they hadn't pursued the issue it would have been, as most affairs are, between husband and wife. But they spent millions making sure it was on every channel everyday. I thought it was embarrassing and they choose to air it in public because it made the party they opposed look bad. Thanks to them I got to answer questions like "what's oral sex" to some very young kids. While many of them were also engaged in extra-marital affairs. Wasn't Newt having an affair at the same time? Didn't he end up leaving his wife, who was sick, for this younger woman?

 

[Fantasea]

That's the only thing Newt was accused of? This GOPAC thing? Seems odd.

No, that's not the only thing Gingrich was accused of. From nearly day one of his election to the position of Speaker, the Dems began a continuous series of ethics accusations, none of which stuck. When it became clear to him that they would never let up, he resigned in the hope that they would stop. As we have all seen, they did not. Now, it's Tom DeLay's turn and they're not giving himn a moment's peace, either. In case you haven't noticed, it's the Democratic way.

I understand your position on Clinton's affair. But I disagree with the idea of spending million's of tax payer dollars on it. I think he was wrong when he did it. But I think they were out of line when they put it on my TV everyday- day in and day out. And I believe it was the GOP that made it a such a huge issue. If they hadn't pursued the issue it would have been, as most affairs are, between husband and wife. But they spent millions making sure it was on every channel everyday.

The Republicans do not now, nor have they ever controlled the media networks. If they did, they would have used that clout to get out their message. No. It was the network media, pandering to the public whose taste is such that The National Enquirer is the newspaper with the largest circulation and The Jerry Springer Show has the largest viewership. (Did you know that?)

I thought it was embarrassing and they choose to air it in public because it made the party they opposed look bad. Thanks to them I got to answer questions like "what's oral sex" to some very young kids.

Of course, blame the Republicans because he couldn't keep his zipper up. I'll venture a guess that you didn't bother to take the time to write a letter to the White House voicing this complaint.

While many of them were also engaged in extra-marital affairs. Wasn't Newt having an affair at the same time? Didn't he end up leaving his wife, who was sick, for this younger woman?

Are you saying that because some others were acting badly, that Clinton therefore had the right to disgrace the presidency? Shouldn't he, as holder of the highest office in the land, have set a good example for the youth of America?

Instead, he acted like a horny barnyard rooster, nailing every chick within reach. Very presidential, wouldn't you say?

 

[RightinNYC]

But I think they were out of line when they put it on my TV everyday- day in and day out. And I believe it was the GOP that made it a such a huge issue. If they hadn't pursued the issue it would have been, as most affairs are, between husband and wife. But they spent millions making sure it was on every channel everyday

Do you really think it was only the GOP? You don't think the media creamed their pants thinking about the fun they could have with a president getting his pole polished in the oval office?

 

[26 X World Champs]

So tell me. As commander-in-chief, how would W. J. Clinton have done at West Point, for instance. The code there, as you must know, is Duty, Honor, Country.

The code of honor at West Point states that a cadet will not lie, steal, or cheat; or tolerate anyone who does. Those who violate the code are expected to resign.

Who cares how he would have done at West Point? Get a life! Why don't you compare Bill's grades to W's? They both went to Yale. :rofl

I could care less who Bill bangs, sorry. I do care how he ran the country. I am 100% certain that if he had been allowed to run against Bush in 2000 he would have won as easily as he did against Dole in 1996....

 

[RightinNYC]

Who cares how he would have done at West Point? Get a life! Why don't you compare Bill's grades to W's? They both went to Yale. :rofl

I could care less who Bill bangs, sorry. I do care how he ran the country. I am 100% certain that if he had been allowed to run against Bush in 2000 he would have won as easily as he did against Dole in 1996....

I don't know about that. I'm searching now, and although I can't find it, I remember a poll that had Bill hypothetically running in 2000, and losing narrowly to GW.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
So tell me. As commander-in-chief, how would W. J. Clinton have done at West Point, for instance. The code there, as you must know, is Duty, Honor, Country.

The code of honor at West Point states that a cadet will not lie, steal, or cheat; or tolerate anyone who does. Those who violate the code are expected to resign.

Who cares how he would have done at West Point? Get a life! Why don't you compare Bill's grades to W's? They both went to Yale. :rofl

The question had nothing to do with Yale. The question had nothing to do with grades. The question had nothing to do with President Bush.

I can't seem to find an answer to my question. Only fuss and bluster. However, I'm getting used to that.

I could care less who Bill bangs, sorry.

Yes. The correct expression is, "I could NOT care less.", which means that one has reached the absolute limit. Saying, "I could care less.", means that one is only somewhat disturbed.

I do care how he ran the country. I am 100% certain that if he had been allowed to run against Bush in 2000 he would have won as easily as he did against Dole in 1996....

I wonder how he would have done if Ross Perot, you remember him, don't you, wasn't in the race sucking up those Republican votes?

Didn't you think that Al Gore made a good surrogate for Clinton?

 

[13th Justice]

This has been going on since Roe VS Wade, but it seems to be getting worse. Judges are making laws, (by calling something unconstitutional) from Religion to Gay marriage. Why are we allowing these judges to undermine our Constitution, and over ride our own legislature and peoples voice?



Source

Sometimes I think Scalia and his fellow conservatives are so crazed with partisanship that they fall into a condition of temporary insanity.

First, Scalia knows that common people cannot simply go around "persuading" their fellow citizens to pass a law. The expenditure of time, money and the complexities of passing legislation would be prohibitive. Scalia thinks we live in ancient Greece where the voting age members of society would meet in the town square to directly participate in public affairs. This era has long since passed but guys like Scalia just can't manage to see how far society has moved away from the old paradigm.

Scalia also knows that judges must make law, that is what a common law system is all about. No piece of legislation can address every fact pattern, every nuance that may be brought to court. For instance, the constitution gives us the freedom to speak. But the constitution does not tell us whether that right encompasses: skinhead demonstrations, political campaign advertisements, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc., etc. So judges have to fill in the blanks where the legislators did not contemplate the specific matter faced by the judge when the legislator wrote the statute.

Judges cannot just throw out cases because no law has been written on a specific matter. Our complicated society could not be well-managed if we had to wait for legislation everytime we feel that we have been wronged. Instead judges try to extract the governing principles of legislation and then apply these principles to the facts of the case before him.

I'm surprised that a judge of Scalia's intellect would resort to such short-sighted and simplistic resolution and I am equally appalled by his seeming lack of understanding as to how the common law system.

 

[Squawker]

Yup, those three Conservative Judges have to go.

Scalia also knows that judges must make law, that is what a common law system is all about. No piece of legislation can address every fact pattern, every nuance that may be brought to court. For instance, the constitution gives us the freedom to speak. But the constitution does not tell us whether that right encompasses: skinhead demonstrations, political campaign advertisements, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc., etc. So judges have to fill in the blanks where the legislators did not contemplate the specific matter faced by the judge when the legislator wrote the statute.

Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread. Given that you are a new person, I will wait before commenting further.
Have Fun and Happy Posting !

 

[Pacridge]

Sometimes I think Scalia and his fellow conservatives are so crazed with partisanship that they fall into a condition of temporary insanity.

First, Scalia knows that common people cannot simply go around "persuading" their fellow citizens to pass a law. The expenditure of time, money and the complexities of passing legislation would be prohibitive. Scalia thinks we live in ancient Greece where the voting age members of society would meet in the town square to directly participate in public affairs. This era has long since passed but guys like Scalia just can't manage to see how far society has moved away from the old paradigm.

Scalia also knows that judges must make law, that is what a common law system is all about. No piece of legislation can address every fact pattern, every nuance that may be brought to court. For instance, the constitution gives us the freedom to speak. But the constitution does not tell us whether that right encompasses: skinhead demonstrations, political campaign advertisements, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc., etc. So judges have to fill in the blanks where the legislators did not contemplate the specific matter faced by the judge when the legislator wrote the statute.

Judges cannot just throw out cases because no law has been written on a specific matter. Our complicated society could not be well-managed if we had to wait for legislation everytime we feel that we have been wronged. Instead judges try to extract the governing principles of legislation and then apply these principles to the facts of the case before him.

I'm surprised that a judge of Scalia's intellect would resort to such short-sighted and simplistic resolution and I am equally appalled by his seeming lack of understanding as to how the common law system.

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[shuamort]

And to complete the moderator trifecta, :wcm

 

[Fantasea]

Sometimes I think Scalia and his fellow conservatives are so crazed with partisanship that they fall into a condition of temporary insanity.

Perhaps what you see as crazed partisanship is nothing more than a person distressed by what he sees as lefty loonies tearing down what has been built up over several centuries. He may simply be choking on distasteful stuff being rammed down his throat.

First, Scalia knows that common people cannot simply go around "persuading" their fellow citizens to pass a law. The expenditure of time, money and the complexities of passing legislation would be prohibitive. Scalia thinks we live in ancient Greece where the voting age members of society would meet in the town square to directly participate in public affairs. This era has long since passed but guys like Scalia just can't manage to see how far society has moved away from the old paradigm.

If what you say is true, we would never see all of the many, many advocacy groups in action, would we?

Scalia also knows that judges must make law, that is what a common law system is all about. No piece of legislation can address every fact pattern, every nuance that may be brought to court. For instance, the constitution gives us the freedom to speak. But the constitution does not tell us whether that right encompasses: skinhead demonstrations, political campaign advertisements, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc., etc. So judges have to fill in the blanks where the legislators did not contemplate the specific matter faced by the judge when the legislator wrote the statute.

You are mistaken. I had the opportunity to watch a televised discussion between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. Justice Scalia spoke at length of the evils wrought by judges who do exactly as you describe. He said that the role of a judge is solely to apply the law at hand to the case at hand and not to invent new meanings.

The law is to be interpreted; not bent, twisted, stretched, or otherwise distorted to include things which were not intended by the legislators. When there is doubt as to intent, one is always able to refer to the transcripts of the hearings and debates that preceded the passage of the law that is being applied in the particular case. The intent of the legislators will be immediately apparent.

Judges cannot just throw out cases because no law has been written on a specific matter. Our complicated society could not be well-managed if we had to wait for legislation everytime we feel that we have been wronged.

What you are seeking is known by the legal term, "ex post facto"; a law which is passed 'after the fact'. One cannot sue on the basis of a law that one thinks should exist, but, in fact, does not. That equates to trying to buy fire insurance after one's house has burned down.

Instead judges try to extract the governing principles of legislation and then apply these principles to the facts of the case before him.

The way it works is this. Activist attorneys, with an agenda to push, seek out courts in which like-minded judges sit, manipulate the calendar so as to 'catch' the judge they want, pick the statute that they deem appropriate, and then point out to the judge exactly where the clauses which would support their claim are missing and explain to the judge that the legislators really intended to include the missing language. The judge finds in their favor, raps his gavel, declares, "Case closed!", and voila, new law has been written by a non-elected person who has overstepped the bounds of his office.

I'm surprised that a judge of Scalia's intellect would resort to such short-sighted and simplistic resolution and I am equally appalled by his seeming lack of understanding as to how the common law system.

I venture that what you claim to be surprise is, in reality, disappointment that so learned a jurist is, philosophically speaking, not on your side.


WELCOME ABOARD. It's always nice to have a new sparring partner.

 

[shuamort]

I venture that what you claim to be surprise is, in reality, disappointment that so learned a jurist is, philosophically speaking, not on your side.

Ahh Scalia, who said in Bush V. Gore that allowing the recount to proceed would harm Bush "by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

If we're going to talk about Judicial Activism, Bush V. Gore was definitely a wonderful example of the Supreme Court ignoring Florida's state laws and Florida's Supreme Court decision and ruling it unconstitutional. In other words, BvG was judicial activism at its finest and I don't remember hearing Republicans complaining about "justices out of control".