It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP Incites Bloodshed for Poli-Power?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
There is danger on both fronts, but you should know that the movements of the GOP seem to be losing faith in the conservative circles.

Conservatives are angry and unhappy with their party. Why is it not obvious? Well, it's the "culture war" we keep talking about (which is really TWO stuborn and inept propagandist sides unwilling to converse without vitriol, if at all).

We have a serious problem in America, and it's not all the GOP's fault, but they are in fact the ones in charge.

What are they doing? Hard to say, but they sure aren't doing anything about their platform. That's what's funny about conservatives. They will turn on the GOP one day, and it'll be a great day indeed.




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
LikeI said in my previous post, there are some examples of "legislating from the bench" that our country needed, but my concern lies in that no other branch can provide a check or balance. Sorry, I can't flesh these out more, but I am a realy busy college student at the moment.
Some more examples from the Supreme Court alone:
Roper v. Simmons (2005, juvenile execution)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003, right to sodomy)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003, affirmative action)
Romer v. Evans (1996, gay rights)
United States v. Lopez (1995, Gun-Free School Zones Act)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992 , abortion) - Key to understanding the issue here is Scalia's dissent



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I understand your concerns scifemme and thank you for some more cases to study. However before I respond, by activist decisions I am assuming that the GOP rhetoric is talking about judges changing laws due to a political agenda.

I only looked up your first case mentioned Roper v. Simmons. In that case the court ruled that executing juveniles was unconstitutional.

What agenda is served by that?

Am I wrong in thinking that "legislating from the bench" was an indication of an abuse of judicial power?

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitution. It is the citizens last hope of repealing unjust laws.

Is it the Judicial system that is activist? If a law is shot down in court, legislators can rewrite the bill to fit the constitution. I don't see why this is bad.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yes I would definitely be more frightened of a radical left..

I believe that they are helping the right to swing out even farther, and then its reciprocated back. Tensions can only build for so long, and now we're at the point where politicians insinuating violent actions against opponents has become acceptable, presented as such by the media (or the 4 or so companies that own it) and thus infused as the "will of the people".

If the radical left we're really intelligent, rather than just educated and assimilated, they would take less heated / angered arguments, and exchange them for more invasive/propogandistic methods to shove their message down people's throats.

I think that they almost unknowingly end up working together to bring about the divide.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Ok, here's a very recent case: MSN
MSN is featuring a case of a judge who is threartening to take control of Prison Helath care. The concern is obviously on prisoner's rights. Anyway, it's crunch time in the semester for me, but I thought this would be a good addition.




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join