I'm not wrong about the 2nd Amendment either. Judicial precedent has undermined and immasculated it from its original intent, but it means what it says, and that's what the FF felt about personal gun ownership. That's the danger of activitist judges. They aren't voted in or out. If you don't like your Congressman/Senator/President, vote for the other guy. Judges can do what they want, without having to face an unhappy constituency.

posted by GT100FV

Judicial precedent has undermined and emasculated it from its original intent, but it means what it says, and that's what the FF felt about personal gun ownership. That's the danger of activitist judges. Judges can do what they want, without having to face an unhappy constituency. [Edited by Don W]

I believe most students of American history admit or will say the lifetime appointment of Federal judges was one of the greatest achievements of the FFs. The Supreme Court forestalled a civil war in America when it did in 1954, in Brown v. Topeka, what the Executive branch is not empowered to do, and what the Legislative branch could not do because the Southern Democrats controlled Congress under the seniority system. State courts with elected judges pale in comparison to the Federal judiciary. Every president - except Andrew Jackson - has supported the judiciary, albeit some very reluctantly. I think you’re off base here.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

I'm against activist judges, not the judiciary. I think it's important to have strict constructionist judges as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. That's why it's important who gets voted into the Executive branch as they get to pick the judges. I don't think the FF wanted to Judiciary to pass laws, by fiat.

posted by GT100FV

I'm against activist judges, not the judiciary. That's why it's important who gets voted into the Executive branch as they get to pick the judges. I don't think the FF wanted to Judiciary to pass laws, by fiat.

All judges are activist. Unless they are dead. “Activist” and “Strict Constructionist” are polemical terms, not judicial terms.

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by GT100FV

I'm against activist judges, not the judiciary. That's why it's important who gets voted into the Executive branch as they get to pick the judges. I don't think the FF wanted to Judiciary to pass laws, by fiat.

All judges are activist. Unless they are dead. “Activist” and “Strict Constructionist” are polemical terms, not judicial terms.

While those terms aren't legal terms, they are accurate in terms of what the judge feels their responsibility to be. If a judge reads the constitution, and doesn't add anything that's not explicitly stated, then that would be constructionist. If the judge feels that the old law isn't up to date, and needs revising, or adding judgements that the constitution doesn't speak to, that would be activist. If a law needs to be changed, the legislative branch needs to get a majority and vote. If the constitution needs amending, then they need a super majority, and the states to ratify it. The judge just says "hey, until you change the law, this is what the law is."

GT100,

You are SPOT ON in your assessment and mostly because you have taken a stance based on common sense and practical observation and not emotional response to some form of societal impact in your life....

This is how it should be even when confronted with an emotional topic and yet few ever achieve it.

Those that have the most trouble are often found masking a personal belief in intellectual double talk in an attempt to overshadow another point of view, often the more rational one...

GREAT POSTS

Semper

As to the Lawful or Unlawful order debate, here is the actual facts...

Military personal are under NO, 0, ZIP obligation to obey these types of orders, 1)Unlawful 2)Immoral 3) Unethical

In fact, the Military Man or Woman is EXPECTED, nay OBLIGATED to refuse such orders in the event any are given...

Been there done that too...

Any other questions in this regard, just go ask someone that has been in..


GT100,

Good job and again RIGHT ON

Semper

Thanks- I try to approach everything from rational, logical thought and good old fashioned common sense. As soon as one lets emotions get involved, then one's objectivity goes out the window.

Agree with your points about activists judges. They are often more intrested in social programs for votes for the body politic than the buisness of the public.

Many of these issues brought to the forefront in the courts are because they are useful to the body politic not to the people or the American public. THey are social issues ..meaning political issues.

This is why it is so important as to who gets on the bench. It causes huge controversy as to who gets the appointments.

The founders knew that they could not make the system perfect. They also knew that the judiciary was the weak link. IF things were to be changed in favor of the body politic and against the public....it would be through the judiciary not the other two branchs.
Today we call this legislation from the bench.

In the near future ..look for several more controversial issues to be decreed from the bench though they are not popular with the people or the States and Federal represenatives. The key to these issues is that ,particularly in the high electorial vote states, they are cultivated and directed to particular voters in order to win these high electorical vote states for certain political partys. All enforced and initiated by judicial decree.
Politically ..this is how the will of the public is hijacked in lieu of the will of certain political partys and whoever is actually the political partys.
Watch closely for this pattern to be repeated in the future.

Thanks,
Orangetom